Are you for or against the 'Three Gorges Dam'. and why?

Lancer · May 15, 2003, 01:27

I think I'm for it. Used to be against it, but changed. It will replace alot of coal burning, and allow ocean transport into poorer areas.

Alexander's Horse · May 15, 2003, 02:17

I'm all for ocean transport to poorer areas

DRoseDARs · May 15, 2003, 02:18

Against. Too much of some of China's heritage is going to be lost. The communist party hasn't given archeologists enough time to study the parts of the Three Gorges region that will be submerged. There was another program on years ago before construction began showing some of what would be lost.

Damn shame.

Lancer · May 15, 2003, 02:20

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/c2718.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/...rges_10-8.html

Az · May 15, 2003, 03:13

I am not sure whether the long term impact of it on the soil downstream has been studied. Otherwise, I have little problems with it.

Alexander's Horse · May 15, 2003, 03:25

It will probably be a disaster, but we'll see.

Zylka · May 15, 2003, 03:27

I generally hate the Chinese

Zylka · May 15, 2003, 03:31

I remember reading the (June?) 1997 National Geographic about the three gorges

There was then a thunderstorm and I fell asleep all tucked away in that little window cubby that sticks out of the house talking to Vanessa on the phone

OH GOD HOW I WISH I COULD GO BACK OH GOD I HATE ALL OF THIS

dannubis · May 15, 2003, 03:38

so, they are creating a like, which will be surrounded by at least a hundred million people. Knowing the Chinese concern for ecology i wonder how long it will take before the lake will become the worlds largest open sewer.

Lancer · May 15, 2003, 05:49

They're cheating though, aren't they? The US already built the Hoover Dam, providing hydro to every city on the continent. Their dam should become a library or something.

AH, what's wrong with ocean transport to poorer areas? More work will be available, more goods. Stuff you enjoy.

DRose...it's a time capsule. That stuff will be protected under all the mud and water for another thousand years. When the dam finally breaks, after they clean up the mess, they'll find all that really old stuff under there.

Dr Strangelove · May 15, 2003, 08:09

I'm all in favor of three gorgeous dames, unless of course you're talking about a remake of the "Charlie's Angels" movie, the original of which was pretty c****y.

Sava · May 15, 2003, 08:12

I'm for it. The change to the environment is a small price to pay for the amount of clean power it will generate. It will also up the ante in the game of massive public works projects. Now we (the US) have to build something bigger!

USA USA

Demerzel · May 15, 2003, 08:32

What is the US' need to have the biggest buildings, planes, ships, projects, etc...?

Do you all have tiny dicks? Over-compensating are we?

Sava · May 15, 2003, 08:35

I think it has more to do with creating something that will outlive future generations. I doubt the Egyptians were "compensating" when they built the Pyramids.

Arrian · May 15, 2003, 09:02

Bigger, Better, Faster, baby. USA!

As to the Three Gorges... well, that's up to the Chinese. I'm sure there are potential pitfalls, but it's their problem. Would we have given two shits about people halfway around the world criticizing the building of the Hoover Dam?

-Arrian

Adam Smith · May 15, 2003, 09:47

There is already a dam across the Yangzee about 100 miles east of Three Gorges. The dam was built during the era of Sino-Soviet cooperation in the late 50's. The dam hasn't silted up or broken yet, but its on a much smaller scale than Three Gorges. Somebody once argued that China could get better flood control, more electricity, and less ecological problems by building a series of smaller dams on Yangzee tributaries. That seems like a reasonable argument to me, but the Chinese have always had this cultural issue about flood control projects.

Zkribbler · May 15, 2003, 11:20

I was going to say "for" because the archiological loss is more than made up for by the need for electricity and modernization. The sea transport is just icing on the cake.

Then I saw the possible alternative in Adam Smith's post. Now, I'm not so sure.

Bosh · May 15, 2003, 11:24

Quote:

Somebody once argued that China could get better flood control, more electricity, and less ecological problems by building a series of smaller dams on Yangzee tributaries.

Yeah, I've heard the same. It seems that the biggest reason for building the dam is to do some "lookie we built something really big!" ****-waving.

MichaeltheGreat · May 15, 2003, 11:31

The big difference with Hoover dam is that it's on a river running through desert.

Dams and flood control levies on the lower Mississippi are affecting all sorts of stuff, including maintenance of the coastline in Louisiana (New Orleans will be gone in a matter of decades), and soil regeneration along the river.

Three gorges is a major tradeoff, and whatever adverse consequences there will be, the Chinese don't want to know.

It's also doubtful that coal power will be replaced - more likely, they'll add more industry.

Alinestra Covelia · May 15, 2003, 12:54

I'm generally for it. I have yet to see any favorable reports on the dam in the western media, although I've come to expect that wherever China is concerned.

It will be a shame to see historic sites submerged, but the Communist party has frequently ploughed over these sites if it will help industry and modernization. Love them or loathe them, at least they're consistent.

I don't know enough about it to comment on the details, such as the questioned safety of the project, or the rumors of endemic corruption surrounding it - but I believe at roots, the idea behind it is a good one and I prefer that the government spends money like this on trying to provide clean electricity, rather than military and weapons of defence.

