Dams have been there for centuries and I think they will exist similarly. There are always adverse consequences of building dams. The difference between now and several centuries ago that, in the past, downstream impacts and environmental consequences were not a big deal. Who cared after all even if a handful of people and cattles ware washed away? What makes the damages much severe now than before is that our planet is highly populated then before and the climate change is a reality than a fiction. From this point of view, I understand the anti-dam movements that surges intermittently.
But on the other hand, the need to meet water and energy needs are far greater than before. I am just wondering why the question is just "do we need dams or nat" in stead of "do we have alternatives to dams or not". Please don't forget that billions of tons of agricultural products set for international transaction are not simply from rainfed agriculture. Most are coming from highly mechanized agricultural businesses that consist of series of dams among other things. Who is going to abandon the already existing hydropower system for energy generation or the would be hydropower system in the wake of global energy shortfall? Even the environmentalists are not pro-oil movement as oil is not only a non-renewable resource but also a danger to environment and human health.
So, do we have alternatives to dams? Some argue to recharge underground water and to reuse, which is sane and environmentally friendly. But from the increasingly business minded global community, including governments of almost all countries, it would be an uphill struggle until alternative technologies of energy or water production come to light. I believe in technology to transform things and change the direction of the tide than the anti-dam movements
Dams have been there for centuries and I think they will exist similarly. There are always adverse consequences of building dams. The difference between now and several centuries ago that, in the past, downstream impacts and environmental consequences were not a big deal. Who cared after all even if a handful of people and cattles ware washed away? What makes the damages much severe now than before is that our planet is highly populated then before and the climate change is a reality than a fiction. From this point of view, I understand the anti-dam movements that surges intermittently.
But on the other hand, the need to meet water and energy needs are far greater than before. I am just wondering why the question is just "do we need dams or nat" in stead of "do we have alternatives to dams or not". Please don't forget that billions of tons of agricultural products set for international transaction are not simply from rainfed agriculture. Most are coming from highly mechanized agricultural businesses that consist of series of dams among other things. Who is going to abandon the already existing hydropower system for energy generation or the would be hydropower system in the wake of global energy shortfall? Even the environmentalists are not pro-oil movement as oil is not only a non-renewable resource but also a danger to environment and human health.
So, do we have alternatives to dams? Some argue to recharge underground water and to reuse, which is sane and environmentally friendly. But from the increasingly business minded global community, including governments of almost all countries, it would be an uphill struggle until alternative technologies of energy or water production come to light. I believe in technology to transform things and change the direction of the tide than the anti-dam movements