Justifiable? The Three Gorges Dam
“There’s a kind of a balance sheet of benefits and liabilities that have come out of this project. My sense is that the Chinese government is getting better and better at collecting information about things like this. They know if they don’t fix these problems there will be dire consequences.”
-Orville Schell
When the Three Gorges Dam (TGD) is mentioned in conversation, its name alone is almost always enough to invoke a grimace. The worlds largest dam, the TDG is internationally recognized and controversial, changing the landscape of what a dam is capable of doing and raised the question of constructional ecological morality. Human rights groups, wildlife preservationists, and many more have all condemned the TGD as a violation of almost all forms of life. Their claims are rationally based; looking at the 1.3 million people displaced (1), the hundreds of species wiped out by the disruption of the river, and entire ecosystems destroyed. Its cost a massive $22.5 billion over the course 17 years to build the 2.3 kilometer long dam blew economists out of the water (2). When looking at this, it makes one question why they built it in the first place. But like all controversial issues, the TGD is not a one dimensional problem. While it has caused problems, the TGD is the worlds largest clean energy producing hydro electric plant, a solution to annual flood seasons that have plagued river towns in China, and a massive boost to the economy. At the core of the debate over the TGD lies one essential question; can eco-friendly hurt one aspect of the environment if it helps another? How much good must something cause to outweigh the bad? The TGD has posed a moral and ecological predicament ranging between its destructive costs and revitalizing benefits.
Before looking into the effects of the TGD, it is important to look at its history. The idea for a dam to reach across the Yangtze River was first proposed during the early 20th century. The Yangtze River was necessary for trade and agriculture, but also prone to dangerous floods that could wipe out towns. Dr. Sun Yat-Sen, one of China’s early modern industrialists, offered the idea to build a hydroelectric dam across the river to regulate floods and generate electricity. Roughly 30 years after this proposal, China began their first attempt to build the dam. However, due to civil upheaval the proposal fell through and was forgotten till the massive Yangtze Floods of 1953 that resparked interest in the building of a dam. Like the first attempt, the proposal was once again disregarded due to internal conflict and chaos from “the Great Leap Forward”. Finally, in 1994, construction began on the TGD, finishing 15 years later in 2009. Standing 2.3 kilometers long and 139 meters tall, the TGD continues to be a historical and engineering marvel of China. Requiring almost a century of processing, the TGD changed the landscape of the area around the Yangtze River forever. (3)
The first controversial topic of the TGD is its relationship with the people physically living around the Yangtze river. 1.3 million people displaced. It is difficult to even imagine the streams of people leaving any of the numerous cities, towns, or villages that were abandoned with the formation of the TGD. However, the living were not the only ones affected; several historical ruins of ancient China were destroyed and flooded by the building of the TGD (4). In response to the massive forced dispersal of Chinese citizens, the Chinese government promised reparations to those who were moved to replace the loss of a home, livelihood, and for many, the loss of a history. While sweet nothings of repayment were whispered, 20 years later it appears that most of the money has failed to reach those who needed it (5). There is no doubt that the rights of those who were forced to move were sacrificed for the building of the TGD.
While 1.3 million people were moved, they were moved to save lives. The Yangtze River has had a history of dangerous flooding, killing hundreds of thousands in the past centuries. In 1931, floods covered more than 804 square kilometers, destroying towns, farms, cities, and the landscape.The same floods of Yangtze river killed roughly 3.1 million people over a course of several months (6). But these are only two examples from a long history of deadly flooding. It is likely than the Yangtze will continue to flood, and as China becomes more populated, will be increasingly devastating. The TGD is an investment for the future, an investment in the saving of populations to come.
It is difficult to balance population needs due to the mix of long term and immediate problems. The displacement of people points to immediate problems caused by the building of the dam, but the counter balance of this is the long term goal to save lives from floods. The intricate mixture of impacts is why the number of displacement becomes less relevant, and the larger context of long term life saving comes to context. Ultimately, it begs the question; does the displacement of people now equalize the saving of those who could be killed by floods?
The next negative effect of the TGD is on wildlife. Not only does the dam immediately threaten over 300 species of fauna and flora (7), but also the health of the river itself. Because the dam blocks the flow of water, fish can no longer migrate for breeding. Compounding the threat to the wildlife, the river itself has become polluted from construction. With ancient specifies such as the Yangtze River Dolphin already going extinct partially due to the formation of the TGD, it forces confrontation with the ever growing list of endangered/extinct species sacrificed to the building of this dam. On top of the fauna in the river, plants on the river banks will also be affected. As sediment and nutrient rich sediment is unable to float downstream, plants will die on the sides from a lack of nutritious soil. (8) The TGD has permanently wiped out species, polluted the river, blocked fish migration, and is actively decaying the soil quality for plants on the river bank.
