Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Is This the Beginning of the End for Damming America's Big Rivers?

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted July 2, 2007.


A fight in the Pacific Northwest over what would be the largest dam removal project has drawn an incredible cast of characters.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Who's Paying for the Recession Most of All? Young Workers
Lizzy Ratner

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
10 Suicides a Month at Ft. Hood -- War Stress Is Taking Soldiers to the Brink
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Tara Lohan

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Usually shareholders meetings don't include traditional Native American salmon bakes and intertribal healing dances. But at the recent shareholders meeting for Berkshire Hathaway -- owned by investment icon Warren Buffett -- Omaha, Neb., got a taste of native culture -- all the way from the Pacific Northwest.

Yet the tribes -- the Karuk, Yurok, and Hoopa of California, and the Klamath Tribes of Oregon -- weren't there to sing Buffett's praises like most of the attendees. They were there to introduce people to threatened native cultures and let Buffett know he made a really bad investment a few years back when his subsidiary Mid-American Energy Holdings bought power company PacifiCorp.

By doing so, Buffett, who is known as one of the world's savviest investors, landed himself in the middle of a social justice and environmental conflagration. While Buffett's investments are making many millionaires, his company is impoverishing the people of the Klamath Basin in Southern Oregon and Northern California who depend on a now ailing Klamath River for their livelihoods and cultural traditions.

The tribal members, who are part of a coalition of native tribes, environmentalists and fishermen, were at the shareholders meeting to pressure PacifiCorp to help save near endangered salmon populations by removing four hydropower dams on the Klamath River, which snakes from the central Oregon-California border, out to the Pacific Ocean, 20 miles south of Crescent City.

The dams are blocking fish passage to necessary spawning grounds and water trapped behind them creates a bath tub affect, heating up the river and causing toxic algae blooms that threaten the health of salmon populations, which tribal members depend on for food and fishermen depend on to make a living. Today 90 percent of the members of the once resource-rich tribes like the Karuk are living below the poverty line, and downstream fishermen have seen their income fall by up to 90 percent in recent years.

If the dams come down, it would be the biggest dam removal project in U.S. history and would revitalize one of the country's best salmon rivers and one of the region's last subsistence economies.

The prospect used to be a big "if," but lately the coalition has been gaining momentum and is backed by local, state and federal agencies. They even have environmental advocate Robert Kennedy Jr. and top lawyer Joe Cotchett (who is currently representing Valerie Plame in her suit against the Bush administration).

The coalition believes they are solidly in the right in terms of environmental concerns, social justice and even economics. All they really need is for the power company to see the light -- and they are hoping Warren Buffett can be the spark.

"We have been hoping Warren will realize these dams are a bad investment and realize that they are causing disease and poverty all over the north coast and southern Oregon," said Regina Chichizola of the organization Klamath River Keeper. "We are hoping that he will realize that if he is going to be a philanthropist, trying to solve issues of disease and poverty in third-world countries that these dams are causing the same issues that he is trying to fight in other places."

A river, a culture threatened

As a massive Omaha arena was filled with 27,000 shareholders, Warren Buffett took questions from the crowd -- an adoring crowd -- of people made wealthy by his business decisions. "Everyone basically stood up and talked about how wonderful he was and how they were going to name their first born son Warren," said Craig Tucker who works for the Karuk Tribe and attended the shareholders meeting.

But then Ronnie Pellegrini of Eureka, Calif., stood up and told Buffett how her family, who fish for Pacific salmon, lost 90 percent of their income last year because the fishery was virtually closed for 700 miles of coast line.

And Windy George of the Hoopa Tribe stood up with five girls dressed in Brush Dance regalia, a traditional healing dance, and asked Buffett to meet with the tribes to understand what the loss of salmon means to the native people.

"We felt like it would be inappropriate to show up and lay all the blame at the feet of Warren Buffett, because he has this massive empire and this is a tiny piece of it," said Tucker. "Our intent was for him to know about the Klamath River, know where it was, and that the dams that he owns are having a devastating impact on people's lives, and it is in his own self-interest to do the right thing."

For the last two years, a group of 28 different parties consisting of state agencies, farmers, fishermen, environmentalists and tribal members have been trying to reach a settlement in the basin over water.

The Upper Basin of the Klamath watershed that feeds the headwaters of the Klamath River is one of the country's largest irrigation projects. In the early 1900s the Bureau of Reclamation began draining the wetlands and lakes in the area to entice settlers to farm. For the last hundred years, the high desert has been transformed into farmland -- at a large environmental cost.

