25,000 Olympic swimming pools worth of sediment- and waste-heavy water recently broke loose in Minas Gerais, Brazil when two dams collapsed in a mining accident.

13 people have died, 6 are missing and hundreds were displaced from their home.

And the ecological impact of the flood could be felt for years.  

The mining companies responsible for the collapse--BHP and Vale--immediately committed to pay $261 million USD for the harm. This is surprising because many companies refuse to pay for accidents until a court orders them to(see Chevron in Ecuador and BP in New Jersey, US), so for them to immediately admit fault suggests they don’t want to get tangled in lawsuits. Vale is regarded by some as the worst company in the world for its exploitative practices. With this in mind, it's not surprising that the Brazilian government has sued the company (which used to be state-owned) for $5 billion in USD damages. 

Brazil has been one of the biggest proponents of hydroelectric power alongside China, the US and Canada, and this latest disaster gives fresh urgency to criticisms of the energy source. I wrote about the 5 biggest dams in the world not too long ago and raised several concerns about hydro power.

Here’s a closer look at 3 things to think about in the wake of the dam collapse:

1/ Energy has to be viewed holistically

For humans to generate energy to use, they have to extract it somehow. Traditionally, humans have extracted energy from fossil fuels or natural gas deep in the ground or from coal in mines, which are abundant and effective sources. This “dirty” energy has obvious ecological and social impacts, with pollution being at the top of the list and it has to be abandoned as soon as possible.

Image: Alfred T Palmer


Solar energy extracts energy from the sun. Pros: minimal environmental impact, easily deployable technology and on pace to become efficient. Cons: solar panels can take up a lot of space, alter environments and displace wildlife.


Wind energy is self evident. Pros: highly clean and renewable source of energy. Cons: the huge blades of windmills can devastate bird populations and can be noisy or ugly to look at.

Image: Source- Wikimedia Commons- Rosser1954

Nuclear power breaks apart or fuses together nuclear molecules. Pros: no near-term pollution and relatively effective. Cons: nuclear waste is very hard to dispose of and extremely toxic and unstable. The process also uses a large amount of fresh water.

Hydroelectric power takes energy from forceful rivers. Pros: yields lots of energy. Cons: disrupts land ecosystems, kills fish populations, changes the composition of water, displaces communities and economies.

Hydroelectric power is arguably the most disruptive “clean” energy source. Oftentimes, dams are proposed as “clean” energy alternatives that are, by that labelling, beyond criticism.

Image: Wikimedia: Gugganij

But communities can’t just adopt a new energy model without assessing the consequences. How are the local people affected? How are food and water supplies affected? How are animals and wildlife affected? These, and other, questions have to be asked.

All energy sources have to be adapted to the environment to minimize harm. If the harm is too great, maybe it’s time to seek out a different source. In the case of the Brazil dam breaches, the harm looks obviously too much.

2/ Energy use has to be cut down

Point 1 leads directly to point 2. Humanity uses too much energy--in particular wealthy, developed nations use too much energy. This year, humanity went into ecological debt on August 12th, meaning it used up a year’s worth of resources in a little more than 8 months, which makes it hard for the Earth to replenish its resources.

Scientists estimate that humanity has emitted two-thirds of the carbon amount that, if adhered to, would keep global warming under the disastrous 2 degrees celsius mark. Countries are emitting more carbon today than ever before and this number is expected to rise in the years to come, making it very likely that the budget will be exceeded.

The hydroelectric dams in Brazil were built to meet the country’s energy demands, to wean the country off coal and oil and reduce its carbon emissions.  

If energy was used more efficiently by infrastructure and if, in general, societies used less energy, then the need to find any alternative to dominant energies would be less urgent.

This issue is most apparent in the US, where per capita energy use is far higher than anywhere else in the world. Though it is a growing issue in economically emergent Brazil.

As the world confronts climate change, cutting down on energy consumption will have to be a part of any solution.

3/ How can the public stand up to big energy interests?

Energy companies tend to steer the energy direction of a country. They have a lot of political clout--after all, they generate energy and are immensely profitable. In the US, many clean energy initiatives are slowed or halted because they would take market share (profit) away from oil companies.

Some US states with ties to the oil industry, for instance, are looking to replace solar subsidies with taxes to make solar power less viable.

The world has to move in a clean energy direction. This is clear. But how can this be done when the levers of energy power tend to be held by the very people who oppose alternative energy?

Image: Flickr: Dave Campbell

Well, the world seems to finally be waking up to the threat posed by climate change. The recent Keystone Pipeline victory by the environmental movement in the US signals that a shift has occurred, that leaders are willing to spend short-term political points to protect the planet in the long-term.

It took 7 years for Keystone to become a victory, which is a very long time. Not many fights over a single pipeline can take that long. But it popularized the urgency of climate change, making it more likely for future eco-victories to occur.

The Keystone Pipeline is distinct from hydropower--clearly. Hydropower is not as environmentally harmful as tar sand oil. But the perseverance and political influence of the Keystone opponents show that broad movements of protest can beat out energy giants.

Many communities around the world oppose the construction of hydroelectric dams and courageously oppose corporate interests. But when local groups with little financial backing stand up for their rights, they are usually defeated and displaced.

But this imbalance of power can be changed if governments become more transparent and committed to fair energy strategies. As governments around the world pursue the idea of clean, fair energies, then the power equation will change and basic principles will be adopted around the world.   

During COP21, world leaders have the chance to put forward bold plans to cut carbon emissions. That’s the most important thing. But they also have the chance to elevate basic human and environmental concerns to the top of the conversation so that all energy decisions in the future can be dealt with holistically.

In other words, the world’s leaders have the power to stop a future ecological disaster like the one in Brazil.

You can go to TAKE ACTION NOW to call for 100% renewable, clean and safe energy around the world.

TopicsEnvironmentenergyNewsHydroelectric Power

Editorial

Defend the Planet

A harsh look at hydropower after 2 dams collapse in Brazil

By Joe McCarthy