We’re all for green energy, but not at an environmental cost.
Trillions of liters of water in the Amazon are swallowing vast tracts of the rainforest. All in the name of hydroelectric electricity generation.
According to the Brazilian government, this is for the good of the majority of its people. But indigenous communities are up in arms.
Is there any hope that the “underdogs” protecting the Xingu River can triumph against the government and the energy sector?
How “Bel Monte-gate” developed into a hydroelectric controversy of epic proportions
The controversy of the Bel Monte Dam has been building for a decade. It’s not just notorious in energy circles; it’s one of the most contentious infrastructure projects in the world.
The dispute comes down to government versus environmental and indigenous preservation. But the situation isn’t simple, and several stakeholders have conflicting interests in the long-term outcome.
The power-generating dam is located on the Xingu River in Brazil. Downstream, numerous indigenous settlements have been existing sustainably for generations.
But not anymore.
Several legal and environmental battles are underway over the preservation of the area. The loudest voices in the fight are the indigenous tribes living along the Volta Grande (Big Bend) and in the middle Xingu basin.
At present, the Bel Monte Dam is restricting water to areas that would normally be covered after flooding land that was previously above water. This downstream water starvation has obvious detrimental environmental effects.
But there’s another devastating scenario looming, and it’s the opposite of drought.
Belo Monte’s four scenarios: The “standalone” dam concept is a sustainability myth
A study by the Conservation Strategy Fund looked at four possible Bel Monte Dam scenarios. The second two are much gloomier from a conservation point of view.
Scenario 1 is the narrowest and most optimistic. Developers consider the dam as a purely industrial energy project, and it appears feasible from here.
Scenario 2 takes costs like lost tourism revenue, reduced fish populations, and water supply and quality into account. The project looks feasible, and social and environmental factors are considered.
But Survival International says differently, pointing to the effects of water starvation.
Scenarios 3 and 4 reveal the “trap” of the Belo Monte project and the flood projections.
As a standalone project, Belo Monte cannot generate enough power during the dry season to be profitable. The project faces large-scale economic losses if there’s no way to store water.
This shatters the myth of a “sustainable,” low-impact dam because the project simply doesn’t work financially without more water.
What does this mean? More dams upstream. And this is where the floods come in.
The inescapable upstream disaster: Flooding of the Amazon appears unavoidable
A recent study, “Belo Monte Dam impacts: Protagonism of local people in research and monitoring reveals ecosystem service decay in Amazonian flooded vegetation,” published in Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, has detailed the latest issue for the Amazon rainforest.
To fix the losses in Scenario 3, the project is forced into Scenario 4: building the Babaquara (Altamira) Dam upstream.
At this point, the “flooding issue” explodes in scale.
The Babaquara reservoir would flood 6,140 km²—an area 14 times larger than the original Belo Monte reservoir. What was a smaller water starvation issue downstream would become a flooding disaster further up the Xingu River.
The high cost of “clean” energy: Social and environmental ruin on the Xingu
Parts of the Xingu National Forest would be drowned.
Five distinct indigenous territories would be covered: Araweté, Koatinemo, Arara, Kararaô, and Cachoeira Seca.
The devastation is likely to be compounded by climate change. Recent studies show Amazon River flows could drop by 40% in the coming decades.
The promise was cheap, clean, renewable energy for 10% of Brazil.
The reality is high social costs and permanent damage to a unique ecosystem. The question at the heart of the matter is: are the sacrifices worth the power?
Disclaimer: Our coverage of events affecting companies is purely informative and descriptive. Under no circumstances does it seek to promote an opinion or create a trend, nor can it be taken as investment advice or a recommendation of any kind.