Two criticism of large dams
Answers
Answered by
1
FOR the past century or so, governments and development agencies alike have been keen on dams. Built to store water and generate electricity, they are often emblems of national pride. And surely driving turbines from flowing rivers is a greener way to generate energy than burning coal, oil or gas? But now serious doubts are emerging. For the first time a comprehensive effort has been made to analyse the environmental, economic and social impacts of the world's 45,000 large dams. The World Commission on Dams has spent two years gathering data on 1,000 of them, soliciting the views of governments and non-governmental groups. This week South Africa's Nelson Mandela unveiled the result. The conclusion is bleak.
Dams make valuable economic contributions, of course: a third of countries depend on hydropower for over half their electricity, and over a third of irrigated land depends on dams. Farmers benefit from cheap irrigation water which, in turn, subsidises much of the world's food. But the overall costs of dams, to both man and nature, have never before been considered. The report concludes that dams' impacts on ecosystems are “mostly negative”.
Dams make valuable economic contributions, of course: a third of countries depend on hydropower for over half their electricity, and over a third of irrigated land depends on dams. Farmers benefit from cheap irrigation water which, in turn, subsidises much of the world's food. But the overall costs of dams, to both man and nature, have never before been considered. The report concludes that dams' impacts on ecosystems are “mostly negative”.
Similar questions