But, in recent years, increasing water shortages have caused conflict between farmers and fishermen. As farmers remove water from the river for irrigation, less is left for salmon populations. The conflict erupted in 2002 when a massive fish die-off occurred, killing 70,000 adult salmon on their way to the spawning ground and devastating the fishing industry.

Four dams on the river have exacerbated these water shortages. "The dams are the single biggest impediment to having a healthy, sustainable, harvestable fishery on the Klamath River," said Tucker.

The dams block over 300 miles of spawning habitat for salmon -- cutting off some of the best areas for the fish, as well as denying fishing access entirely to the Klamath Tribes of Oregon, who live above the dams and who have a federally mandated treaty right to be able to take salmon for subsistence.

Downstream, where the Karuk, Hoopa, and Yurok -- the three biggest tribes in California -- as well as thousands of commercial fishermen live, things are even worse.

"The lower river suffers from all the water quality problems that the dams create," said Glen Spain of Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, the largest trade association of commercial fishermen. "The water behind Iron Gate Dam is just a giant hot water bathtub. That creates massive algae blooms including some of the worst toxic algae blooms in the world." A survey last year by the U.S. EPA and the Karuk Tribe found the toxicity was 3,900 times the World Health Organization's standards.

The effect on fishermen has been severe. When salmon populations are below a certain level on the Klamath, it impacts the entire coast's fishery. "It affects thousands -- all the way down to Monterey and all the way up to the Columbia River," said Spain. "It affects the whole chain of commerce -- if ports can't deliver the fish, then warehouses don't have fees, the moorage fees don't get paid, people lose their boats, people's mortgages don't get paid, they can't shop, the processors don't have fish, they can't deliver product to restaurants, they can't export. It is a massive problem. Right now Congress has earmarked $60.4 million in disaster assistance to those communities. We estimate that the total economic coast was nearly $100 million -- and that is just for the loss of one year's fishery."

It's about the money

Although the dams have caused problems, including treaty violations since they were first built beginning in 1917, the effort to remove them has gained traction recently because the dams are up for relicensing. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is a federal agency that issues 50-year licenses for private companies to operate power dams.

This is the first time that these dams will be reviewed in the modern era of environmental law and policy. They will be subjected to the standards of the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Water Act and other state regulatory measures.

"A lot has changed since the last relicensing. The power grid has expanded, we have multiple other sources of energy and options for replacing the dams we didn't have before," said Spain. "We have stronger environmental regulation, and we now are acutely aware of the impact the dams have on an incredibly valuable salmon run. The Klamath typically generated the third largest salmon run in the nation. To extinguish those runs to generate a few megawatts of power is not a cost-effective solution."

But PacifiCorp is not as quick to dismiss their facility. According to Tom Gauntt of PacifiCorp, the four dams generate 169 megawatts for about 70,000 residences and he said the company intends to keep working with parties to come to a settlement but would not comment on whether the company was considering removing the dams.

Those opposed to the dams believe PacifiCorp will run into problems trying to have the dams relicensed. The Department of Interior and Commerce ruled in January that PacifiCorp must include ladders for fish passage. But the cost of doing so would be even greater than removing the dams altogether and getting replacement power -- about $100 million more, according to a report from the California Energy Commission and the Department of the Interior.

But the economics are not an easy issue. Installing fish ladders, while expensive, is something the company can pass off as an improvement and put the burden of the expense on customers.

"They don't want the precedent coming out that they are going to remove dams," said Chichizola. "That is the thing that will hurt them. They don't want to have to deal with dam removal, and they don't want to have to deal with fish populations, and they don't want to have to deal with Native American tribes. It is way easier for them to put the cost on the ratepayers."

Environmental groups argue that the turbines on the dams produce only 2 percent of the company's overall power and could be replaced using alternative energy, although PacifiCorp denies that wind or solar could replace "steady hydropower."

But pressure is now coming from many different sides. The fisheries department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency run by appointees from the Bush administration also recommended that the best way to achieve fish passage in the Klamath River was to remove the four dams.

However, only FERC can mandate that the dams come down, and the commission is composed of five presidentially appointed officials "who all have ties to the energy industry," said Tucker. "It is a classic example of the fox guarding the hen house."

FERC will likely be releasing their decision on the fate of the dams sometime soon. The commission filed a draft Environmental Impact State last year. "They concluded that dam removal was probably the best option," said Spain. "And at least two dams should come down. You never hear FERC say that. They are an agency that has never seen a dam they didn't like."

The final EIS is due in a month and PacifiCorp also faces tests by state water quality certification processes, which may be a serious problem for the company.

