Save Patagonia's Wild Rivers!

Join Global Response’s campaign to save Patagonia’s wild rivers and forests. The Pascua and Baker Rivers in Chile’s Patagonia are wild, pure, glacier-fed rivers that tumble down to spectacular fjords. They’re so remote that only the luckiest kayakers and fishermen have experienced them. Local residents are eager to attract more eco and adventure tourists to Patagonia’s pristine wilderness. By sharing the beauty, joys and adventure of the region with appreciative guests, they hope to preserve it as a “Reserve of Life (Reserva de Vida).”

But there is now a serious threat to the future of Patagonia’s rivers. A consortium of powerful energy companies from Spain, Italy and Chile want to build 5 dams on the Pascua and Baker rivers. This project would destroy the rivers and submerge unique forest ecosystems -- habitat for many endangered and endemic species. But that’s not all. To deliver electricity to Chile’s northern industrial zone, the companies would erect power lines across 1,500 miles of Chilean forests. The lines would plow through at least 4 national parks and as many as 7 other protected areas, as well as indigenous Mapuche communities.


What can you do to help? Join us in our effort to save Patagonia’s Wild Rivers and Forests - learn more and take action at http://www.globalresponse.org.

Now don't take this wrong. I AGREE that these areas would be best preserved. But we have no moral footing to pressure emerging economies at all. We took and massacred the great rivers of the US, clearcut forests, consume the most energy in the world.....and then have the audacity to tell other countries they need to "preserve" this and that for our entertainment.......whether it be whitewater, troutfishing, rainforest, or whatever. It's their country.....they can do what they want......we certainly do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badgerman

Now don't take this wrong. I AGREE that these areas would be best preserved. But we have no moral footing to pressure emerging economies at all. We took and massacred the great rivers of the US, clearcut forests, consume the most energy in the world.....and then have the audacity to tell other countries they need to "preserve" this and that for our entertainment.......whether it be whitewater, troutfishing, rainforest, or whatever. It's their country.....they can do what they want......we certainly do.

---

The developed world has no right to pressure developed world companies not to rape the developing world again?

FKNA. Keep that shit tight for the rich foreigners to visit.

The locals can continue to burn candles and bath in the lower sections of the rivers. They wont know what they are missing.

hy�poc�ri�sy �� (h-pkr-s) KEY �

NOUN:
pl. hy�poc�ri�sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

I think the reality falls somewhere between those two extremes. I also think many of the "poor" locals would prefer to NOT see their homes flooded. It's not like a huge percentage of the people in Chile are living without electricity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cono Este

The locals can continue to burn candles and bath in the lower sections of the rivers. They wont know what they are missing.

---

Given they won't get the power, the money or much else from the deal.... they won't. The deal is do develop the hinterlands to ship power to Santiago.

ENDESA = spanish behemoth = NYSE ELE

Wait a second...are you suggesting that an enormous corporation isn't looking out for the best interests of the locals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Given they won't get the power, the money or much else from the deal.... they won't. The deal is do develop the hinterlands to ship power to Santiago.

ENDESA = spanish behemoth = NYSE ELE

---

It's none of our business really. Santiago might need the power with a big population. Maybe with hydroelectric they will burn less coal and save other aspects of the environment. We set the precedence for corporate greed and a disasterous energy policy.......why should we expect anything different
from anyone else?

Reminds me of the fly-fishermen pissed off at the Christmas Islanders because they net bonefish.......like the world revolves around the rich Americans outdoor experience......gmafb

I would hope that other nations can see how bad we fucked up our rivers, forests, and all other ecological systems, and try not to follow suit. But that is just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skibuminwyo

I would hope that other nations can see how bad we fucked up our rivers, forests, and all other ecological systems, and try not to follow suit. But that is just me.

---

I'm a civil engineer. Personally, I don't think we did such a bad job. I mean, we became the most sophisticated and progressive country in the world. Don't get me wrong, we have our issues. But if environmental abuse is on your tick list of all-American screw-ups, try visiting (or I'll throw you one even better--try living) in a central or south american country for a little while. You'll see some real apathy for the environment.

