Damocracy

Damocracy was an interesting and thought-provoking documentary. It discusses an important issue facing two different cultures, one in Turkey along the Tigris river particularly in the Hasankeyf area, and the other along the Xingu river in the remote parts of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. The building of large megadams, Ilisu and Belo Monte, in the rivers. Many people see dams as clean, green sources of energy because they do not give off carbon dioxide but many studies have been done which show that to be a false statement. It is actually shown that the megadams will cause even more harmful effects because they produce more methane gas due to the flooding of vegetation which then decays at the bottom of the water causing methane gas to build up. Along with the increase of methane gas, the megadams will flood the river valleys. This will result in the destruction of hundreds of historical sites and more importantly, the destruction of the tens of thousands of homes of the people living in those areas. They will also aid in the possible extinction of many types of endangered animal and plant species. It is very easy to see why the people of these two areas are so against the building of these two dams.

When I look at the different ways that this whole situation can turn out, two particular scenarios appear to me. The first being the side where the indigenous/local people win. It is clear what the local people are fighting for. Put simply, they want to stop the dams from being built in order to save their homelands. They are attempting to do this by protesting through major cities in the area and going to town meetings to discuss what the implications of these dams will be. They are writing reports to the government to make clear what the negative impacts of the dams will be. These efforts however have not been very successful. While they have stalled the companies from building momentarily, they have not stopped construction altogether. In this scenario though, lets say the local people are able to shut down the construction of the dam completely. They were able to convince the government to see the negative effects outweighing the positive. In this scenario, the local people and the environment are saved from the flooding of their home. They can continue life as it is possibly facing an energy crisis later on in the future.

The second scenario ends with the dams being built. The governments of these two areas are very much in favor of the dams being finished stating that “they will be built” regardless of the negative effects. This could be because of the large sums of money they will get from the the dams. The governments in these areas definitely recognize the struggle of the local people but simply see the dams as being a better option and more necessary to the survival of the countries people. In this scenario, the dams are built and the local areas are flooded causing the destruction thousands of home and historical sites, endangered species go extinct, and we maybe see the benefits after 40 years of heartache.

I happen to be for the side of not building the dams. Yes, I think that dams can be beneficial but not in these two instances. Not when the cause so much loss. What angers me the most is that the governments appear to be so ignorant of what is happening. Things need to change in these two places but it is not to the rivers.