But on the other hand, the TGD generates roughly 98.8 billion mWh per year — roughly 3% of China’s overall electricity— completely clean and hydroelectric. By increasing clean energy creation, China loosens their dependence on coal. As goal use goes down, so will acid rain and smog. The sheer amount of electricity generated by TGD is astounding, its 32 generators turn to generate the most electricity of any hydroelectric dam in the world (9). If the word eco-friendly is defined as “having a beneficial effect on the environment or at least not causing environmental damage,” wouldn't significantly reducing the emission of green house gases through a massive clean hydroelectric dam be eco-friendly?
The contrast of clean energy and wildlife destruction shows a deeper flaw in the term eco-friendly. If eco friendly can be having a benefit on the environment, then by that definition the TGD would be eco-friendly. However, the idea of something being eco-reasonable rather than eco-friendly, is a better term. Eco-reasonable would be something that while it does hurt the environment, its benefits provide sufficient advantages to create a net positive. Is clean energy more important than protecting wildlife? Is protecting wildlife more important than clean energy? Who decides which is more relevant?
While the dam itself cost $22.5 billion, the grand total was far more due to reparations and rebuilding of the dam (10), the TGD was incredibly over budget and expensive. By the time the reparations, construction, movement, and more were finished, the TGD had punched a hole in the economy of China. With arguably misplaced funding, it is debatable how much of the allocated funds were actually spent efficiently on the dam. Besides the loss of money on the dam itself, the TGD affects farming and fishing in the Yangtze river. Farming downstream is considerably reduced due to the lack of sediment flow, causing the nutrients in the ground to not be replaced. Fishing for the entire Yangtze river will be devastated by the dam preventing fish migration, therefore the industry will be ruined. Whether it was the money sinked into the dam itself or the industries destroyed by the lack of unheeded flow, the TGD wrecked numerous economic functions.
However, the TGD only hurt the economy in the short, but it is arguable that the TGD will have massive rewards in the long run. First off, the TGD will attract tourists because, well, it is a very big dam. People like those type of things. On top of tourism, the electricity generated by the TGD is renewable energy that is endlessly produced by the Yangtze river. Lastly, the calm waters created by the dam will allow easier trade in the damed section. From Chongqing to Sandouping the rivers depth and width has increased due to the stoppage of water (11). This stoppage has allowed bigger trading ships to travel; larger cargo boats can now go up and down the river. Larger cargo boats means more cargo, which means more trade, therefore more money. While China may be hurt in the immediate sacrifices for the building of the dam, it appears that it will succeed in the long term.
Like most of the issues surrounding the TGD, it is about the long term success verse the short term sacrifice. The incredible cost of the TGD is difficult to look past, but years in the future it will pay itself off. Thus the question is whether or not the suffering of the present is worth the success of the future.
Now that these three conflicts have been laid out, it is up for you to chose how these balance out. What is important is to look at the pros and cons of the TGD with an unbiased and suspicious eye. In the context of the physical relationship with people who live in the area surrounding the Yangtze River, it is the weighing of short term displacement verse long term life saving. 1.3 million people is a lot of people, no one disputes that. However, it is critical to weigh the issue against the history of floods in the Hubei Province. The next contradiction presented was the issue of the environment and eco-friendliness. The Yangtze River has wiped out species, disrupted the ecosystem, polluted the river, and began dissolving the river bank. It has hit the flora and fauna around the river with deafening blows. But eco-friendliness isn't just about wildlife, the environment includes CO2 emissions and clean energy. The TGD has provided an immense amount of electricity for China, 3% of the overall electrical demands; all clean, renewable, and consistent. The TGD allows China to cut down on the use of coal, consequently, massively reducing CO2 emissions, which in turn decreases global warming, smog, and acid rain. Lastly, the conflict of the economic toll on China verse the potential for long term rewards was discussed. The TGD cost $37.23 billion, and in no way can all of it be properly justified. However, the long term rewards of the TGD is based tourism, ease of trade, and electricity. As the TGD is the largest hydroelectric dam in the world, stretching over 1.4 miles, it has and will continue to be a tourist destination. With the Chongqing to Sandouping section being increased, trade will become easier and more bountiful. Then most obviously, the TGD will continue to be a massive renewable generator of clean energy. It is the duty of the people of the planet to weight these questions and seek to make the best choices.
----------------------
Citations:
(1) "China's Three Gorges Dam, by the Numbers." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
(2) "Dam Shame." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 06 July 2002. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
(3) "Three Gorges Dam." About.com Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.
(4) "Waters of Three Gorges Dam Will Wash Over World Culture." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 08 June 2003. Web. 15 Dec. 2015
(5) "Development–induced Displacement, Rehabilitation and Resettlement in India." (2011): n. pag. Web.
(6) "Yangtze River Peaks in China." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2015.
(7) Three Gorges Dam Project, Yangtze River, China (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
(8) Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. "2006a, 2007a, 2007b; Chen Et Al., 2008; Xu and Milliman,." (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
(9) "Three Gorges Dam Hydroelectric Power Plant." Power Technology. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2015.
(10 The Three Gorges Shiplock In 2001, and (© Chris De Bode / Panos Pictures. Three Gorges Dam: The Cost of Power (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
(11) "Economic Issues." Economic Issues. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2015.
