[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dam-l how many is too many?
> >now -> in everyone's diverse reasearch, how many is to many dams?
research ... I seem to suffer from trigger finger and I'm not at all
happy with this editor sometimes!
The question I'm asking above stems from the research on runoff
depletion that have been done by some hydrologists and also some
oceanographers.
There really is such a thing as too many, Phil.
> I think the more interesting question is: how do we distinguish a terrible
> hydro project from a tolerable one or even (conceivably) a good one?
Well, that's another question and a good one, too!
> World Bank/IUCN report, "Large Dams: Learning from the Past, Looking at the
> Future," though I wouldn't take that as the last word, by any means.
I was going to say you might get some argument from some on the list had
you said it was the last word! ;)
> More important is, when are these type of criteria going to become part of
> the decision-making process for individual projects? In Québec, a number
My contention is that this will happen when the proponents and the
economists and the decion makers can clearly see water development frequently
loses jobs. And/or when people in general see the projects as not
always a good thing. Much as nuclear fell out of favour.
I'm not holding my breath on that one, though and I'm not so sure
we want to reject all hydro any more than rejecting any one form
of energy generation completely.
> of projects have recently been proposed (both new plants and new diversions
> into existing projects), without any mention of the relative environmental
> costs of each one, in terms of wildlife habitat, flooding, estimated GHG
> production, energy production, etc. Cost still appears to be the only
> selection criterion actually used. And, as open markets in electricity
> gradually replace regulated monopolies, with market mechanisms replacing
> integrated planning processes, the situation is unlikely to improve.
Yes. That's why I think there needs to be some kind of research exposition
on the costs vs. the benefits including the so-called externalities.
Surely to God if economics purports to be a science, albeit a dismal one ;),
they can come up with some more measures. Why, a physicist, ecologist,
or psychologist would have come up witha slew by now!
The GDP just doesn't cut it as a credible measure of well-being. More
funerals = a higher GDP in ... geeze I don't know what sector that would be!
I agree with Bush & Adbusters -> it's voodoo economics.
But there is more to economics than the mainstream stuff that gets press.
It's a big field; I'd like to see some folks from the International
Institute for Ecological Economics looking at these questions.
> Goodland also states (p. 76) that "Most conservation measures, including
> demand-side management, should be substantially in place before new dams
> are addressed[, ... meaning] that the marginal economic cost (including
> environmental and social externalities) of saving energy through
> conservation becomes as high as the marginal cost of a new hydro scheme."
> Needless to say, if this criterion were actually applied, there would be no
> new hydro at all, as there is nowhere in the world where all DSM up to the
> marginal cost of new supply has been achieved, even ignoring environmental
> and social costs!
Indeed. :)
-Dianne
References: