I endorse fully Mike Muller!
Suffice to say that enough damage has been done already by an agenda 'motivated' to kill dams (and storage that went along with it) in almost many parts of the world. But for this new wave that emerged since the last two decades, the world was moving slowly to create storage (large and small) wherever this was feasible. This action was decelerated so much with negative propoganda on dams so much that the world is facing with worse water security (and of course, energy, food and environmental security - in the face of GCC). To argue that science backs the agenda of 'no dams' by floating a topic of the sort by any reputed Institution and try to work towards goals that would result in widening gap in water availability and needs to secure food, energy and water in many parts of the world (which remained dormant in the last century in water harnessing) is but unfortunate! Is it an extension of the committed agenda of WCD in a different style?
I endorse fully Mike Muller!
Suffice to say that enough damage has been done already by an agenda 'motivated' to kill dams (and storage that went along with it) in almost many parts of the world. But for this new wave that emerged since the last two decades, the world was moving slowly to create storage (large and small) wherever this was feasible. This action was decelerated so much with negative propoganda on dams so much that the world is facing with worse water security (and of course, energy, food and environmental security - in the face of GCC). To argue that science backs the agenda of 'no dams' by floating a topic of the sort by any reputed Institution and try to work towards goals that would result in widening gap in water availability and needs to secure food, energy and water in many parts of the world (which remained dormant in the last century in water harnessing) is but unfortunate! Is it an extension of the committed agenda of WCD in a different style?