Amazonia represada

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/01/us-brazil-dam-idUSTRE75041020110601

Brazil approves massive Amazon dam for construction(Reuters) - Brazil's environment agency gave its definitive approval on Wednesday for construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam, a controversial $17 billion project in the Amazon that has drawn criticism from native Indians and conservationists.
The regulator, Ibama, issued licenses to the consortium in charge of Belo Monte to build the massive dam on the Xingu River, a tributary to the Amazon.
The government has said the 11,200-megawatt project, due to start producing electricity in 2015, is crucial to provide power to Brazil's fast-growing economy. It will be the world's third biggest hydroelectric dam after China's Three Gorges and Itaipu on the border of Brazil and Paraguay.
In January, Ibama had issued a preliminary license allowing the construction site to be set up.
Since then the project has been halted and resumed several times due to court injunctions obtained by environmentalists and native Indians opposing the dam.
Norte Energia, the consortium that won the auction to build and operate Belo Monte, is made up of state-run utility holding company Eletrobras, Brazil's second-largest pension fund Petros and local construction companies.
Originally conceived 30 years ago, progress on Belo Monte has been slowed over the years by protests, including an incident in 2009 in which Kayapo Indians armed with clubs and machetes attacked a state electricity official.
Critics from singer Sting to Hollywood director James Cameron and environmental group Greenpeace have said the dam will damage the environment and harm thousands of people living in the region.
The 6-km-long (3.75-mile) dam will displace 30,000 river dwellers, partially dry up a 100-km (62-mile) stretch of the Xingu river, and flood large areas of forest and grass land.
(Reporting by Leonardo Goy, Raymond Colitt; Editing by Reese Ewing and Eric Beech)

Moraleja: ¿Dónde quedó la campaña "Amazonia sin represas"?...Belo Monte sería la 3a presa de mayor capacidad de generación en el mundo  (después de Itaipú, también brazileña, y de las 3 gargantas chinas). Según (http://goo.gl/XHXeW), las presas tropicales quedan mal paradas en terminos de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.  Aún las plantas de carbón son más limpias. Deberían poner plantas de carbón en lugar de la presa... Así de malo es.

hay de economistas a economistas...

En este caso, economistas agrícolas:

de Aquanomics.

Dangerous academics?

I got my PhD at the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Davis. I entered the department to do development economics but ended up specializing in environmental and natural resource economics (ERE).*

But that didn't mean that I ignored agricultural economics. In fact, I learned quite a bit about farmers (most of it good), agricultural policies, and land and water management.

OTOH, I also learned about the "consultant-research machine" that one can find in most academic settings. In short, academics with credibility are paid to write reports for people in industry. Usually these reports are objective and based on the researcher's beliefs, but sometimes money can push the border between objective and "whatever you want us to say." It's hard to know.

In one case, we (ERE grad students) were depressed to see several of our professors and fellow students working on the cost-benefit of pesticide use, publishing "findings" for academic, industry and regulatory audiences that supported of the use of methyl bromide (MBr) for strawberries [PDF].** It seems that they assisted in winning an exemption from international protocols to ban methyl bromide (a carcinogen and ozone-depleting chemical).

MBr was eventually phased out, but now I see that its replacement -- methyl iodide -- is considered dangerousfor farm workers, the environment (and perhaps consumers).

And guess who is writing in support of methyl iodide [PDF]? The same folks. This is a sad pattern.

Bottom Line: Academics should remember that costs on one group for benefits to another group involves politics, not just economics. And they need to be careful about taking money from winners to cast doubt on costs to losers.

---

* In one memorable rebellion, I presented evidence to the chair (an aggie) that 2/3rds of the professors were aggies, but 2/3rds of the graduate students were ERE-oriented. That fact was not well received.

** These folks also claimed to be environmental economists. We agreed that their work related to environmental issues; we were not sure that it supported a healthy environment.

Moraleja: Parece que no hay entre economistas cosa tal como la esfera pura y ascéptica de la academia con sus cubículos y sus torres de marfíl. Lo que sí hay es una elección (otra más!!)...