Dam Controversies in Chile, Brazil Reflect Broader Energy Challenge.
By Jeremy Martin | 17 Jun 2011
In energy-starved Chile, the 2,750 megawatt project known as HidroAysen has long figured in national power planning projections. When completed at an estimated cost of more than $3 billion, the 5-dam complex is expected to supply approximately 21 percent of demand for Chile's central electric system, according to studies.
The approval of the HidroAysen project in early May, following a three year environmental review by a government commission, led to massive protests in the Chilean capital Santiago. According to some reports and opinion polling, upwards of 80 percent of the Chilean population opposes the project. Critics suggest that the energy benefits do not outweigh what they deem are severe environmental impacts in the Patagonia region. Opponents have focused on the project's proposed flooding of approximately 15,000 acres of land and negative impacts on several national parks, nature preserves and a number of Mapuche communities. Moreover, local and international NGOs have argued that Chile should instead focus on developing renewable energy such as wind and solar in the energy-intensive mining region in the north of the country. The Chilean government has encouraged opponents and the nation's civil society to use legal means to appeal their concerns. Energy and Mining Minister Laurence Golborne, famous for his role in the miner rescue last year, appealed to protestors to "turn to the courts" to register their objections.
But during a May 21 address to the nation, President Sebastian Piñera affirmed his government's commitment not only to the project, but also to the larger issue of developing adequate energy for the nation's continued development. Indeed, in his remarks, Piñera reiterated his government's view that Chile's electric generation must be doubled in order to sustain economic growth. Decisions must be made now, Piñera warned, to avert an energy crisis in the second half of this decade.
Meanwhile, in early June, Brazil's environmental agency, IBAMA, gave final approval for the Belo Monte hydroelectric project, slated to come online in 2015 at a price tag of approximately $17 billion. When completed, Belo Monte will be the world's third-largest dam, generating more than 11,000 megawatts of electricity and providing slightly more than 10 percent of Brazil's electric demand. Given its importance for the nation's electric needs, Belo Monte has been a priority of successive administrations under Presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff.
Belo Monte, under various forms, has been on the drawing board for roughly 40 years in Brazil. Objections to the project have long focused on the potential impact in the nation's cherished Amazon watershed. Not dissimilar from HidroAysen in Chile, the project has faced important opposition from environmental groups over the proposed flooding of 150 square miles of land and the corresponding negative impacts on natural preserves, flora and fauna, and several indigenous communities. But unlike Chile, where relocation of inhabitants is perceived to be minimal, opponents of Belo Monte have also vociferously attacked the project due to its proposed displacement of roughly 20,000 citizens. NGOs have argued that projects such as Belo Monte would not be necessary if Brazilian policymakers focused instead on increasing energy conservation efforts and incorporation of renewable energy sources across the country.
The two hydroelectric projects and what they mean for each country's energy matrix are important issues on a national level, but they are also part of a broader regional and international narrative. As HidroAysen and Belo Monte illustrate, there are disadvantages and impacts derived from hydroelectricity, especially mega projects that require large-scale flooding. Nevertheless, according to the just-released BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2011, hydroelectricity saw its biggest yearly increase on record in 2010, due largely to more dams and in part to a lot of rain.
In Latin America, hydroelectricity has been and remains the region's dominant source of electric generation, accounting for roughly 60 percent of generation capacity in the region. That number reaching almost 70 percent in Brazil, which also boasts the world's third-largest hydroelectric potential.
What is transpiring in Chile and Brazil is a stark reminder that these debates are never clear cut or easily resolved. And with the increasing global pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition from fossil fuels, they are perhaps more complex than ever, as highlighted by the years of legal challenges and delays the Belo Monte and HidroAysen projects have experienced on their paths to development.
What is apparent is that in both cases, in trying to meet the demand for economic growth and upward mobility of their respective citizens, national governments have run smack into the difficulty of balancing energy demand, growth and environmental stewardship. And striking that balance is critical not only for Brazil and Chile, but across the globe.
Jeremy M. Martin is the director of the Energy Program at the Institute of the Americasat the University of California, San Diego. The institute is a nonprofit inter-American organization focused on economic development in the Western Hemisphere. Martin can be reached at jermartin@ucsd.edu.
