• Brazil Is Building A Huge Hydroelectric Dam On The Xingu River
    97 replies, posted
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/brazil-amazon-rainforest-hydroelectric-dam] Source[/url] The Brazilian government has given the green light to the construction of a controversial hydroelectric dam in the Amazon rainforest that environmentalists and indigenous activists claim will displace indigenous tribes and further damage the Amazon basin. Brazil's environment ministry granted the Belo Monte dam project an environmental licence late on Monday paving the way for tenders from companies interested in constructing the world's third largest hydroelectric plant, on the Amazon's Xingu river. According to the Brazilian energy ministry the dam, expected to start production in 2015, will cost around R$20bn (£6.8bn) and will eventually produce around 11GW of electricity. But environmentalists and indigenous leaders have strongly apposed the plans, which the government admits would see around 500 sq km of land flooded and activists believe would see thousands displaced. "We want to make sure that Belo Monte does not destroy the ecosystems and the biodiversity that we have taken care of for millennia," Megaron Tuxucumarrae, a leader of the Kayapo Indians said. "We are opposed to dams on the Xingu and will fight to protect our river." The proposed construction of the Belo Monte dam in the Amazon state of Para is part of a major government investment drive to help the country keep up with soaring energy demand from a rapidly expanding economy, while curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Hydroelectric power produces no direct carbon dioxide. Brazil's environment minister Carlos Minc said the winning company would be forced to spend around $800m (£501m) offsetting the environmental damage caused by the project. "There is not going to be an environmental disaster," he told Brazilian television. Minc denied Indians would be forced from their traditional lands by the dam. "Not a single Indian will be displaced. They will be indirectly affected, but they will not have to leave indigenous lands," he said. Roberto Messias, head of Brazil's environmental agency Ibama, said that around 12,000 people were likely to be affected by the construction but that many of them currently lived in wooden riverside shacks and were likely to benefit from the dam's constructions. "Our studies show that today the population does not have adequate sanitation or healthcare. The conditions outlined in the licence are designed so that the local population have a superior quality of life … at the end of the construction," he said, according to the Amazon paper Diario do Para. Plans to build hydroelectric dams on the Xingu river have existed since the 1970s but have repeatedly failed to materialise, partly as a result of fierce pressure from environmental groups and activists, including the musician Sting. • This article was amended on 17 February 2010. The original referred to 11,000GW. This has been corrected.
i'm ok with that
Don't dams do horrible things to the surrounding ecosystem though?
[QUOTE=Valdor;30267930]Don't dams do horrible things to the surrounding ecosystem though?[/QUOTE] are you saying you're not ok with that?
[QUOTE=Atlascore;30267949]Yes, it's literally in the first paragraph of the OP. :downs:[/QUOTE] Wow and I'm reconfirming that. Can you be more of a retard, altascore? [editline]5th June 2011[/editline] Forgot to throw in the :downs:, woops.
As long as it generates tons of free electricity. Good. If standards of living will increase, and the natives become civilised urban dwellers. Good. The OPs avatar gives my reaction.
[QUOTE]... activists claim will displace indigenous tribes and further damage the Amazon basin.[/QUOTE] Excuse me as I go to the forest, build a mud hut, fill a bucket of water and kindly inform my landlord and president that I now own the city :downs: Get on with the program, gents.
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;30268175]Excuse me as I go to the forest, build a mud hut, fill a bucket of water and kindly inform my landlord and president that I now own the city :downs: Get on with the program, gents.[/QUOTE] Enviromentalists and people who support natives are hypocritical twats anyways. They fly in a private jet there to plant a tree or have a picture taken with some native villagers who are all wearing Manchester United shirts and have a Tv in a nearby hut. Full steam ahead with this lovely dam!
I support this project. 85% of Brazil's energy is hydroelectric, and this isn't as bad as people make it out to be.
Every opinion expressed in this thread thus far, except two, has been deplorable
[QUOTE=Valdor;30267930]Don't dams do horrible things to the surrounding ecosystem though?[/QUOTE] depends how you make it
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30268665]Every opinion expressed in this thread thus far, except two, has been deplorable[/QUOTE] I'll mix the concrete and you pour it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30268746]I'll mix the concrete and you pour it.[/QUOTE] I don't think you can simply pour concrete into a river, that will just make lots of new pebbles
Sad thing is that a nuclear power plant would be probably better for environment than this.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;30268788]Sad thing is that a nuclear power plant would be probably better for environment than this.[/QUOTE] Nuclear is almost always better for the environment than damming a river
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30268808]Nuclear is almost always better for the environment than damming a river[/QUOTE] Do loads of both then, and our fuel crisis is solved until we figure out how the hell to get fusion working.
they should take the crackheads outta sao paulo too [editline]5th June 2011[/editline] and arrest the corrupt fags [editline]5th June 2011[/editline] and do something about the slums
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30268837]Do loads of both then, and our fuel crisis is solved until we figure out how the hell to get fusion working.[/QUOTE] How about build the nuclear plants in regions zoned for industry and instead use those 500 square kilometres of land that would otherwise be flooded by the dam for a solar farm. The land will still have to be cleared but it won't fuck up the ecosystem in the river that people depend on.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30268881]The land will still have to be cleared but it won't fuck up the ecosystem in the river that people depend on.[/QUOTE] Move the people elsewhere, and pump water to them. Dams can also be switched on and off almost instantly, and can store water for future use during times of low consumption. The stored water could probably also be used to irrigate farmland.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30269000]Move the people elsewhere, and pump water to them. Dams can also be switched on and off almost instantly, and can store water for future use during times of low consumption. The stored water could probably also be used to irrigate farmland.[/QUOTE] The water isn't the problem, it's the life in the water. I'm sure these indigenous people fish.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30268808]Nuclear is almost always better for the environment than damming a river[/QUOTE] The mines that produce nuclear fuel have a significant impact on the environment as well.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;30269082]The mines that produce nuclear fuel have a significant impact on the environment as well.[/QUOTE] Depends how and where the mining operation is performed.
Alright, no big deal, I'll just train a bunch of Conscripts and some Rhino Tanks, then I'll send them wait
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30269110]Depends how and where the mining operation is performed.[/QUOTE] Can you elaborate? What would be the optimal method of mining for uranium, that doesn't have a significant impact on the environment?
[img]http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp1/teleias/pollution.jpg[/img] Coal energy is best energy!
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;30269499]Can you elaborate? What would be the optimal method of mining for uranium, that doesn't have a significant impact on the environment?[/QUOTE] Well obviously clear cutting a forest or displacing a town to get at it is worse for the environment than a mining operation in the middle of the arctic, and all of the best uranium seems to come from unpopulated and non-vegetated areas anyway.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30268020]As long as it generates tons of free electricity. Good. If standards of living will increase, and the natives become civilised urban dwellers. Good.[/QUOTE] Why is anything of what you're saying good
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;30268175]Excuse me as I go to the forest, build a mud hut, fill a bucket of water and kindly inform my landlord and president that I now own the city :downs: Get on with the program, gents.[/QUOTE] It's not a couple hundred natives being displaced, its around 16-40 thousand(can't seem to find an accurate number). Don't you think enough atrocities have been committed against native peoples?
[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;30270516]It's not a couple hundred natives being displaced, its around 16-40 thousand(can't seem to find an accurate number). Don't you think enough atrocities have been committed against native peoples?[/QUOTE] but they're savages more beast than man we can show them the way
Nothing good can come from this. Hydroelectric directly destroys ecosystems. If it were someplace that was not in the middle of a fucking fragile rain forest, with thousands of already threatened species than sure, but this is just kicking sand in the face of the Amazon while it's already down. We might as well slaughter all the natives and burn the rest of it down and get it over with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.