I don’t know how many of you are familiar with this. In China, the largest dam water project is underway, the gates of the dam were opened last year. China needs hydroelectric power, however the dam has been built at the expense of environmental conservation, cultural heritages and about 600 000 people are having to relocate. A couple of friends of mine visited this area earlier this year. In a few years time the entire area will be underneat water, that means hundreds of villages and cultural sites. This is a moral debate, should man be allowed to control the flow of nature in such a way, at such a high cost?
I was watching a documentary the other day, the area is so beautiful and to think it will all be under water soon.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
Cat ever heard of the plan to make the kalabagh dam in Pakistan..the environmental impact and displacement is estimated to be quite high as well.
[/QUOTE]
With the obvious difference, that the Chinese went ahead and did it, anyway, while Pakistan government is still thinking up ways on how to satisfy the naysayers. 20 years from now, we will all find out who made the right choice. Till then, democracy zindabaad.
Looking at the needs of the nation, many smaller more economical dams would be far more cost-effective. They would also help save considerable resources and would strategically be safer, as then there are many small targets instead of one large target which could cause a great deal of damage/problems.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
Cat ever heard of the plan to make the kalabagh dam in Pakistan..the environmental impact and displacement is estimated to be quite high as well.
[/QUOTE]
not nearly as high as this damn.
armughal: i can understand the cost increasing by a significant amout but more than double??? That seemed pretty hard to believe but i'll take your word for it.
Actually that is correct. When the US applied its steel tariffs it increased world prices by 80%, the steel market is prone to having minor changes having large effects.