Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction.” —Albert Einstein
When I left for the Futaleufu, I thought of it as a once-in-a-lifetime sort of trip. Now, fully in thrall of the most enchanting landscape and culture I’ve ever visited, I ache to return. I want to run the bigger water I haven’t made it to yet. I want to learn some more Spanish and feel less like an alien. I want to bring my family.
If my only barriers were time and money, I’d feel pretty confident that the chance will come around again, that my trip-of-a-lifetime could evolve into a repeat pilgrimage. Sadly, however, time may be running out for the Futaleufu Valley as the government of Chile edges toward a course of massive multi-river hydropower development that would profoundly alter all of Patagonia. The Futaleufu itself has two proposed dam sites that would not only submerge the river’s whitewater but also destroy the local economic base of ranching and tourism.
It’s a depressingly familiar story—the local people stand to lose their lands, their livelihoods, their way of life, and their connection to their heritage, all in the name of economic development for people living elsewhere. The whole HidroAysen project would both drown the major rivers draining Patagonian Chile and create in the world’s largest clearcut in the form of a 1200 mile long high-voltage transmission corridor. The audacity of such a scheme in a region as remote and beautiful and culturally unique as Patagonia is nothing short of breathtaking. I’d compare it to the kind of thinking in this country that led to proposals for dams and reservoirs in the Grand Canyon only forty years ago, culminating in an environmental battle that seems patently preposterous today. Chileans, I am told, love Patagonia with the same sort of national pride that we have for our own signature National Parks; will the HidroAysen proposal be the undoing of unspoiled Patagonia or a catalyst for its sustainable future?
Even as opposition grows throughout the region, however, the latest headlines detail new proposals by the Chilean government to throw around enough money to try to hush the locals. “Here, tell us what you think of this idea—we’ll take away your honest livelihood, destroy your way of life, and rape the landscape you call home, but you get to live on energy-project-supported welfare from this day forward.”
Now, I understand Chile has its own energy crisis to deal with and is in desperate need for solutions. And I appreciate that hydropower is a renewable and “clean” energy source. But before you try to sell me on the need for and the righteousness of damming the Futaleufu, can we try some simple alternatives? Madam President Bachelet, for the cost of one dam, how many inefficient light bulbs in Santiago could be replaced with CFL or LED technology? How many roofs could be fitted with solar panels? How many homes could be insulated? What about large-scale solar-thermal generation in the Atacama Desert or geothermal development anywhere in your narrow country (which sits smack-dab on top of the infamous Ring of Fire)?
Forty years from now, I think future generations of Chileans will look back and find it preposterous that we could even contemplate damming the Futaleufu. I just hope they don’t look back in sorrow for our lack of vision. That said, I’ve got one or two quick emails to send.
Just touching base – but returned from a very laid back vacation (compared to your sojourn) and did some mild sea kayaking. I think at my age whitewater is out of my arena now, but kayaking with the dolphins was a great substitute for the adrenaline rush of whitewater
Clark, in the real world (which most other people operate in) ideas have consequences and costs and there are these things called trade-offs where one has to balance needs and wants. Now, you in your airy, reality challenged bubble of comfort where money is no object can simply tell the people of Chile that they need solar energy. Unfortunately, the people of Chile would then have to bear the cost while you, safely ensconced in your anti-reality bubble would suffer no ill effects from your ignorance. The unfortunate truth is that solar technology has yet to reach the point where it is competitive with most forms of electricity generation and it is vastly more expensive than hydro power which is one of the cheapest, cleanest, and most reliable sources of power available. So, for the sake of maintaining this valley that you’ve decided must remain frozen in its current state you would saddle the people of Chile with enormously higher power costs, how generous of you.
“Chileans, I am told, love Patagonia with the same sort of national pride that we have for our own signature National Park”
Uh Clark – you do know that ex-Prez Bush’s admin has allowed for the mining and drilling near if not actually on our National park lands, and that Gov Palin is allowing the run off from the drilling in AK to be sloughed off into the Yukon Delta and the headwaters of the salmon run? Maybe, we should focus on our pollution and destruction before telling others not to??? Just asking.
Good point Greytdog, Clark needs to focus his energy right here, if he and his socialist minions can systematically destroy the economy we can create a zero pollution economy without the need for ANY fossil fuels, mining, or any other nasty processes associated with “production” which is of course highly over-rated. In such a case our GNP would hurtle towards zero and we couldn’t afford the vast social welfare hammock that most of Clark’s fellow party members depend on but we’re talking about the planet here and what’s more important; A productive, growing economy that provides massive opportunity for all to better themselves or the smug self-satisfaction that busybodies derive from controlling everyone. It’s pretty clear.
Salvador wrote: “smug self-satisfaction that busybodies derive from controlling everyone. It’s pretty clear.”
hurumph. you should know about smug self-satisfaction. Your post reeks of it –
IMO eco-tourism shouldn’t be only in S.A. or overseas, but here in the states too. And since Salvador seems certain that ecotourists would destroy Chile, perhaps ecotourism should just not include Chile.