To recapitulate: Stop complaining about how much Americans don't care about the environment, because that's a load of bullshit. The fact of the matter: We do a pretty good job, albeit not perfect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badgerman

It's none of our business really.

---

Earth to dumbfuck! It is our rich first world business! Quite literally - they are a New York & Madrid Stock Exchange traded company to raise capital from stupid rich westerners Last I checked if you write the checks you call the shots.

It's also amazing country - gorgeous beyond belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruletherock

I'm a civil engineer. Personally, I don't think we did such a bad job.

---

Read Cadillac Desert. Water development in the West was a veritable orgy of poor planning and colossal boondoggles, many (most) of which benefited very few people at enormous taxpayer expense and environmental degradation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Read Cadillac Desert. Water development in the West was a veritable orgy of poor planning and colossal boondoggles, many (most) of which benefited very few people at enormous taxpayer expense and environmental degradation.

---

And I assume you're doing something about your frenzied passion for the nation's well-being?

I'm saying that people don't give credit where credit is due: we do a pretty good job in the states, as far as resources and environment goes. Not perfect, but a pretty good job.

And with regards to water development, I'm assuming you mean irrigation. One must realize that this was a novel, and even revolutionary concept. The American West, at the time, was a mark and model of man's ability to survive comfortably in relative desolation. (Look at Utah... then juxtapose yourself back into the early 1800's, and look at Utah again.)

By the way, does anyone even care about the purpose of the original thread, anymore? This GlobalOrg guy must really be pushing his cause, by the looks of his participation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruletherock

And with regards to water development, I'm assuming you mean irrigation.

---

Sorry, please try again. If you are going to play the stupid card, don't be stupid. Clearly you don't care about the original purpose, go shoot yourself and save us having morons like you breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Sorry, please try again. If you are going to play the stupid card, don't be stupid. Clearly you don't care about the original purpose, go shoot yourself and save us having morons like you breeding.

---

Speaking of stupid, are you disregarding the fact that inundated water serves purposes other than electricity. I mean, I know for those who do not get past any of the facts that are only presented in newspapers and low-end magazines, this is a difficult concept to grasp. But to be quite serious, irrigation preceded hyro-electricity by many, many decades.

And no, I don't really care about the original purpose. Just thought I'd try to throw out some logical words and ideas to counterbalance your superfluous idiocies. FYI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruletherock

Speaking of stupid, are you disregarding the fact that inundated water serves purposes other than electricity.

---

In this case it doesn't.

Having lived in California I'm well aware of the multitude of uses for inundated water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruletherock

And no, I don't really care about the original purpose. Just thought I'd try to throw out some logical words and ideas to counterbalance your superfluous idiocies. FYI.

---

By that mean looking like an intellectual flyweight on the speedbag?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

By that mean looking like an intellectual flyweight on the speedbag?

---

First learn how punctuate and articulate a sentence... then you'll be ready to flex your ever-so-intimidating e-muscles via the written word.

grammar insults - final refuge of the vapid

There is a coalition of local organizations that have declared the Aysen region a “Reserve of Life,” and pledged to pursue development that is “just, sustainable and equitable.”

Global Response responds to campaigns at the request of the individuals and communities living in the region.

The locals will not benefit from the electricity being generated by these dams. The electricity will be used, primarily, to power large mining operations north of Santiago.

Within Patagonia, opposition to HidroAysen comes not just from environmentalists, but also from the business sector that wants to develop adventure and eco-tourism, the salmon industry, fishermen’s unions and some municipal governments. They decry the injustice of bearing the environmental and economic impacts of a project that would benefit industrialists far away to the north.

At the national level, opposition centers around Chile’s energy policy. Leading scientists point out that Chile is blessed with great potential for wind, tidal and geothermal energy. Now, they say, is the time for investment in these sustainable, renewable alternatives. The proposed Patagonia dams could supply Chile’s energy needs for 50 years at most, they say – and at irreparable and incalculable cost to the environment and local communities. Why not invest now in energy efficiency and renewable projects that can serve for hundreds of years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlobalOrg

There is a coalition of local organizations that have declared the Aysen region a “Reserve of Life,” and pledged to pursue development that is “just, sustainable and equitable.”

