Honestly, I don’t think what I (or anyone else of common stock) thinks about this issue is worth very much. Insane individuals and industries run this world and control the narratives on all sides. Any significant opposition to the monied elite’s hegemonic interests is controlled opposition; bought and paid for through mechanisms of toxic philanthropy. I believe this is true of the NGO environmental organizations that appear to be in opposition to the industrialization of the natural world. United Nations Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development has misdirected environmentalist opposition very effectively. The process has channeled their efforts in ways that provide more investment opportunities for the largest companies that have caused the most environmental harm. Rather than challenge the narratives that have allowed for these environmental issues to persist, the environmental NGOs are giving them an opportunity to broaden their investment portfolios. The catch 22 of Dam installation or removal is no different. (This interesting research paper on the Del Monte Dam Proposal in Brazil, I think spells out the set up pretty well:
Abstract
Belo Monte is one of the most divisive dams in Brazilian history, becoming entangled in a thirty-year struggle between pro- and anti-dam interests over the role of the facility within a complex web of Brazilian development and the future of the Brazilian Amazon. This research explores how the proponents of Belo Monte have adopted a number of policy frames as a means of deflection, to divide the opposition and legitimize the project. It investigates this claim by analyzing speeches given within the Brazilian Câmara dos Deputados and the public speeches of high-level politicians. These sources, organized around a framework previously identified by Ahlers et al. (2014), show that the government and individual politicians have used a variety of framing devices to legitimize the hydroelectric facility. Principal methods of framing used also demonstrate how contemporary narratives (e.g. sustainability) have been employed to deflect opposition criticism and widen the scheme’s perceived beneficiaries. In doing so, this paper demonstrates how the transformation represented by Belo Monte encompassed not only a process of engineering but also a re-articulation of the complex and its role in modern Brazil.
Even though I am of the opinion that resistance is currently futile when it comes to massive public works projects, I think it is important to get my thoughts out anyway… for the record.
Here ye’ here ye…. Let it be known that I am in support of dam breaching when it is in the interest of creating a more natural river that supports wild fish runs and takes away human and wildlife dependency on massive unnatural infrastructures and global industries; especially those infrastructures that are operated through massive public/ private partnerships. Unfortunately, any of the proposals that are gaining prominence among the various river and salmon advocacy organizations, regarding the removal of the 4 LSR dams, falls far short of achieving this. What is being proposed promotes the interest of industry over efficiency and individual sovereignty and advances the global technocracy. The solutions proposed will lead to other environmental consequences and put vital Salmon habitat at risk.
While I think breaching the 4 Lower Snake River Dams will improve salmon runs, I don’t think it will save the wild Salmon, which will still have to migrate through all the other dams, all the way up to the dead-end dams on the Snake River and on the Columbia. These proposals will also require that the fish and the communities be dependent on the same energy industry sponsored public/ private partnerships to exist. As well, they will continue to be subject to the largest issue to survival, the ocean conditions.
I think the research has shown that, unless delayed mortality in the estuaries is the largest factor, the fish losses in the ocean, due to ocean conditions are far more significant than losses in the river. I think ocean conditions are influenced by natural phenomenon that are still not well understood, despite the fact that technocratic, (not-so) “green”, industry mitigation programs are being implemented as if they were. I think much of the natural cycles and other phenomenon in the ocean are minimized under the campaign to blame everything on manmade climate change; a campaign which creates unscientific, money driven speculation, generates too much dependency on computer modeling, creates useful scapegoats, makes the science prone to confirmation biases and promotes “solutions” that run counter to solving the underlying problems. (The underlying problem is that we are trying to fit the natural world into a computer simulation of a natural world in the interest of the monied elite who wish to surveille and control all aspects of our existence).
I think there are man-made factors contributing to ocean conditions that do not get enough attention and are not considered in the research being done by any of the resource management and other agencies. This would include geoengineering operations such as iron-dumping, stratospheric aerosol spraying and other weather modification programs. Another manmade factor is pollution from multiple sources, most significantly from nuclear energy facilities like Fukushima.
I see that the current government proposals, such as the Simpson plan and whatever Governor Inslee and the Sleepy Joe administration are cooking up, are offering 4 LSR dam breaching solutions that propose replacing the energy loss with a multitude of (not-so) “green” power generators (like wind, solar, small nuclear reactors (SMR’s), etc…). Shifting to these energy replacements will lead to more technocracy and more environmental harm. The Simpson and Biden plans also come with a price tag that runs into the multi-billions, which will likely lead to increases in costs to the consumers. They will also do nothing to decrease dependency on government and their industry sponsors. A more sensible and efficient strategy should include the decentralization of the energy grid. (Perhaps there is someone out there that knows if the current dam infrastructures, that will be left after the breaching, could be converted into smaller, run of the river energy generators that could provide limited power and jobs to local communities?)
I have found it quite difficult to read through the reports on these plans and come up with any specific details about energy replacement. They keep those portions of the proposals pretty ambiguous and include a great deal of cryptic technical electricity jargon. They fail to detail anything regarding the inputs required for the modern (not-so) “green” technologies, such as what is required to obtain the materials, such as lithium and antimony, obtained through trace mineral mining. The whole scoping process undertaken by resource management organization and councils leave the common tax and ratepayer at a disadvantage to understand much of anything about what he or she is paying for. This process makes people confused about the costs and benefits of the modern technologies they have become dependent upon which, in turn, makes them suggestable and exploitable to those governments and industries that are invested in these technologies.
Unintended Consequences
Part of the opposition to removal of the 4 LSR dams is the loss of power they generate to serve an ever-demanding, energy obsessed populous. If a proposal is to be considered, it stands to reason that it would have to include a strategy to make up the difference. This seems to be the part of the equation that is most prone to exploitation, an area were river and Salmon advocacy organizations, under the influence of climate change fear porn, worship of industrial scale (not-so) “green” energy infrastructure and willful ignorance rue the day. There seems to be no interest by the current environmental community to consider all the costs, in terms of environmental harm and sovereignty, that is imposed on the natural world by the (not-so) “green”/ (un)sustainable energy solutions.
“THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH CORPORATE PROFITS AND COMPROMISED NGOS”
Wrong Kind of Green Blog
Evidence of this is seen when Idaho River’s United (IRU) expresses their support of the Simpson and Inslee/Biden plans that propose the trace mineral dependent (not-so) “green” energy solutions. You would think it would occur to these environmental advocates that both plans run in direct opposition to their interest in saving Salmon from the potential harm from strategic mineral mining. You see it stated by Perpetua Industries in their Stibnite mining project on the South Fork of the Salmon River how vital their mining project is to our (not-so) “green” energy future. IRU is in direct contradiction when they support the Simpson and Biden energy plans and oppose the Stibnite mining project. (Note too that the environmentally devastating wars and toxic military adventurism, which Perpetua Industries claims of mining antimony in the interest of “national defense”, is very much tied in with strategic mineral mining and development. Seems to me like a potential conflict of interest. I’ve written many articles about the toxic dynamics of our bi-partisan war policy and the mountains of BS that feeds it).
From technology and defense applications to grid capacity storage batteries, the critical mineral antimony is key to achieving a more sustainable and secure future. Yet, the United States has no domestically mined sources of antimony and China, Russia and Tajikistan control more than 90 percent of global production (USGS 2020). Dependance on these countries puts our supply chain, and our future at risk.
Another mineral, whose extraction for (not-so) “green” energy (specifically small nuclear reactors), that puts salmon habitat at risk is thorium. Thorium exists in most abundance in the Lemhi region… as in most abundant in the entire world! The Lemhi River feeds the Salmon River in areas that provide the most beneficial habitat to Idaho’s salmon. The inevitable path the technological solutions will lead us down is toward more toxic mining, more toxic waste and more proliferation of harmful radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing). IRU seems to have no foresight on these concerning issues.
With President Biden’s plan to drastically shift the U.S. toward electric vehicles3, requiring much more power from our current electricity grid, and the United Nations’ climate goals to reduce global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius4 annually; we believe Thorium is in the beginning stages of being “rediscovered” as a potential source of high output/low risk energy to work in concert with wind and solar power.
Domestically, Thorium and Uranium nuclear fuel investment has begun to pick-up. In December of 2021 Clean Core Thorium Energy, Texas A&M, and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) fabricated the first sample pellets of ANEEL (Advanced Nuclear Energy for Enriched Life) fuel, which combines Thorium and HALEU (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium) to create a next generation nuclear fuel. ANEEL is designed to operate in certain types of existing reactors (PHWR reactors) to reduce waste up to 80%, as well as minimize cost and eliminate nuclear proliferation5. The fortunate serendipity of our Thorium land package at Lemhi Pass is that it is relatively close to Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), the world’s premier nuclear test reactor, per INL website6. In addition to its close proximity to INL, Our Lemhi Pass Thorium project is close in proximity and geology to our central Idaho Rare Earth Element properties, Diamond Creek and Roberts. As noted in a number of USGS and other publications, Lemhi Pass itself is believed to contain Rare Earth Elements that have the potential to be produced as a byproduct of Thorium production.
Idaho Strategic Resources, INC
Mike Simpson is “ALL IN” on this insanity.
As Chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been proud to promote increased funding and research opportunities at the INL for programs such as NGNP and Advanced Fuel Cycle Research and development as well as to renovate existing buildings and build new buildings at the Lab, purchase new equipment and operate the Advanced Test Reactor as a National Scientific User Facility. I have also used my position to promote nuclear research and the nuclear industry at large. Rest assured, I will continue to work with my colleagues to support increased funding for nuclear energy research and to advance initiatives that promote nuclear energy in Idaho and throughout the country.
Senator Mike Simpson
Obtaining trace minerals requires a great deal of destructive, landscape altering energy input. Obtaining access to these minerals also has a huge influence on geo-politics. Wars are often waged over such minerals. What’s more devastating to the environment and has a larger carbon footprint than war? Why does the “carbon footprint” obsessed “environmentalists” always fail to consider this concern? I think it is because the NGOs are bought and paid for by various global industries (including human rights advocacy organizations) that are very much invested in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Whether they know it or not, they are ever serving the enslavement of the global population under a technocratic global grid that is environmentally damaging, in many ways beyond just the Salmon runs. The environmental community is stepping into a Catch 22. I think many, maybe even most, are aware of this but don’t have the courage to confront it. In the end the most prominent and outspoken in these organizations are misleaders of the masses; arriving in their positions because they can believe the nonsense they espouse and have no awareness of the contradictions or are able to gracefully maintain a willing ignorance. Ultimately, they are serving to align the opposition in support of this diabolical 4IR, Agenda 2030, (not-so) “sustainable”, Great Reset future in ways that achieve the objectives they appear to be opposing. They are guided by the carrot and stick, down to the local level, and can always be bought. This is how fascism works. It’s how it’s always worked.
The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.
Vladimir Lenin
Here are some links that provide some interesting insight. These are thoughts, ideas and scientific supporting materials that I don’t see get much attention.
Practical Solutions for Salmon Passage
This is a link provided to me by my friend who writes articles on her blog site “Idahoan’s Against Agenda 21” (a very well-considered and well-researched individual and website that everyone should consider checking out!). All things being equal, I think this proposal provides that best solution to the dam problem.
Advantages Of Using This Method
- This method would leave 95% of the present existing infrastructure in place, keep the clean energy hydro power production, provide the water storage needed to provide agriculture and domestic water if the Global Warming conditions prove true. It will also allow continued use of the lakes behind the dams for recreation, barging and warm water fishing.
- It will provide a continuous unimpeded flow of water from Lewiston, Idaho to the river below Bonneville Dam allowing the smolts to avoid all of the fatal hazards now affecting their passage and deaths. This also is the method that will save the Red Fish Lake run of Sockeye by providing an unimpeded continuous flow of water back to the spawning grounds for returning salmon. I contend this, as the Sockeye run has now dwindled nearly beyond recovery with the dams in place, and as the temperature of the water has not changed from pre-settlement conditions by more than 1.5 F, these two factors undeniably identify the only logical method to save the run will require a moving body of water like a river.
- By utilizing solar panels periodically along its length this artificial channel, and the body of water within it, could be aerated as required and if needed, operate cooling stations when needed. The panels will also provide power for camera observation and allow pumping water from the canal to water trees for natural shading as is recommended by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and EPA for cooling of streams and rivers along the entire length.
- It will eliminate the majority of fish predation of smolts and with a 60’ width can easily be screened in areas where avian predation is prominent.
- It is also a more economic utilization of water. In 2020, Idaho was required to deliver 487,000 acre-feet of water for salmon recovery and Oregon was required to deliver 267,000 acre-feet. Washington has no published allocation of water for salmon recovery. The proposed canal (artificial river) would require a flow of less than 434,380 acre feet annually. This would allow both Idaho and Oregon the annual beneficial use of 319,629 acre feet of water for agriculture.
- As it will be an independent flow of water, where and when needed, the water flow can be diverted for needed repairs.
- The design of the canal should include periodic riffles, pools, with cobbles along the bottom similar to the natural riverine conditions. This flow notably drops only 1.9’ per mile, but the spillway action of the flow descending at each dam will aid in the flow speed of the water through this channel.
- Public viewing sights should be established, and to accommodate Tribal Treaties with the U.S. it will be necessary to provide periodic locations to allow a limited number of salmon to be harvested. This will require an enforceable agreement with the affected tribes.
A No-Nonsense Overview of Wireless Radiation Harm Based on a Preponderance of the Scientific Evidence (cited in article):
Radio Wave Packet
What You Need to Know about Wireless Technology
by
Arthur Firstenberg
President, Cellular Phone Task Force
A “Barney Stylez” Breakdown of the 4IR Future Complete with Pictures!
Modern Indigenous Perspectives 