Dirty Hydro Parading as a Clean Technology at Climate Talks

By: 
Payal Parekh

Hydropower, a dinosaur technology
Hydropower, a dinosaur technology
The large number of industry lobbyists running around the climate talks makes one wonder whether it's a venue to hammer out a deal to save the planet or if it's an industry trade show. You can bet that the hydro industry is here in full force. They managed to get an interview on the UN's climate change video channel espousing myths about hydro being clean and green.

And a couple of evenings ago in a side event about global feed-in tariffs, a representative of the International Hydropower Association (IHA) was on the panel talking about how hydropower is a technology that deserves to be supported. Feed-in tariffs are a policy measure that supports the purchase of renewables and aims to make them competitive with conventional energy sources. They allow renewables to compete with energy sources until their price of production comes down. For instance, Germany has successfully implemented feed-in tariffs to support solar power.

But hydropower is not a new technology and it definitely has no problem being profitable due to the large number of government subsidies it receives – in fact, about 16 percent of the world's electricity is drawn from hydropower. Furthermore, in tropical regions, dams are not climate neutral. They release methane (CH4), a greenhouse gas that is approximately 25 times more potent than CO2.  A new study has even documented significant methane emissions from a temperate run-of-river reservoir in Bern, Switzerland. When I asked the IHA representative about it, he gave a wishy-washy answer. First, he said that IHA was not denying this and had recently come out with guidelines on how to measure greenhouse gas emissions from dams. In the same breath, he said that there was a debate as to whether dams actually produced significant amounts of greenhouse gases or not. If the emissions from reservoirs are not that significant, why did the IHA go through so much trouble to come up with a methodology for quantifying emissions? I guess he hadn't read the research coming out of major peer-reviewed journals. Our factsheet, Dirty Hydro provides a great summary. 

Energy Poverty: Access to energy (TPES) vs. Quality of Life (HDI)
Energy Poverty: Access to energy (TPES) vs. Quality of Life (HDI)
The problem with hydro trying to access this funding is that it is not a new technology, is already heavily subsidized, and needs no further help being competitive. Furthermore, the idea behind a global feed-in tariff is being pushed by the UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs as a way to close the energy poverty gap. If one plots access to energy (see figure) against the human development index, it is clear that access to energy improves the quality of life. At some point this relationship forms an asymptote.

Yet, dams actually displace those who are energy poor and puts them at an even greater disadvantage. The World Commission on Dams estimates that between 40 - 80 million people have been displaced by dams worldwide and only a small minority have been adequately compensated.

Unfortunately, it seems that the hydropower industry is still up to its usual dirty tricks co-opting climate change to breath life into a dying dinosaur technology. Luckily, International Rivers is keeping a close watch and dispelling their myths.