3 ms·

Chop down 98% of american indigenous forests to make room for homes, drain all the wetlands in socal for gold miners. But all no we can't have clean power cus o

Chop down 98% of american indigenous forests to make room for homes, drain all the wetlands in socal for gold miners. But all no we can't have clean power cus of some fishis that my tribe that originally owned that land didn't even care about.

oppenh3imer 6y ago
We have programs for both reforestation and for wetland preservation. With any conservation proposal, one must weigh the pros and cons. In this case it is true that hydropower is cheap and clean. However, the negative externality of destroying the salmon run is much more than "some fishis" that some Indian tribes cared about. Aboriginal annual salmon catches have been estimated at over 10 million pounds for year. On top of that, the migration of pacific salmon upriver represents an enormous transfer of nutrients upstream. Salmon are a keystone species and are vitally important for the health of forests. Unfortunately, the salmon run cannot easily coexist with the dams. Yes, there is value in the hydropower. Yes, it is cheap, clean energy. But it is certainly not without cost. We could be reaping the benefits of one of the largest animal migrations on our planet in a sustainable way. Even disregarding the cultural importance to native peoples there is still enormous economic and ecological value in having a healthy salmon run.
- soperj 6y ago
  It's not necessarily clean either. Depending on what was flooded, if there's any forest involved it can be much worse in terms of GHGs than the equivalent coal plant because of decaying plant matter.
- rmah 6y ago
  10 mil pounds of salmon is about $30mil worth of salmon a year at today's retail prices. And more salmon would depress those prices. Economically speaking, the entire aboriginal catch is a drop in the bucket and not worth the benefit of a single dam. For comparison, the US alone currently harvests 100's of mil pounds of salmon a year. Alaska alone produces 500mil pounds last year (and this was the lowest in decades). Norway harvests around 3 BILLION pounds of salmon a year.
rmah 6y ago
There is more forest cover now in the US than in 1900 [1]. While a lot of "old growth" is indeed gone, the idea that the US has been deforested is not really correct. Moreover, vast areas of the east coast has been returned to forest from what was farmland in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Overall, generally speaking, the ecological condition of the continental US is probably better today than at any time in the past century. [1] https://mff.forest.mtu.edu/TreeBasics/PICs/Trends03.jpg https://mff.forest.mtu.edu/TreeBasics/PICs/Trends03.jpg

oppenh3imer 6y ago

We have programs for both reforestation and for wetland preservation. With any conservation proposal, one must weigh the pros and cons. In this case it is true that hydropower is cheap and clean. However, the negative externality of destroying the salmon run is much more than "some fishis" that some Indian tribes cared about. Aboriginal annual salmon catches have been estimated at over 10 million pounds for year. On top of that, the migration of pacific salmon upriver represents an enormous transfer of nutrients upstream. Salmon are a keystone species and are vitally important for the health of forests. Unfortunately, the salmon run cannot easily coexist with the dams. Yes, there is value in the hydropower. Yes, it is cheap, clean energy. But it is certainly not without cost. We could be reaping the benefits of one of the largest animal migrations on our planet in a sustainable way. Even disregarding the cultural importance to native peoples there is still enormous economic and ecological value in having a healthy salmon run.

soperj 6y ago
It's not necessarily clean either. Depending on what was flooded, if there's any forest involved it can be much worse in terms of GHGs than the equivalent coal plant because of decaying plant matter.
rmah 6y ago
10 mil pounds of salmon is about $30mil worth of salmon a year at today's retail prices. And more salmon would depress those prices. Economically speaking, the entire aboriginal catch is a drop in the bucket and not worth the benefit of a single dam. For comparison, the US alone currently harvests 100's of mil pounds of salmon a year. Alaska alone produces 500mil pounds last year (and this was the lowest in decades). Norway harvests around 3 BILLION pounds of salmon a year.

rmah 6y ago

There is more forest cover now in the US than in 1900 [1]. While a lot of "old growth" is indeed gone, the idea that the US has been deforested is not really correct. Moreover, vast areas of the east coast has been returned to forest from what was farmland in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Overall, generally speaking, the ecological condition of the continental US is probably better today than at any time in the past century. [1] https://mff.forest.mtu.edu/TreeBasics/PICs/Trends03.jpg https://mff.forest.mtu.edu/TreeBasics/PICs/Trends03.jpg