Global Response responds to campaigns at the request of the individuals and communities living in the region.

The locals will not benefit from the electricity being generated by these dams. The electricity will be used, primarily, to power large mining operations north of Santiago.

Within Patagonia, opposition to HidroAysen comes not just from environmentalists, but also from the business sector that wants to develop adventure and eco-tourism, the salmon industry, fishermen’s unions and some municipal governments. They decry the injustice of bearing the environmental and economic impacts of a project that would benefit industrialists far away to the north.

At the national level, opposition centers around Chile’s energy policy. Leading scientists point out that Chile is blessed with great potential for wind, tidal and geothermal energy. Now, they say, is the time for investment in these sustainable, renewable alternatives. The proposed Patagonia dams could supply Chile’s energy needs for 50 years at most, they say – and at irreparable and incalculable cost to the environment and local communities. Why not invest now in energy efficiency and renewable projects that can serve for hundreds of years?

---

Were supposed to believe this controversial project is designed to power your 2nd most controversial project in planning, MIna Pascual?

God damn your hardcore, and fucking wrong too. There is general lack of electricity supply in Chile. SOmething has to be done. Personally I wish those river were never touched. BUt you need not lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GlobalOrg

The locals will not benefit from the electricity being generated by these dams. The electricity will be used, primarily, to power large mining operations north of Santiago.
Within Patagonia, opposition to HidroAysen comes not just from environmentalists, but also from the business sector that wants to develop adventure and eco-tourism, the salmon industry, fishermen’s unions and some municipal governments. They decry the injustice of bearing the environmental and economic impacts of a project that would benefit industrialists far away to the north.

At the national level, opposition centers around Chile’s energy policy. Leading scientists point out that Chile is blessed with great potential for wind, tidal and geothermal energy. Now, they say, is the time for investment in these sustainable, renewable alternatives. The proposed Patagonia dams could supply Chile’s energy needs for 50 years at most, they say – and at irreparable and incalculable cost to the environment and local communities. Why not invest now in energy efficiency and renewable projects that can serve for hundreds of years?

---

First off, I agree with you in not building dams on the Chilean Rivers. However, your blanket assumptions of the locals wants reeks of propaganda.

To qualify, I just returned from a month long trip to both Southern and Northen Patagonia with a friend who has 14 years of Patagonian mountain guiding experience to his credit. My comments are based on conversations with him and his friends.

You say the locals will not benefit. You are wrong. They will have jobs through building dams, roads, and mines, which they desperatly need and that tourism will not supply fast enough. While it might be shortsighted how can you make a Chilean who makes 300/month to wait decades for the tourism market to mature when he could be making money next year in a Trevelin gold mine?

The specialized tourism operations (fishing, whitewater, trekking, etc) that operate are primarily owned and operated by westerns. The only jobs the locals get are as cooks and drivers. Are you willing to spend some $$$ on establishing guides schools to educate and train the locals so they can participate in the economy. Furthermore, haven't NA ski towns proven that service based economies do not provide for the working class?

A perfect example is Chaiten, Chile. Chaiten is just South of Parque Pumalin, a very contravertial private park established by Doug Tompkins. The town, 45km South certainly sees higher sales in the lodging, grocery and gas businesses but that does not effect enough people to make them fight damming the Futa. The Futa is the only attraction to the South and all the rapids on thim famed river will be sunk when the dam goes in. They dont care b/c they want the immediate jobs building the dam. And this dam will go in, they are already building a new road to the town of Futalefu since the current one will be underwater.

Like a said at the beginning I am "Sin Represas" but not because I think the tourism industry is the answer as you paint it. The alternatives you quote preceded by a long term assessment of energy needs is what I believe in.