The backup plan

Despite the overwhelming evidence against the dams, opponents aren't counting on FERC to resolve the measure.

Two lawsuits are currently being filed that may be needed if FERC doesn't mandate the dam removal. One involves a fish hatchery that the company was required to build to replace salmon populations but now fails to meet the standards of the Clean Water Act. Another is a lawsuit that alleges the dams constitute a public nuisance because of the threat of toxic algae -- a serious health risk to wildlife and humans.

A separate settlement process that involves larger basin water issues and includes the farmers is also under way. Opponents hope to influence company shareholders and Buffett himself by attending shareholder meetings every year until the dams come down, said Chichizola.

"People in the basin now see that the basin is interconnected. We have been tied together for generations by this umbilical cord called the Klamath River," said Spain. "All the politicking in the world -- all the protests and marches and congressmen in the world aren't going to create more rain. We have to live within our means. We have been lurching for the last two decades from crisis to crisis in the basin."

If the dams are removed it will be not only a huge environmental victory, but it would be a significant achievement for coalition building -- bringing together industry, farmers, fishermen, and native tribes -- parties who have historically been pitted against each other.

"I think the Klamath River is a prototypical example of all that has gone wrong with Western water law and water policy," said Spain. "But it is also one of the few rivers where all the pieces are there for restoration. People will need to change and many communities are afraid of change. There have to be compromises along the way, and many people don't want to compromise. But the status quo is no longer viable."

And the Klamath may set the stage for dam removal in other areas. Currently there are 75,000 dams in the United States blocking 600,000 miles of river. In the West, over 100 salmon runs have gone extinct and 25 are listed as endangered. Residents in areas like the Klamath have been questioning the worth of many dams. and their voices are finally beginning to be heard.

"PacifiCorp and Warren Buffett do not own the Klamath River," said Tucker. "The federal government has given them permission to use the river to make electricity, and every 50 years the question is asked, 'What is the public benefit?' We are arguing that if you answer that question honestly, these dams do more harm than good."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: water, dams, salmon, klamath

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
elo
Posted by: eloots on Jul 2, 2007 2:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
169MW for four dams...

That's the equivalent of about 56 modern wind turbines (current technonolgy standard = 3MW/turbine).

Go figure...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: elo Posted by: suprmark
» RE: elo Posted by: eloots
» RE: elo Posted by: suprmark
» RE: elo Posted by: willymack
Conglomeratus cementus anthropogenii
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 2, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The same construction industry that built the dams will be involved in removing them.

Of course we need some things to be built and others to be removed, but there is a group of people who see the whole world as one big opportunity. They demolish (or clear up after military or civilian bombing) and build again.

Concrete is a man-made environmental menace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There's a turd in the bathtub.
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Jul 2, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am surprised that Tara Lohan makes no mention of the turd that may have given this thing a higher profile. I submit for your reading pleasure:

Dick Cheney Engineered Klamath River Fish Kill of 2002

and this: Congress to Hold Hearing on Cheney’s Role in Klamath Fish Kill

and this: Dick Cheney Engineered Klamath River Fish Kill of 2002

and this: Dick Cheney's Klamath Connection

and this: FishSniffer.com

and this: Checking on the Balances

and this: Dick Cheney: No Fish Left Behind, Or Alive

and finally this: Leaving No Tracks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I thought Posted by: chaoslegs
» WaPo fishing for turds Posted by: eddie torres
bigtime
Posted by: pnut on Jul 2, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me say this, if the dams need to go then they must go,but what gets me is Mr. Bush & Co. is killing thousands of people, he is using tons of DU that last millions of years, he is exploding thousands of tons of tnt ever day just to kill people. Now you people cry avout a few fish how can that be? It would help if you all got your ducks in line. Please help the good people of Iraq first, stop the DU it is a killer of MAN. Bill Davidson

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bigtime Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: bigtime Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Pnut Bigtime Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
FERC is about as likely to 'do the right thing' as Cheney is.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 2, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recall the manufactured energy crisis on the West Coast in 2000-2001? When Reliant, Duke Energy, Enron and others teamed up to create artificial rolling blackouts across the state, using methods such as 'unscheduled maintenance' to shut down plants? In 1998 and 1999, average rates were ~$30 per megawatt-hour. In May 2000, they went up to $61/MWH. In December 2000 rates went up to $317/MWH - a 1000% increase, engineered by corrupt energy traders like Enron.