Chile and Brazil have both been in the news in recent weeks due to massive and controversial hydroelectric projects that have provoked heated debates and large-scale protests. Both countries are struggling with the delicate issue of how to balance the need for increased energy supplies to fuel modernizing and booming economies, with important environmental concerns in cherished parts of each country -- the Amazon in Brazil and Patagonia in Chile.
Like most people in emerging economies, Brazilians and Chileans are unwilling to renounce a modern lifestyle that increasingly demands access to reliable and affordable energy supplies. But the controversy surrounding the hydroelectric projects raises two questions. First, at what point does the cost of a modern lifestyle become too high? Second, how can policymakers in democracies balance the demands for a modern lifestyle with the need to protect their nations' environmental endowments?
 |
| Hydro Aysen. |
In energy-starved Chile, the 2,750 megawatt project known as HidroAysen has long figured in national power planning projections. When completed at an estimated cost of more than $3 billion, the 5-dam complex is expected to supply approximately 21 percent of demand for Chile's central electric system, according to studies.
The approval of the HidroAysen project in early May, following a three year environmental review by a government commission, led to massive protests in the Chilean capital Santiago. According to some reports and opinion polling, upwards of 80 percent of the Chilean population opposes the project. Critics suggest that the energy benefits do not outweigh what they deem are severe environmental impacts in the Patagonia region. Opponents have focused on the project's proposed flooding of approximately 15,000 acres of land and negative impacts on several national parks, nature preserves and a number of Mapuche communities. Moreover, local and international NGOs have argued that Chile should instead focus on developing renewable energy such as wind and solar in the energy-intensive mining region in the north of the country. The Chilean government has encouraged opponents and the nation's civil society to use legal means to appeal their concerns. Energy and Mining Minister Laurence Golborne, famous for his role in the miner rescue last year, appealed to protestors to "turn to the courts" to register their objections.
But during a May 21 address to the nation, President Sebastian Piñera affirmed his government's commitment not only to the project, but also to the larger issue of developing adequate energy for the nation's continued development. Indeed, in his remarks, Piñera reiterated his government's view that Chile's electric generation must be doubled in order to sustain economic growth. Decisions must be made now, Piñera warned, to avert an energy crisis in the second half of this decade.
 |
| Belo Monte. |
Belo Monte, under various forms, has been on the drawing board for roughly 40 years in Brazil. Objections to the project have long focused on the potential impact in the nation's cherished Amazon watershed. Not dissimilar from HidroAysen in Chile, the project has faced important opposition from environmental groups over the proposed flooding of 150 square miles of land and the corresponding negative impacts on natural preserves, flora and fauna, and several indigenous communities. But unlike Chile, where relocation of inhabitants is perceived to be minimal, opponents of Belo Monte have also vociferously attacked the project due to its proposed displacement of roughly 20,000 citizens. NGOs have argued that projects such as Belo Monte would not be necessary if Brazilian policymakers focused instead on increasing energy conservation efforts and incorporation of renewable energy sources across the country.
The two hydroelectric projects and what they mean for each country's energy matrix are important issues on a national level, but they are also part of a broader regional and international narrative. As HidroAysen and Belo Monte illustrate, there are disadvantages and impacts derived from hydroelectricity, especially mega projects that require large-scale flooding. Nevertheless, according to the just-released BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2011, hydroelectricity saw its biggest yearly increase on record in 2010, due largely to more dams and in part to a lot of rain.
In Latin America, hydroelectricity has been and remains the region's dominant source of electric generation, accounting for roughly 60 percent of generation capacity in the region. That number reaching almost 70 percent in Brazil, which also boasts the world's third-largest hydroelectric potential.
What is transpiring in Chile and Brazil is a stark reminder that these debates are never clear cut or easily resolved. And with the increasing global pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition from fossil fuels, they are perhaps more complex than ever, as highlighted by the years of legal challenges and delays the Belo Monte and HidroAysen projects have experienced on their paths to development.
What is apparent is that in both cases, in trying to meet the demand for economic growth and upward mobility of their respective citizens, national governments have run smack into the difficulty of balancing energy demand, growth and environmental stewardship. And striking that balance is critical not only for Brazil and Chile, but across the globe.
Jeremy M. Martin is the director of the Energy Program at the Institute of the Americasat the University of California, San Diego. The institute is a nonprofit inter-American organization focused on economic development in the Western Hemisphere. Martin can be reached at jermartin@ucsd.edu.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario