59 points sohkamyung 20 hours ago 12 comments
notabotiswear 16 hours ago | parent
I used to hate the "but what about historical site upstream?" argument often used against dams. The prioritisation of a few tombs and piles of stone over what would improve the lives of thousands to tens of millions living now. It's kinda ironic seeing the same asinine argument being used from the other side...
That said, reducing dams to just hydroelectric generation is probably going to skew the narrative to the wrong direction.
jhide 22 minutes ago | parent
lukeify 19 minutes ago | parent
ddxv 15 minutes ago | parent
An example would be Lake Pillsbury in Northern California which the dam has not done hydroelectric for decades but the fight to prevent demolishing the dam has had plenty of local support.
metalman 10 hours ago | parent
glenstein 1 hour ago | parent
My understanding is that the first few victories on this were very very hard but it seems to have created a precedent and a growing example emulated across the country.
https://themainemonitor.org/dams-sale-salmon-return-kennebec...
threethirtytwo 40 minutes ago | parent
lukeify 27 minutes ago | parent
wiether 40 minutes ago | parent
> In Plymouth, Massachusetts, a former dam has been converted to a bridge that lets fish pass unimpeded beneath it
That's a hell of an ugly bridge!They tried to make it look "natural" with the rock tiles but there's absolutely nothing natural about it.
A plain concrete bridge would have been less of an eyesore.
lukeify 27 minutes ago | parent
It's clearly being empathetic to the area's history, and it's taken from a vantage point that you won't often see anyway.