6:17 PM
| Sunrise at | 7:16 AM | in direction | 79° | East |  |
| Sunset at | 8:37 PM | in direction | 281° | West |  |
"All I know is what I read in the papers," said Will Rogers in 1930. All I know about Susitna Dam is what I read online and listen to on KTNA. The discussion about the potential power gained from the dam is heated, as you'd expect when considering altering an unusual ecosystem. My son, Lorien, has presented many discussions and audio feeds of interviews on the topic since all those living down river from the Susitna Dam will be impacted in dramatic ways if the dam is approved and construction proceeds.
Alternatives are being suggested, for example, natural gas and those suggested by the Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives. Others are not making suggestions but providing commentary on the effects of dams on other US rivers, such as Steven Hawley. Proponents are not interested in the impacts to ecosystems to the region so much as the benefit of Hydro-Electirc energy.
Pebble Mine, another project impacting environments has many of the same proponents and opponents lined up opposite one another. NRDC - Stop Pebble MIne among opponents is supporting a grass roots effort in the area to stop the mine. Proponents, among them the State of Alaska, say the region needs jobs and the mine will ultimately benefit the people of the region. I had a difficult time finding proponents of the mine on line, but Metal Mining Issues attempts to present both sides of the issue.
The question is why do I see these as the same type of event? First, can I say these things without laying blame on anyone? Can I state my opinion without labeling anyone as evil? Because good and evil are not what is on my mind when I think of these two proposed changes to the Alaskan landscape. My mind drifts instead to dominance of the planet by human beings.
It seems to me, from what I have seen over my years on the planet, humans are extremely effective in extending control over what is deemed necessary for human comfort and wealth. Absolutely nothing on the planet stands a chance against the ever present and continuing needs associated with human existence. Even if you regard the arguments regarding Pebble Mine, opponents note the loss of fishing and tourism in the area. The fact that generations of salmon will lose a place to reproduce, that the lives of thousands and thousands of fish are sacrificed for a comparative paltry number of humans and a few very wealthy investors doesn't enter the discussion. All around consider human life of more value than that of fish.
When speaking of Susitna Dam, the discussion is how dams affect life down stream, dry up certain hunting area and fishing area, but not of the plant life and animal life drowned behind the dam. Nothing much is of value if it is not for the benefit of humans. And in particular, it seems the benefit is largely to very few humans when compared to the many life forms adversely affected by those changes. Some see humans as part of a larger picture, as a part in the balance of a healthy planet and would ask for human restraint because in the long run we harm ourselves as well as those we subjugate to our needs; we are really no more than what the ecosystem can support. But those people are few and far between.
I find that hard to digest and accept for some reason. Don't I kill the mosquito when it comes to suck my blood? Don't I eradicate aphids from my flowering plants and vegetables? Why am I appalled, then, that so many lives can be lost to benefit so few in these other arena .. because my life is not directly benefited, most likely. If I were on the receiving end, if I were in a position of wealth and could increase that wealth by digging a pit mine in Bristol Bay, well then the loss of life would look a lot more like removing aphids from a tomato plant, wouldn't it?
People want to kill fish if they are not in the equation, Why can't we all be in the same horse race so we all have so much to loose
ReplyDelete