The Amazon River in South America is well known to be the largest river in the world, spanning seven countries and giving home to countless unique creatures. The Amazon dominates a vast amount of land and many indigenous cultures rely on the river and its tributaries.
One of the longest tributaries, the Madeira River flows through Brazil and has been the object of developer’s desire for years. Just on April 19, the country of Brazil lifted a “last-minute injunction” and the construction of the dam is eminent. This hydroelectric dam, the Belo Monte, is in the eyes of developers going to be “crucial for development” in an area with an already fragile ecosystem. It is no doubt a difficult call for Brazil’s government, as a developing nation they are trying to take into consideration what is best for their economy and environment. With a source like the Madeira, and Amazon no less, hydroelectric power is a hard opportunity to pass.
South America’s [and Brazil’s] environment is already in serious jeopardy as it is continually being deforested, the addition of an environmentally unsound hydroelectric dam is just adding insult to injury. Within minutes of looking into the biodiversity of the area, I don’t think I would be alone in saying it is truly something to marvel at. This river is a keystone in hundreds of species of fish as a spawning ground. There are countless endangered species that would be affected by the dam; let alone the species that have yet to be discovered. One of the consequences of building this dam is that it would seriously impede the flow of sediment (that maintains the muddy color and provides nutrients to inhabitants), which would totally alter the lives of thousands of creatures.
As if the delicate ecosystem isn’t enough of a stoplight for construction of this dam, there is a large population of Native Americans who call the Madeira River home. The immense flooding the dam would cause would displace thousands of people; and their livelihoods would be completely destroyed. These are people that put all of their faith into the local resources, which would literally be washed away before their eyes. Not only will these indigenous people be flooded out of their homes, the building and maintenance would require an entirely new population of people to develop and move to the area.
The Brazilian government and construction company argue that not only will the dam provide sustainable energy for millions of homes, but that they are paying millions to “protect the environment”. Yet there has been much speculation that in fact the ratio of power provided to environmental degradation is dangerously uneven. If Belo Monte is completed as planned, along with a second dam on the Madeira, the Brazilian government projects that they will generate “8 to 10%” of national electricity demand.
Here is a USGS explanation of how a typical hydroelectric dam works, it doesn’t particularly provide for the argument of sustainability, yet I found it helpful to have an idea how one actually functions. I encourage you to do your own research on hydroelectric dams in this fragile area, but there is no doubt in my mind that this dam is going to give a helping hand in the destruction of one of the most fragile and important habitats on the planet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOk, I apologize for all the deleted comments. The first was intended for this blog while the last two were not. In an effort to delete the misappropriated comments, I deleted the real one. Moving on...
ReplyDeleteI agree with your concerns about the loss of the Amazon and its unparalleled biodiversity, particularly through deforestation. The percentage of loss is significant and continues. From what I understand, almost 80 percent of the electricity capacity in Brazil is hydroelectric which leads me to believe that it may be the culture of the industry. Brazil is a country known for extensive water resources and they may habitually rely on that. It may take an introduction of viable options (i.e. nuclear) to change the trends. They are already experiencing supply shortage issues during periods of drought. This fact alone indicates that, in an effort to use nature, they are subject to its, sometimes, fickle nature. It may require an outside influence to convince them of the importance of diversification. Being 80 percent reliant on one particular factor is too much. It then becomes an issue of security. I would like to believe that, with such a natural treasure in their backyard, they would be more inclined to protect it but such may not always be the case. Sometimes, the novelty wears off and, as it does, things become expendable. The saving grace in all of our environmental transgressions is that nature is consummately resilient. As we are beginning to understand, in the end, with our selfish approach to nature, we lose.
I thought this was a very thought provoking post, and I agree with both of you on the many issues that this project will bring about. However, I also found it very interesting that investors for the project, and environmentalists are basically on the same side of the issue. This dam is supposed to cost around 17 billion dollars to construct and will eventually be able to supply 11,000 mega watts of power. This sounds good for investors, but they are unhappy because they are going to be limited to the amount they can charge for electric services. As far as environmentalists go, you both hit on good points that this project is a disaster waiting to happen and threats on the ecosystem are imminent. So either way this project decides to go, I feel like it is a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.
ReplyDelete