You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_j5zrq1i wrote



DarkColdFusion t1_j61614f wrote

>insisting that hydro is not green and that it has terrible impacts on the environment.

I mean, anything you do at scale is going to have large impacts.

If people keep saying no to everything, then we aren't going to fix any problem.

Sometimes it seems people just want the electricity, but don't want it to come from anywhere.


pickleer t1_j62ih5k wrote

The means justify the ends. Machiavelli had it bassackwards.


CALdreamin86 t1_j5yh37v wrote

And China will build it for you.


dogsdomesticatedus t1_j62mbhr wrote

Yeah salmon disagree. And stuff that eats salmon. And trees that rely on salmon. And just about every fucking species that needs an unblocked river.


NinjaTutor80 t1_j63ntbp wrote

This is a lie. Hydro is environmentally destructive.


pickleer t1_j62iw1x wrote

Minimal? Since when are river valleys appropriate to sacrifice? These places they propose to inundate are enormously important to a wide array of species. And the water is drying up anyway, all wafting up into a warming atmosphere. This is human-brand stupidity and I'll bet some small group of white males stands to profit from the scheme. Dismiss them and send in the wind and solar crews, who will displace WAYYY fewer flora and fauna and still yield up the energy required.