I don't feel like it is unintelligent ("low-IQ") to believe that there are meaningful environmental impacts to hydro-electric dams. Recognizing that hydro-elect

I don't feel like it is unintelligent ("low-IQ") to believe that there are meaningful environmental impacts to hydro-electric dams. Recognizing that hydro-electric may cause more harm than good in some cases seems like a position that is based on evidence. Below I linked to an article. It may not be the very best article but it is one that someone can find with just a brief internet search of "environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams". It cites reliable sources and carefully performed studies. It discusses attempts to measure the costs and benefits of building hydro-electric infrastructure: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44221-022-00018-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44221-022-00018-9 That article is not at all against hydro-electric but it does present the idea that a hydro-electric strategy should be informed by a variety of factors and may not always be a good choice. If it is not always a good choice to build a dam, it seems very reasonable to suspect that it may not have always been a good choice in the past, either. > The environmental benefits of a lake/reservoir far exceed the benefits of a river. I don't understand why, if preserving species diversity, for instance, is one goal of environmental policy, how one could simply say that one type of habitat is strictly better than another. That seems to be contrary to everything I've ever heard about sustainable ecosystems and species diversity. I'm not an expert. I'm not an activist, myself, but I'm very close to indigenous and environmental activists who are concerned about the impacts of dams in the Western Amazonian region. Salmon are never considered all that relevant there. Why do you think that all environmentalists who fight dams only care about salmon?