Instead of using fossil fuels, we’re told to use “clean” energy: wind, solar or hydropower.
Hydro is the most reliable. Unlike wind and sunlight, it flows steadily.
But now, environmental groups want to destroy dams that create hydro power.
“Breach those dams,” an activist shouts in my new video. “Now is the time, our fish are on the line!”
The activists have targeted four dams on the Snake River in Washington State. They claim the dams are driving salmon to extinction.
It’s true that dams once killed lots of salmon. Pregnant fish need to swim upriver to have babies, and their babies swim downriver to the ocean.
Suddenly, dams were in the way.
Salmon population dropped sharply.
But that was in the 1970s.
Today, most salmon make it past the dam without trouble.
How?
Fish-protecting innovations like fish ladders and spillways guide most of the salmon away from the turbines that generate electricity.
“Between 96% and 98% of the salmon successfully pass each dam,” says Todd Myers, Environmental Director at the Washington Policy Center.
Even federal scientific agencies now say we can leave dams alone and fish will be fine.
But environmental groups don’t raise money by acknowledging good news.
“Snake River Salmon Are in Crisis,” reads a headline from Earthjustice.
Gullible media fall for it.
The Snake River is the “most endangered in the country!” claimed the evening news anchor.
“That’s simply not true,” Myers explains. “All you have to do is look at the actual population numbers to know that that’s absurd.”
Utterly absurd. In recent years, salmon populations are higher than they were in the 1980s and 90s.
“They make these claims,” Myers says, “because they know people will believe them … they don’t want to believe that their favorite environmental group is dishonest.”
But many are.
In 1999, environmental groups bought an ad in the New York Times saying “salmon … will be extinct by 2017.”
“Did the environmentalists apologize?” I ask Meyers.
“No,” he says. “They repeat almost the exact same arguments today, they just changed the dates.
I invited 10 activist groups that want to destroy dams to come to my studio and defend their claims about salmon extinction. Not one agreed.
I understand why. They’ve already convinced the public and gullible politicians.
Idaho’s Republican Congressman Mike Simpson says, “There is no viable path that can allow us to keep the dams in place.”
“We keep doing dumb things,” says Myers. “We put money into places where it doesn’t have an environmental impact, and then we wonder 10, 20, 30 years (later) why we haven’t made any environmental progress.”
Politicians and activists want to tear down Snake River dams even though they generate tons of electricity.
“Almost the same amount as all of the wind and solar turbines in Washington state,” says Myers, “Imagine if I told the environmental community we need to tear down every wind turbine and every solar panel. They would lose their minds. But that’s essentially what they’re advocating by tearing down Snake River dams.”
I push back: “They say, ‘Just build more wind turbines.'”
“The problem is, several times a year, there’s no wind,” he replies. “You could build 10 times as many wind turbines, but if there’s no wind, there’s no electricity.”
Hydro, on the other hand, “can turn on and off whenever it’s needed. Destroying hydro and replacing it with wind makes absolutely no sense. It will do serious damage to our electrical grid.”
“It’s not their money,” I point out.
“Exactly,” he says. “If you want to spend $35 billion on salmon, there’s lots of things we can do that would have a real impact.”
Like what?
“(Reduce the population of) seals and sea lions,” he says, “The Washington Academy of Sciences says that unless we reduce the populations, we will not recover salmon.”
“People used to hunt sea lions,” I note.
“Yeah, that’s why the populations are higher today.”
But environmentalists don’t want people to hunt sea lions or seals. Instead, they push for destruction of dams.
“Because it’s sexy and dramatic, it sells,” says Myers. “It’s more about feeling good than environmental results.”
Photo by Nkululeko Mayiyane on Unsplash
Here you have a relatively environmentally friendly solution, and the greenies are against. Makes you wonder what their end game really is. Nothing but watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside), and their useful idiots.
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, I think there’s an intentional effort to raise the cost of electricity in the United States. The California Enron scandal showed that electricity is vital to modern life and people will pay any amount to keep it. Nuclear power was suppressed by environmentalists backed covertly by big coal because (not counting the legal costs) nuclear power is far cheaper and more reliable than anything else. The energy traders are happy to see shortfalls on production because it drives up the futures contracts, which we saw in the extreme during the Texas blackout in 2021.
The “deregulated” energy market has been a disaster for the environment and is driving grid instability in the name of competition. It was sold to the public as a way to allow anyone to produce electricity and provide a competitive marketplace. Instead it has led to a futures market and intentional dumping of highly subsidized wind and solar when there’s no demand, causing traditional “baseload” suppliers to become unprofitable, closing down.
Also, the Japanese come to the Pacific salmon area near us and spread 50-mile-long nets where they clean entire areas of everything, including porpoise kills. Politics kept us from stopping them.
* I was a Powerhouse Operator on multiple Columbia River powerhouses where I controlled fish ladders and Fish Count Rooms. Later I was Western Grid Power Dispatcher for Bonneville Power Administration, controlling water flows on Snake and Columbia Rivers and other tributaries.
I laugh at this crap from supposed “environmentalists” and, I digress a little. For one thing, our country produces so little carbon it is getting hard to measure. One can safely breathe our auto exhaust, almost. On the other hand, China, Subsaharan Africa, and other developing areas produce so MUCH carbon it is mind boggling. It begs the question, ”Why is the US even attempting to reduce its carbon output when so much of the world doesn’t care at all? Are we trying to set the example? If so, is it really a good idea to go broke doing something others care so little about? I say probably not.
And species being disturbed in their habitat? I say “Save the baby humans!” Most people, and that is likely several billions, do not know that well over 99% of all life that has existed on Earth has already gone extinct. What’s a few fish? Remember Charles Darwin’s opus ‘On the Origin of Species’? What ever happened to ‘survival of the fittest’? No, I’m not some knuckle dragger, but the pipe dreams of some have little to do with reality. But, if some species are too dumb to survive, are we just wasting time and human energy trying to save them? Put them in a zoo. Don’t try to revolve the Earth around a fish. There are still plenty of fish in the sea. Perhaps those concerned can do something useful rather than just gripe. They can attempt to teach the salmon to spawn somewhere closer to the ocean. Give it a try. It would be a lot less expensive, and we will still save the baby humans. Ask these fools if they would sacrifice a child for fish.
Once that question is answered you will know what you are dealing with.