Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Last Descent
I stumbled upon an article in Kayak Session about this video being made called The Last Descent. It is basically about the damming of rivers as these people paddle rivers that are in the process of being dammed or will be soon. It raises the question of what is worth more, keeping the rivers intact as they are or harnessing their energy and changing them drastically. Also the people displaced that rely on the river are something to consider. Anyways, look around at the movie's website and watch the trailer. Comment with your opinions on the topic. In today's world we need an alternative energy source, but are these things worth giving up for it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I think "ktblash" makes a good point: Damming up every river will have adverse consequences, including - and ironically - environmental damage.
Overall, I do think that kayaking is a great sport, and one made up of very environmentally conscious participants. But if it came down to choosing kayaking or harnessing the incredible power of our rivers, I'd have to go with the latter.
The process of damming is already hugely used by our governments to ensure things such as fresh drinking water and irrigation, and we can learn a heckuva lot from those damming efforts.
Basically, there's always going to be consequences to our human actions and I think, like ktblash stated, it's all about striking a balance.
The key is moderation. Obviously if we go damming up all the rivers that is not an actual solution to the energy needs. However, not taking advantage of some of the hydro electric power out there and continuing to rely on fossil fuels is not a good solution either. Some dams at strategic locations where the most amount of energy can be harnessed and the least amount of environmental/cultural damage can be inflicted is what is needed.
Yes it is not ideal to dam up rivers but in the event that some other energy source is found the dam can always be removed. ie the old Rappy. Yes this did not completely restore the river to what it once was but it was a step that we as a community realized there was no longer a need so......kaboooom. The choice should be up to the communities in which the dams would be constructed. They are the ones that will bear the cost of change to their river.
Certainly the trailer was interesting, and after watching it I can’t help but feel akin to save and preserve these rivers. However, I feel that the producers of the movie/trailer chose a poor premise for their argument. Recreational sports are not reason alone to prevent “development.” That being said, I am of the opinion that damming rivers irreversibly alters the natural ecosystem and will displace residents and wildlife.
In America the Colorado River no longer reaches the gulf coast and the Mississippi (which is not a damned river) is reduced so much that it is unable to replenish its delta and Louisiana is subsequently sinking. The water we draw from these two river basins fuels communities like Phoenix, Arizona, Las Vegas, Nevada and a large portion of the southern states. The areas mentioned in the trailer all have booming populations that are living in very poor squalid conditions with very little hope of brighter days. They have no running water; inconsistent electricity and they are HUNGRY. Do they not deserve a phoenix?
Man presumes dominion over nature and works feverishly to “tame” the wild. And the argument for this has always circled around the idea of the greater good for mankind. But there in lies a grave miscalculation, one that needs to be brought up in these discussions. Is mankind better off in the long term? Or do we need to rethink the standard ideology of contemporary development? Simply said, “Do people living in Arizona deserve a 3000 sq. ft house with a garden and a yard?” What ever happened to adobe huts?
If nothing else, nature has taught us the importance of cycles, and to remove one segment can eventually lead to the destruction of the whole chain.
Andrew this is on behalf of Jon M.Slocum:
My experience is only with canoes 60+ years ago. The dams were only medium size and made wonderful lakes that created more water activities for more people than the stream or river had created previously for the few fortunate enough to have access to them. It seems to me that the streams were still there for canoeing after the damn was in so there was actually no or very little loss for canoes/kayaks. The scenery is not exactly the same, but similar enough that the benefits of the damn are warranted.
Certainly every one of you brings up ood points. I agree that recreation on its own is not grounds enough to not build dams where they could be helpful. Moderation is definitely key in my opinion too. Just as key though is the selection of which rivers are used and where. The Three Gorges Dam in China for example has already displaced about 1.25 million people and the government has announced that 4 million more should relocate by 2020. I'm not expert on this dam but wouldn't it seem like there has to be an alternate location that would displace less people?
In response to Jonothan, the people affected are often living in horrible conditions, so is a dam really going to help them. If they are hungry how does a dam help? Often it just ends up messing up a major food source (fish from the rivers). Shouldn't the governments work harder to feed these people instead of trying to give them electricity? I agree we need to live with nature rather than over it.
Lastly in response to Jon Slocum's comment I don't deny that in some instances the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The key in my mind is just selecting the right locations. Sometimes this isn't really what happens and that is the problem.
Oh and really lastly, thanks to everyone who has responded to far. I really appreciate it.
Post a Comment