Ignorantly speaking, why does the salmon industry care? Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no natural salmon runs in Chile, only farmed fish. Do you have a link where you pulled the 50 year supply from, because as far as I know, no national assessment of future needs has ever been done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanley

First off, I agree with you in not building dams on the Chilean Rivers. However, your blanket assumptions of the locals wants reeks of propaganda.

To qualify, I just returned from a month long trip to both Southern and Northen Patagonia with a friend who has 14 years of Patagonian mountain guiding experience to his credit. My comments are based on conversations with him and his friends.

You say the locals will not benefit. You are wrong. They will have jobs through building dams, roads, and mines, which they desperatly need and that tourism will not supply fast enough. While it might be shortsighted how can you make a Chilean who makes 300/month to wait decades for the tourism market to mature when he could be making money next year in a Trevelin gold mine?

The specialized tourism operations (fishing, whitewater, trekking, etc) that operate are primarily owned and operated by westerns. The only jobs the locals get are as cooks and drivers. Are you willing to spend some $$$ on establishing guides schools to educate and train the locals so they can participate in the economy. Furthermore, haven't NA ski towns proven that service based economies do not provide for the working class?

A perfect example is Chaiten, Chile. Chaiten is just South of Parque Pumalin, a very contravertial private park established by Doug Tompkins. The town, 45km South certainly sees higher sales in the lodging, grocery and gas businesses but that does not effect enough people to make them fight damming the Futa. The Futa is the only attraction to the South and all the rapids on thim famed river will be sunk when the dam goes in. They dont care b/c they want the immediate jobs building the dam. And this dam will go in, they are already building a new road to the town of Futalefu since the current one will be underwater.

Like a said at the beginning I am "Sin Represas" but not because I think the tourism industry is the answer as you paint it. The alternatives you quote preceded by a long term assessment of energy needs is what I believe in.

Ignorantly speaking, why does the salmon industry care? Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no natural salmon runs in Chile, only farmed fish. Do you have a link where you pulled the 50 year supply from, because as far as I know, no national assessment of future needs has ever been done.

---

The locals will not benefit from the electricity that is produced by these dams. I agree that there will be certain immediate, albeit short-term, economic benefit through lower wage employment on damn/road construction. Higher paying positions will be given to existing, educated employees that will be brought in from Santiago - not locals of Aysen region.

There is, of course, division among locals. Many feel that it will bring in much-needed work and investment to one of Chile's least developed regions.

Our stance is to support the many local communities in the region that do not support the construction of these dams, including: AGRUPACIÓN DE DEFENSORES DEL ESPIRITU DE LA PATAGONIA DE COCHRANE, COALICION CUIDADANA POR AYSEN RESERVA DE VIDA (CODEFF Aysén, CODESA, Cámara de Turismo de Río Tranquilo, Escuela NOLS, Escuela de Guias de la Patagonia, Costa Carrera), CONSERVACIÓN PATAGONICA, CORPORACION CHILE AMBIENTE, DEFENSORES DEL BOSQUE CHILENO.

Of course, the tourism industry is not going to solve Chile's economic and energy problems. But it is one of many sustainable activities that provide economic benefit, while protecting temperate forests found nowhere outside Patagonia.

...Understanding that Chile has traditionally imported nearly 70 percent of its energy needs (much from Argentina, which now struggles to supply it's own demand) and that record high oil prices and low rainfall caused by the La Niña climate phenomenon have further added to Chile's woes...I respond by quoting recent New York Times editorial on the subject:

"destroying these rivers and the life that depends on them is no solution. ... Building large-scale hydroelectric dams is an old-world way of obtaining energy. It is too late in the environmental life of this planet to accept such ecologically destructive energy solutions or the model of unfettered growth they are meant to fuel."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stanley

First off, I agree with you in not building dams on the Chilean Rivers. However, your blanket assumptions of the locals wants reeks of propaganda.

To qualify, I just returned from a month long trip to both Southern and Northen Patagonia with a friend who has 14 years of Patagonian mountain guiding experience to his credit. My comments are based on conversations with him and his friends.