At the time, FERC chairman Curt Hebert refused to take any actions that targeted the market manipulation, instead going with the claim that 'insufficient capacity' was at fault:

May 14, 2001: The FERC announced regulatory actions to increase reliable energy supplies in California and other Western States. The FERC streamlined regulatory procedures for wholesale power sales and for certification of natural gas projects. It also urged all hydroelectric licensees to assess the potential for increased generation capacity at their respective facilities.

This was a collaboration between the Cheney-Bush Administration and private power interests (Ken Lay, Bush's top donor) to defraud California of billions of dollars, and FERC played an active and compliant role in this scheme. For more, read Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (California Reamin' chapter). See also the Democracy Now interview with Palast on Enron's role in CA

Yes, geting rid of the dams is a great idea, and using solar and wind (and tidal?) energy sources as replacements is also a great idea - but don't expect FERC or any other entity within the federal government to play a positive role. They'll try and manipulate the situation for the benefit of entrenched power producers and mega-agribusiness concerns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tsk, Tsk, Tsk Mr. Buffett
Posted by: SackofWoe0 on Jul 2, 2007 11:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Buffet, I have observed you a few times on Charlie Rose's program. And have always admired your generousity. Now I am learning that you are doing a number on our Native Americans and the Salmon fish industry, (don't forget about all those new warnings about fish from China), are you daming their Rivers also?
Isn't it time that big corporations and CEO's in this country show some social action leadership in a positive sense. Put your money in the wind turbines and tear down those dams, which have already cost the environment dearly. And mercy, in bed with Bush and Cheney, talk about the evil twins, shame on you Mr. Buffett!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OUR tax $ could benefit humanity instead of killing it...
Posted by: ibemee on Jul 2, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
quote: Environmental groups argue that the turbines on the dams produce only 2 percent of the company's overall power and could be replaced using alternative energy, although PacifiCorp denies that wind or solar could replace "steady hydropower."""

Why not replace the dams with river-current-trubines? Everyone should pass these links along to the agencies (and to Warren Buffett)!! The main "need" for most types of energy production appears to be the ability to monopolize and profit by it! TIME to CHANGE that View! We do not need huge dams and we certainly do NOT need nuclear -- with the 'forever-problem' of waste!

http://enr.construction.com/news /powerIndus/archives/050124.asp (close link)
HYDROPOWER
East River's Strong Tides Power Submerged Turbines 1/24/2005
By William J. Angelo
A section of New York’s East River is now the test bed for a tide-powered turbine farm that could cost $20 million and generate up to 10 MW of electricity when completed in 2007. The project is a global first and could lead to a new, stable and nonpolluting energy source.
****
http://www.verdantpower.com/initiatives/currentinit.html
...you heard about making electricity from turbines in river/ocean current? CLEAN energy and SAFE energy, and NOT expensive energy! There is a city in new York that has recently installed turbines in their river (even safe for boats and fishes!) PLEASE check it out! WE DO NOT NEED DANGEROUS NUCLEAR!!!
*******
http://www.verdantpower.com/
Verdant Power, a sustainable energy company is a systems innovator, integrator, and developer of free-flow turbine system projects that generate utility and village scale electric power from natural underwater currents, which can be found in rivers, tides, oceans, and manmade channels. In addition to delivering affordable and safe electrical energy, the systems can be adapted to develop other community-based services, such as irrigation, desalinization, creating potable water, oxygenating anoxic waters, and producing hydrogen through electrolysis.
****
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Tidal_ and_River_Turbine_by_University_of_Southampton (close link)
****
Furthermore, turbines run by water current can be used in sea coasts, rivers, canals... (and can be made 'fish-friendly') This is AS environmentally clean as wind and solar ~ just THINK what could be done with all OUR tax dollars being used to invade foreign countries & kill thousands of innocents to steal their oil, if even a small PART of all that money was used to BENEFIT Americans, our Nation, our planet, and our world reputation, instead!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

2007 update on NY East River project
Posted by: ibemee on Jul 2, 2007 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/ rea/news/story?id=48131 (close break in link for the url)

The Power of the Tides

Apr 16, 2007
A pilot project in New York's East River is evaluating the use of underwater turbines to generate electricity. If the project bears fruit, the technology could have widespread applications. The effort, formally called New York's Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project, is being conducted by Verdant Power and the New York State Research & Development Authority.
"Compared to other sources of distributed generation, this technology is not episodic," said Trey Taylor, president of Verdant Power. He noted that you can look at a tidal chart and know what the currents will be on any given day in the future. This means utilities using the technology would be able to predict and forecast exactly how much power they could derive on a regular basis from a group of turbines. That is not something that utilities can do with solar or wind generation systems, which depend on the weather conditions on any particular day.

