Amazon.com Widgets

Should hydroelectric dams be a part of plans to combat global warming?

  • Hydroelectric dams should be a part of plans to combat global warming as they are pollution-free, but are not enough by themselves

    Hydroelectric dams should definitely be a part of plans to combat global warming. They are completely pollution free and can produce great amounts of power without increasing global warming at all. There are limits to hydroelectric dams, however. There is obviously a limit to where and how many can be built, set by geography. There are also environmental effects besides pollution caused by changing the flow of water and creating lakes. So, hydroelectric dams will be a great part of obtaining power without causing global warming, but will not be able to do the whole job without other methods.

  • Hydroelectric dams should be a part of plans to combat global warming as they are pollution-free, but are not enough by themselves

    Hydroelectric dams should definitely be a part of plans to combat global warming. They are completely pollution free and can produce great amounts of power without increasing global warming at all. There are limits to hydroelectric dams, however. There is obviously a limit to where and how many can be built, set by geography. There are also environmental effects besides pollution caused by changing the flow of water and creating lakes. So, hydroelectric dams will be a great part of obtaining power without causing global warming, but will not be able to do the whole job without other methods.

  • Hydroelectric dams may not cause global warming, but they are damaging to river ecosystems

    Damming a river negatively affects the health of the river and the inhabitants of its ecosystem, thereby causing environmental damage. For example, a dam may flood a canyon upstream thereby decreasing the number of trees living there which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Damaging the environment is very unlikely to combat the problems with global warming in the atmosphere.

  • Hydroelectric dams may not cause global warming, but they are damaging to river ecosystems

    Damming a river negatively affects the health of the river and the inhabitants of its ecosystem, thereby causing environmental damage. For example, a dam may flood a canyon upstream thereby decreasing the number of trees living there which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Damaging the environment is very unlikely to combat the problems with global warming in the atmosphere.

  • Hydroelectricity doesn't rely on a diminishing resource, and has a very low emission of gases.

    Although it is argued that they harm environments and kill fish, they provide clean energy for pretty much ever without so much as maintenance to the turbines and walls as opposed to Coal burning plants that need supplies of limited resources. They also create irrigation reservoirs and stop yearly floods. However, I do think we should not build very many dams, for rivers can be essential waterways for commerce. Larger rivers like the Mississippi River and Columbia River are examples of rivers that are too important to build dams on. We also need to be careful to not cause water pollution. Three Gorges Dam in China (the largest power station in the world) causes a huge amount of garbage to well up in its area. But, with proper planning and great care, hydroelectric dams can be a great source of a clean alternative energy.

  • It can provide safe energy that won't hurt the ozone

    Dam has its pros and cons. One con is that it provides environmental harm to the area before the dam. That area is flooded and the wild life there is killed off. However, the pros outweigh to cons. One, it provides clean energy. Secondly, they are easy to build anywhere. All you need is a river

  • It can provide safe energy that won't hurt the ozone

    Dam has its pros and cons. One con is that it provides environmental harm to the area before the dam. That area is flooded and the wild life there is killed off. However, the pros outweigh to cons. One, it provides clean energy. Secondly, they are easy to build anywhere. All you need is a river

  • Suck my hydro-electric

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 hydro 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 electric 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 hi world 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3

  • Go hydro power

    They are pretty useful and very efficient. They will have a bad side ( doesn't everything) but it cant be perfect you might as well argue that the sun is too hot but it still is a resource we need. Hydro doesn't block life you know. Still go hydro power

  • Go hydro power

    They are pretty useful and very efficient. They will have a bad side ( doesn't everything) but it cant be perfect you might as well argue that the sun is too hot but it still is a resource we need. Hydro doesn't block life you know. Still go hydro power

  • Hydroelectric dams should be a part of plans to combat global warming as they are pollution-free, but are not enough by themselves

    Hydroelectric dams should definitely be a part of plans to combat global warming. They are completely pollution free and can produce great amounts of power without increasing global warming at all. There are limits to hydroelectric dams, however. There is obviously a limit to where and how many can be built, set by geography. There are also environmental effects besides pollution caused by changing the flow of water and creating lakes. So, hydroelectric dams will be a great part of obtaining power without causing global warming, but will not be able to do the whole job without other methods.