It's interesting but I think a lot of the posters here (and with US flags beneath their names, I fear) would probably not have said anything if the country building this had been, say, Japan. Once the name "China" appears in any news item, it's interesting to gauge exactly how that colors American perceptions of the whole question.

I say this because I'm caught in the middle of a two-week-old argument in my family's email ring. Half of us live in North America (USA and Canada) and the other half of us live in China and Southeast Asia. Accusations of news manipulation and brainwashing are thrown both ways at China's government controlled media and America's corporate-owned channels alike.

As the only one in my family doing a Master's degree in Journalism, I feel like I'm the most knowledgeable person about this topic and still my answer is always "well, I don't know..."

Kidicious · May 15, 2003, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Demerzel
What is the US' need to have the biggest buildings, planes, ships, projects, etc...?

Do you all have tiny dicks? Over-compensating are we?

Maybe Hoover did

Kidicious · May 15, 2003, 13:18

I'm for it, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the possibility of it breaking. I don't know how likely that is, but it would be very bad.

Panda · May 15, 2003, 13:32

The environmental paradox with renewable energy (hydroelectricity, wind, tidal): it generates cleaner eletricity than coal or gas, but at a cost to wildlife.

Reading this article I think you'd have to agree that there are powerful arguments in favour of daming (flood control, power, and irrigation) which should prevail. How it benefits the country itself depends on the administration: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ory_id=1667113

Oerdin · May 15, 2003, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Adam Smith
There is already a dam across the Yangzee about 100 miles east of Three Gorges. The dam was built during the era of Sino-Soviet cooperation in the late 50's. The dam hasn't silted up or broken yet, but its on a much smaller scale than Three Gorges. Somebody once argued that China could get better flood control, more electricity, and less ecological problems by building a series of smaller dams on Yangzee tributaries. That seems like a reasonable argument to me, but the Chinese have always had this cultural issue about flood control projects.

A series of Dams would control flooding better and might even be cheaper but let's face it. The communists are out to wow the world by showing how big there (filling any building project here) is.

Also on giant dam would produce more electricity and the lake would be big enough for ocean going ships to use while a series of smaller lakes would not. The big problem is this lake is going to turn into a giant open sewer since Chinese cities don't have the best sanitation systems.

Kidicious · May 15, 2003, 14:08

I haven't been to Hong Kong harbor for many years, but when I was there it was filthy. Trash floating everywhere.

Oerdin · May 15, 2003, 14:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
I haven't been to Hong Kong harbor for many years, but when I was there it was filthy. Trash floating everywhere.

That seems to be the norm in just about every where in Asia. Even in realatively affluent Korea you still find some nasty, nasty water.

Japan was the only exception I've found so far. That place was totally spotless.

Az · May 15, 2003, 14:42

Japan.

Something's rotten there lately, though.

chequita guevara · May 15, 2003, 16:05

One of the major reasons for the TGD is lack of fresh water in China. They need water for irrigation and for 1.25 billion people to drink, take showers, etc. On top of that, industry needs water and lots of it. And China's industrial base is growing, growing, growing . . . at least until SARS kicked the table out from under them. That's probably just a glitch, and China will soon be back on its natural path of world domination.

Alinestra Covelia · May 15, 2003, 22:14

Water pollution is actually fairly short term, as far as biological waste is concerned. If what you're dumping into the water is mostly biodegradable stuff, then tight controls within a few years will clear the matter up. (Hurr hurr Beavith, you thaid "dumping". Hnn-hnn! Hnn-hnn!)

It's when the chemical sludge comes out of the industrial parks and enters the water system that you have a problem on your hands. Industrial runoff will hang around for decades and you can't leave it and hope nature will solve it the way you can with biowaste.

The Chinese government has a weird system whereby it has the authority to dictate environmental initiatives with unquestionable fiat. This works in Beijing, where limitations on exhaust fumes are taking hold at a fast rate. However, in the backwaters (pun) of the Three Gorges valley, corruption and inefficiency would be far harder to curb and such top-down edicts would be more difficult to enforce.

A move towards participatory politics would increase efficiency and discourage corruption (or maybe force it further underground, a la Enron) but would also erode the fiat of the government. This may not be as desirable a thing in China as it is in America, especially considering the 5,000 year long culture that holds a strong tyrannical rulership in higher esteem than a weak populist one.

It is also imperative to the success of the Three Gorges scheme and indeed the future Chinese economy that potstickers, in profusion, are readily available throughout the nation. I cannot stress this enough.

Spiffor · May 15, 2003, 22:34

I'm generally for it. China needs energy for its growing economic power, and I prefer to see a hydro plant rather than a coal plant to provide it. Besides, if this project is well thought out (that has yet to be proven), it would tremendously help Chinese agriculture, by mùaking it more efficient.

The loss of artifacts is terrible

But I hope the Chinese authorities or NGOS will try to salvage them while it'sstill time. Otherwise, the Chinese authorities would deserve a dlear booing.