You say the locals will not benefit. You are wrong. They will have jobs through building dams, roads, and mines, which they desperatly need and that tourism will not supply fast enough. While it might be shortsighted how can you make a Chilean who makes 300/month to wait decades for the tourism market to mature when he could be making money next year in a Trevelin gold mine?

The specialized tourism operations (fishing, whitewater, trekking, etc) that operate are primarily owned and operated by westerns. The only jobs the locals get are as cooks and drivers. Are you willing to spend some $$$ on establishing guides schools to educate and train the locals so they can participate in the economy. Furthermore, haven't NA ski towns proven that service based economies do not provide for the working class?

A perfect example is Chaiten, Chile. Chaiten is just South of Parque Pumalin, a very contravertial private park established by Doug Tompkins. The town, 45km South certainly sees higher sales in the lodging, grocery and gas businesses but that does not effect enough people to make them fight damming the Futa. The Futa is the only attraction to the South and all the rapids on thim famed river will be sunk when the dam goes in. They dont care b/c they want the immediate jobs building the dam. And this dam will go in, they are already building a new road to the town of Futalefu since the current one will be underwater.

Like a said at the beginning I am "Sin Represas" but not because I think the tourism industry is the answer as you paint it. The alternatives you quote preceded by a long term assessment of energy needs is what I believe in.

Ignorantly speaking, why does the salmon industry care? Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no natural salmon runs in Chile, only farmed fish. Do you have a link where you pulled the 50 year supply from, because as far as I know, no national assessment of future needs has ever been done.

---

The locals will not benefit from the electricity that is produced by these dams. I agree that there will be certain immediate, albeit short-term, economic benefit through lower wage employment on damn/road construction. Higher paying positions will be given to existing (more experienced and educated) employees that will be brought in from Santiago - not locals of Aysen region.

There is, of course, division among locals. Many feel that it will bring in much-needed work and investment to one of Chile's least developed regions.

Our stance is to support the many Chilean peoples and communities in the region that do not support the construction of these dams, including: AGRUPACIÓN DE DEFENSORES DEL ESPIRITU DE LA PATAGONIA DE COCHRANE, COALICION CUIDADANA POR AYSEN RESERVA DE VIDA (CODEFF Aysén, CODESA, Cámara de Turismo de Río Tranquilo, Escuela NOLS, Escuela de Guias de la Patagonia, Costa Carrera), CONSERVACIÓN PATAGONICA, CORPORACION CHILE AMBIENTE, DEFENSORES DEL BOSQUE CHILENO.

Of course, the tourism industry is not going to solve Chile's economic and energy problems. But it is one of many sustainable activities that provide economic benefit, while protecting temperate forests found nowhere outside Patagonia.

...Understanding that Chile has traditionally imported nearly 70 percent of its energy needs (much from Argentina, which now struggles to supply it's own demand) and that record high oil prices and low rainfall caused by the La Niña climate phenomenon have further added to Chile's woes...I respond by quoting recent New York Times editorial on the subject:

"destroying these rivers and the life that depends on them is no solution. ... Building large-scale hydroelectric dams is an old-world way of obtaining energy. It is too late in the environmental life of this planet to accept such ecologically destructive energy solutions or the model of unfettered growth they are meant to fuel."

also...

August 6, 2006 New York Times article by Larry Rohter: Debating the Course of Chile’s Rivers

…The project has also created an unusual alliance between the salmon industry and environmentalists, including the Americans Douglas Tompkins and his wife, Kristine McDivvitt, owner of a 171,000-acre parcel of land she wants to donate as a national park. The two groups are normally bitter enemies, with the environmentalists accusing salmon farmers of polluting Patagonia’s waters, but they have united in their opposition to the dam project.

“As a businessman, I am convinced we have something valuable in Patagonia in our flora, fauna and people,” said Victor Hugo Puchi, a native of Aysen who is the chairman of Aquachile, the country’s largest salmon farming company. “After years of isolation it would be terribly unjust for the regions to be threatened by an act of aggression against the very activities the region has chosen for its development.”