Additionally, the fact that the turbines are underwater eliminates a problem many wind generation projects have faced. To be precise, many wind projects around the country have encountered stiff local "not-in-my-backyard" resistance.

...In a separate project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is in the early stages of developing a system that combines solar, wind, and tidal-power units. Another firm, Natural Currents Services, which develops hydro, tidal, and ocean energy systems, will build the hybrid plant, according to the New York Post.

The Technology's Potential
Underwater turbines can be driven by currents in oceans, rivers, and even canals. The energy produced by tides or in-stream currents driving an underwater turbine is called dam-less, small-scale, or kinetic hydropower.

There are many regions of the United States that are well suited to using this technology including most major rivers and areas with strong ocean tides, such as the northeast, Pacific northwest, particularly in the Puget Sound, parts of Alaska and California, particularly in the Golden Gate area.

Additionally, there are many other places where the technology could be useful. For instance, underwater turbine technology "could enable economic in-stream hydropower generation from free-flowing sources of water, such as canals, waste water treatment plant outfalls, power plant cooling towers and ocean tides," according to the financial industry research firm SNL Financial.

SNL Financial adds that the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that U.S. rivers could generate 30,000 megawatts using this in-stream technology and the devices could potentially produce another 10,000 megawatts from industrial flows and canals.

YOU CAN'T GET CLEANER THAN THAT! pun intended.

//

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a great guy!
Posted by: willymack on Jul 2, 2007 6:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, stockholders think Warren Buffet is a swell guy, huh? In my mind, he's just another greedy scumbag, supported by other greedy scumbags in Washington. Don't hold your breath for those dams to come down as THESE ARE NOT GOOD PEOPLE, and simply don't give a fat rat's ass if people or fish perish. By the way, I live a few miles from Upper Klamath Lake, the source of the Klamath River.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

localism
Posted by: rtdrury on Jul 2, 2007 6:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't allow someone who lives over a hundred miles away to own anything near you. You keep the local land, resources, and opportunities in the hands of the local people. Learn to "just say no" to power concentrations. Local communities can adopt the best practices of other communities and all may achieve efficiencies of scale without giving up autonomy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But, Where Will the Electricity for all the new IPhones Come From?
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 2, 2007 8:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As guilty as our investors here are, also to blame are those who constantly demand more and more electricity, for as cheap as possible. Of course, many companies and industries consume a lot of electricity (besides residential users), but, these companies represent jobs and a lifestyle many Americans still worship and aspire to. The solution lies largely in not just alternative energies such as wind and solar power (which are good), but also, in conservation and Americans adopting a vastly different lifestyle. Do we all really need the latest cellular gadgets that cost more than $500 each? Look at the electricity and energy that goes into manufacturing them (wherever it is in the world), and then the upkeep. To live simply is to live simply. A smallish home, a limited selection of clothes, walk/mass transit to work, no fancy gadgets. If this isn't you, but you are out there "protesting," then the definition you need to be exploring is: H Y P O C R I T E.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tara Lohan, ibemee ...: Do you own a coal mine?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jul 2, 2007 11:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tara Lohan, ibemee and others; you know perfectly well
that if the dam comes down, Mid-American Energy will
replace it with a coal fired power plant. As you should
also know by now, burning coal will result in OUR
EXTINCTION in 200 years. Yes, I said the
EXTINCTION of HOMO SAPIENS. See:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
This URL is for the October 2006 Scientific American
article: "Impact from the Deep." According to this article,
Global warming will cause hydrogen sulfide to bubble out
of the oceans, killing ALL MAMMALS including us, the
whales, the elephants, etc., as well as the birds and other
creatures that need oxygen, maybe even the salmon. The
article compares our burning of fossil fuels like coal to
several mass extinctions.
Wind power and those other alternative sources don't
work when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining
or the tide isn't flowing, etc. Mid-American Energy isn't
going to build wind turbines or solar panels or any of those
others. They know that you are paranoid about nuclear, so
they are going to build a coal fired power plant.
So, Tara Lohan, ibemee and others: Do you want to be
partly responsible for Mid-American Energy's building of
Another coal fired power plant? Remember, those native
tribes are included in the species Homo Sapiens that is
slated to go extinct in 200 years. Our extinction will
definitely put an end to those tribal customs, salmon fishing
and all. Our extinction will also put an end to coal mining.
I have no financial interest in any of the sides of this debate.
Tara Lohan, ibemee and others: How much coal mine stock
do you own?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RFK Jr. has 6 kids, and he's lecturing others about sustainability??
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Jul 19, 2007 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we all behaved like him, the Earth's human population would triple every generation!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement