The ongoing COP17 climate meeting in Durban, South Africa is themed "saving tomorrow today." Yet a global dam boom being promoted by dam proponents -- including dozens of megadams proposed for Africa's major rivers -- could make a mockery of this vision, by endangering rivers and the ecosystems we all depend on. While we clearly need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, a climate-smart energy path doesn't sacrifice one important natural resource to save another. We need healthy rivers just as urgently as we do a healthy atmosphere.
A new 3-D Google Earth video illustrates three key reasons that large dams are the wrong response to climate change:
The Google Earth tour visualizes what we call "hydrodependency" in Africa, where new dams are being built without any analysis of how climate change could affect their economic viability or their safety. Africa cannot afford dried-up reservoirs or dam collapses on top of the already high costs of adapting to a changing climate.
The tour also takes you on a fly-through of the "Roof of the World," the Himalaya mountain range, where the climate is changing faster than anywhere else. These mountains' mighty glaciers are the source of many major Asian rivers, and they are melting fast -- yet hundreds of dams are planned here.
Dams in glacier-fed river basins are likely to be subject to much higher flows at first. Heavier storms and more frequent floods will jeopardize their safety. So many dams are planned for Himalayan rivers that one dam burst could result in a domino effect of dam failures. This will be followed by drought, as the glaciers dry up. Neither is conducive to a large dam boom.
Finally, the tour takes you to the mighty Amazon, where a contentious dam boom pits indigenous people against a development-hungry government and the Brazilian dam industry. Here, you'll sink beneath the depths of one of the world's dirtiest reservoirs, to learn how big dams (especially in the tropics) can be significant sources of greenhouse gases.
There are better solutions. Climate change poses huge challenges and there are no quick fixes. But we cannot sacrifice the planet's arteries to save its lungs. There are better solutions to solving energy poverty and water management that don't involve damming the world's rivers.
For instance, instead of building dirty dams, Brazil could produce half the energy it consumes today by investing in energy efficiency, solar systems, wind turbines, and retrofitting old dams.
In Africa, developing decentralized renewables such as solar, wind and geothermal is a better and faster way to end energy poverty for the millions of Africans who live far away from the grid, and avoids the risk of more failed investments.
Instead of damming the major Himalayan rivers and putting millions of people at risk of dam failures, engineering a more efficient grid in India could save a quarter of the country's electricity. Decentralized solar and wind systems are a more realistic way to bring electricity to remote mountain communities.
A global dam boom poses huge risks to the natural support systems that we all depend on, and will make it harder for all life on Earth to adapt to a warming world. Instead of damming more of the world's rivers, it is both possible and practical to develop climate-safe energy and water supply systems that improve lives, share the development wealth, and help us weather the coming storm.
Follow Lori Pottinger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IntlRivers
Las Vegas by necessity is going the conservation route big time, but is also searching for more resources. Conservation means efficient use of water, to be encouraged, but it is NOT a resource. What lesson is Las Vegas learning? That when you need more water due to population growth and your surface hydrology is maxed out, get real efficient fast? Duhh? What is Ms. Pottinger's point?
The "science" of methane emissions from lakes is not new, it is biology and chemistry. What is new is careful measurement. When plants and animals die in a wet environment like a lake, either man-made or natural, their bodies decay through microbial and other biological and chemical action. This releases methane, now we are measuring how much.
The statement that in many tropical situations reservoir emissions can be worse that fossil fuel plants is wrong on its face unless you make some sort of misleading comparison. The link provided by Pottenger is for Swiss research concerning one temperate climate reservoir, not tropical lakes. Reservoir methane emission is certainly less than that from cow flatulance
.
The remaining portion of the video includes distorted details, misinformation and flat-out untruths, including pictures taken out of context to support extremist statements. These images are construed to incite ill feelings towards the dams and reservoirs without considering the critical power and water supplies that are being provided to people in cities and villages to survive. It is interesting that the video shows the drought effects on Lake Mead as an example of how dams cannot react to changing climate. When in fact, good foresight and rational policy has allow this project to continue to provide reliable power and clean water during a 10 year drought. Without Lake Mead’s storage, the drought would have had catastrophic effects on the western United States.
The individuals that prepared this anti-dam video under the guise of climate change never address real solutions to the serious needs of our worldwide population. We invite you and your many readers to take a hard, factual look at dams and the part they can play in dealing with climate change.
Just one more (perhaps minor - but perhaps not) factor that we need to consider. To factor in when we plan the future. Sadly there is not enough wisdom on the planet to predict all the permutations of our actions. Inevitably there will be something that we did not think of that will bite us where we sit.