Monday, April 19, 2010

Belo Monte Dam Project



A recent article in the New York Times discusses an Amazon dam project and its threat to the indigenous people of the area. The project, or Belo Monte dam, is a struggle between the rights of the indigenous people and economic/environmental factors at play. Belo Monte is the intended future for Brazil’s hydroelectric power, which accounts for over 80 percent of their energy. Brazil’s energy supply depends on the Belo Monte dam, especially because without it, the country will continue using costly and dirty fossil fuels. Another alternative is to hasten renewable energy development, such as sugar cane. The latest ruling on the case has enabled Brazil to continue plans for building. The president of the regional federal court declared, “there is no imminent danger for the indigenous community”. The construction of Belo Monte would include two large channels to take water from the dam to the power plant, which would flood over 160 square miles and dry out 60 miles of the Xingu River. Research shows this would affect about 20,000 indigenous people as well as eliminate their transportation and main source of food, fish. Leaders from 13 tribes recently decided to band together and create a new tribe to live on the Belo Monte site and prevent construction. Additionally, some nongovernmental groups have done studies showing this plant would be inefficient and might later call for more dams. What alternatives do you see for the situation? What could be done to both honor the rights of the indigenous people and Brazil’s move towards cleaner energy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/world/americas/17brazil.html?ref=science
http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/uploads/kayapo-protesting-belo-monte-dam-xingu-river.jpg

10 comments:

  1. Maybe the Brazilian government should reduce the amount of hydroelectric power that they have relied on (80% seems like a lot). By utilizing other sources of clean energy at greater rates, there will be a trade off to make up for the energy that a new dam would generate. Such an alternative would honor the rights of the indigenous and meet Brazil's energy demand. Unfortunately it sounds like the dam will be constructed, and projects such as this one will become more common in developing nations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This reminds me of the Three Gorges Dam in China. The environmental consequences of building such a large dam are tremendous, but the social consequences can disrupt livelihoods and traditions. The Three Gorges project displaced over a million people.

    While hydroelectric has in the past been seen as a clean alternative to fossil fuels, it is clearly not. The use of biofuels may also have serious consequences, as water, pesticides, fertilizers, and machinery may be needed to produce enough sugar cane, and a large amount of land is required for sugar cane farms.

    So this leaves us with Solar or Wind energy. Through some quick online research, it looks like Wind energy is already expanding rapidly in Brazil. Maybe this it the answer?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This project does not seem necessary to encourage Brazil's move towards green energy if 80% of their energy is already supplied by hydroelectric power. If that is there argument than they need to re-evaluate the priorities of "green" energy. Starving and displacing thousands of people does not seem like a realistic way to reach these goals.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 80% seems like a huge percentage devoted to one form of energy/industry. Especially when developing that industry requires desirable land. I am curious as to the potential risks of Brazil putting all their eggs in one basket. Wind and solar would be less harmful to the indigenous populations. People without water transportation systems rely on natural waterways which hydroelectric power requires as well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems that the primary concern surrounds the displacement of the indigenous people and their access to food, water and the river as a mode of transportation. But what about the environmental impacts of the damn (in addition to flooding/drying out various regions)? Such as segmentation of habitats and accumulation of silt at the dam. What are the costs of removing the silt so that the damn remains operational and is this really a sustainable energy resource.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dams in these kind of a setting are no doubt harmful to the environment and the indigenous people. Hydroelectric dams however do provide the most clean energy, other than nuclear, which is clean and the most practical for these kinds of countries. Solar and wind would be much cleaner and have less impact on the people who live there but hydroelectric dams, sadly, are probably the most efficient way to produce the massive amounts of energy to meet their demand in the short run. I am all about alternative energy but some countries have no choice but to pick the cheapest way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  7. According small article in the daily on Tuesday the Belo Monte Dam project has been put on hold by the Brazilian government.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just because hydroelectric energy is the cleanest form of alternative energy Brazil can afford, doesn't mean they should put 80% of their energy needs into it. If Brazil wants to be able to have a long term plan with alternative energy, they need to look at all forms of energy sources and diversify. Wind energy is a good source for almost any country. Solar would probably be good for Brazil as well since they are near the equator and receive a lot of sunlight. Even though there is a vast rain forest, they do have farms, which could be a good place for solar panels or wind turbines.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is terrible that this could threaten the livelihoods of indigenous people, however, I don't see too many alternatives. If the building of this helps many, and hurts few, sadly I think benefiting many as well as the environment is the better option. It's terrible, but true. I also feel as though the fear that it will be inefficient, anything is better than fossil fuels, and as we perfect more kinds of clean energy, I'm sure that much of what we've currently done will seem inefficient.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Other countries should learn from the US' example; dams are only temporary solutions. Once a dam is built, it forever alters the ecosystem as well as hydrologic dynamics. Ultimately, these costs outweigh any energetic benefits.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.