Your reading comprehension needs some work, eco-tourism itself (too smug to be a regular tourist?) is not destructive of any society however reflexively moronic no development policies pushed by eco-whack jobs are destructive. You see, for people like Clark no industry is tolerable because industry/production requires power and power in any economical form is “dirty”. It goes without saying that no fossil fuel can be burned which eliminates coal, oil, and natural gas; hydropower despite being incredibly clean and cheap is out too because it “alters” whatever ecosystem it is placed in; and even nuclear is out too because of the radiation and storage issues. So we are therefore left with only completely uneconomical and unworkable sources, solar and wind. Now it is true that we could theoretically power the country with solar, we would just need to evacuate everybody from New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Colorado and i believe part of Nevada; then cover the entire area with solar panels; and of course the sun would have to oblige by continually shining. Wind is problematic as well, the land use alone is prohibitive not to mention the millions of birds chopped to pieces. For the forseeable future wind and solar will be marginal power sources and to oppose economical power methods in favor of unrealistic pie-in-the-sky green power mandates is destructive to society as a whole and developing countries especially. It is the difference between living in the real world and an idealistic one not constrained by facts and hard choices.
Wow, Clark– what’s with the fascist takeover of your comments section?
Yeah, I know. Now that Varsity Soccer season has begun, I’m finding it hard to block out the time for a proper response. I’m reminded of a couple of lines from Yeats’ “Second Coming”: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”
Spring Break is coming. I’ll let Senor “Allende” (of Marietta, GA) have it with both barrells then.
I see, anyone who opposes the good-hearted liberal must be a fascist. Yet, if you would use a history book or even Wikipedia you would understand that fascism is a fraternal twin to Clark’s beloved communism and not an opposing idealogy. Both subjugate the power and rights of the individual to those of the state as Clark is clearly in favor of doing. An intellectual like Clark knows what is best for society and thus he and his ilk must choose for the rest of us for the good of the collective. Therefore, power must be concentrated at the federal level where a small body of suitably educated and indoctrinated “betters” will rule. A charge of anarchy against me would be erroneous but far less so than the one you levelllled (enough l’s for you Clark).
“Salvador,” good grief, take your medicine. Give me a little time and I’ll work up a response. I’ve got to say, though, that every time you open your mouth and try to paint me with too broad a brush you only succeed in characterizing yourself that way. I mean really, you’re becoming a cartoon character.
At any rate, I went and deleted a couple of your posts that weren’t related to the topic at hand. It’s like talk radio . . . you can’t stick with the subject, you get dumped. I won’t dump you just because I disagree with you, but if you want to drive the conversation, start your own blog.
Why erase any of them, it’s not as if anyone reads this.
Postscript: Last week I was asked to make a presentation to the students at my school about my Patagonia sabbatical. I had some jaw-dropping slides to show and some video footage of the river and some self-deprecating stories about the rapids I didn’t run and whatnot.
But I ended by talking about the dam proposals in some detail, laying out a brief overview that nonetheless, I hope, captured some of the story’s complexity. I showed a brief video that presented the benefits of hydro power (granted it’s from Washington State, but I needed something in English) as well as a piece that captures the voices of the people of Patagonia. But most of all, I was careful to explain that I went to the Futaleufu with a sense of humility on the issue; whitewater boaters do tend to reflexively support the idea of free-flowing rivers and condemn hydro development, but I am acutely aware that it is distinctly not my place as a globe-trotting American with disposable income to set energy policy for the people of Chile.
As for my students, I wanted more than anything to just tell a good story. That said, for the most part, they know only environmental issues only as abstractions, so it is good for them to understand that real places and people are involved and that “ideas have consequences and costs and there are these things called trade-offs where one has to balance needs and wants.”
So when “Salvadore Allende” threw his first bomb into my comments section, I was quite sensitive to the impression that I was imposing my privilege-laden preservationist sensibilities on a matter that really isn’t any of my business. But for him to claim to speak for the “people of Chile” (particularly when his IP address places him in Marietta) is flat-out laughable. My tree-hugging proclivities and whitewater aspirations aside, I voice my support for the people of Patagonia against “power . . . concentrated at the federal level” and land use decisions made “in the name of the collective.” Although S.A. makes the knee-jerk assumption that environmentalists are “socialists,” my philosophical underpinnings consist of small “l” libertarianism and small “c” conservatism.
For what it’s worth, here are the videos I referred to in my last comment . . .
Washington Power:
Tracking Patagonia:
Cheers!
Opposing power projects does not make one libertarian or conservative, you are supporting the people of Patagonia in NIMBYism because it happens to coincide with your goal. The late Senator Kennedy opposed wind projects on Martha’s Vineyard because he didn’t want to ruin his view, no one ever called him a conservative.
I have a libertarian problem with eminent domain when government colludes with a private corporation to deny the rights of individuals. You are dismissive of my position because it conflicts with your reflexive culture-war stance that tree-huggers are to be ridiculed without quarter. Nice try with “NIMBYism,” though.