  • Dams are bad obviously to me!

    Secondly, although hydroelectric dams do not produce greenhouse gasses, personally I think the construction has already made more than enough damage to the air. The dams creation takes two factories to build. Pollution is one of the main causes which starts climate change and global warming. Hydroelectric dams create 11% of the global warming however, it has ways to help the poor in need of cheap energy but should we use them when there are other options?

  • Hydroelectric dams contribute to global warming and are worse than fossil fuels.

    The plants that are swept into the dams start to decompose and they create methane gas that escapes and contributes to global warming. Hydroelectric dams contribute more to global warming than burning fossil fuels does. If we replace burning fossil fuels for hydroelectric dams global warming will not be fixed and stop, it will just get worse.

  • Hydroelectric dams should not be part of an environmental effort to slow global warning, because it would just be trading one problem for another.

    Using hydroelectric dams to try to combat global warning would trade one problem for another. Hydroelectric dams are not a solution to any environmental problem, because hydroelectric dams are actually damaging to the environment. They interrupt water flow, disrupt mating and spawning of fish, and usually require residents to relocate because of flood zones.

    Posted by: GoodJerold49
  • Hydroelectric dams are a good power source, but reversing global warming will take bigger efforts.

    Hydroelectric dams should be built. They are effectively a free source of power and also create reservoirs for cities to use. But, as a method of combating global warming, they are more of a band-aid solution. Especially given the fact that global warming may not be 100% man-made, the solution to global warming needs to be a reversal of the effects, rather then stopping the theoretical sources. Otherwise, all we do is slow down the process, rather than stopping or fixing it.

    Posted by: KnownEvan
  • Hydroelectric dams are not a solution to environmental damage because they cause it themselves.

    Hydroelectric dams do provide clean electricity that does not involve pollution of the air. However, dams do damage the water system. In many dams, fish are unable to swim up or downstream. Where they can, it is difficult and not all can make it. Dams also create dead pockets in rivers where there is insufficient oxygen. Advances in technology do make some dams less invasive, but there is still alteration of the river, and any interference with nature's food chain is still environmental damage.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • I don't really believe in the term "global warming", so I have to disagree on principle.

    Hydroelectric dams are a great idea. They will be using our natural, renewable resources to fuel a non renewable resource. However, I don't believe in "global warming," so while I think dams for power is a good idea, I cannot say that I agree they will help stop global warming.

    Posted by: ComplexRoscoe
  • Not only the environment, but people's life, jobs and health

    I agree with BabyBoo, but moreover, dams generate a disaster in the environment, in people(80 million people displaced with their lives ruined) and a giant corruption that only enriches the dam lobby (more accurate is dam maffias) that act in these bussines, including assasination and other crminal practices.
    And by the way, for all those innocents that believe that dams do not contribute with global warming, see the latest research: dams are responsible for at least 4% of greenhouse gases, and that is not little thing as you may believe: it means a huge amount of gases and a real large effect in global warming. See
    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2007/2007-05-09-04.html

  • This would be a wasteful endeavor.

    I'm going to disagree with the debate question completely. I believe if you look into it closely, global warming has never been a proven theory. In fact many scientists outright disagree with it. Therefore, it would be wasting even more time to explore if hydroelectric dams would help combat the problem, as many people don't believe the problem exists.

    Posted by: R34d3Homey
  • No way, there is no such thing as global warming.

    Why would we rebuild dams all across Americas to combat something as stupid as global warming? Just how stupid have our leaders become? Global warming is nothing more than a man made hoax. It is a stupid idea, that's goal is to take from the wealthy. It is also in place to destroy capitalism.

    Posted by: BriaBlacken

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.