The four dams on the Klamath River in far Northern California are under relicensing, something that only occurs every 50 years. The dams are owned by billionaire Warren Buffett, who purchased Pacificorp, one of the lowest-cost electricity producers in the United States, three years ago. Many Californians were hopeful this purchase would mean the end to the dams, but their concerns for the salmon fell on deaf ears. Once again, Warren Buffett rebuffed salmon advocates.
On Saturday, May 3, 2008, American Indian tribes and salmon fisherman failed to gain a private audience with Buffett and were ignored at the Berkshire Hathaway Inc. meeting in Omaha, Nebraska. Protesters shouted, “Un-dam the Klamath! Bring the salmon home!“, while shareholders enjoyed complimentary cocktails Friday night. For two years, an unprecedented alliance of tribes, businesses, conservation groups and commercial/recreational fishermen has tried to reach an agreement with Buffett for dam removal. Buffett said that his company would not decide the fate of the Klamath dams, but Berkshire will defer to regulators in California and Oregon. Ironically, dam removal is cheaper than building the fish ladders regulators are recommending.
Salmon fishing has been canceled this year and declared a “disaster” in California and Oregon, largely because of the Sacramento River; however, the previous fisheries disaster was due to the Klamath salmon population. This year’s closure amounts to a loss of $255 million and 2,263 jobs to California coastal communities. Just as hard hit, or even harder hit, are the Native Americans in the region, many who traveled to Omaha in protest of the Klamath dams. “It’s the fight for the salmon, and it’s the fight for our species,” said Yurok member Frankie Myers. The salmon have not had full access to the Klamath River since the first dam was built in 1916.
Related posts on the Klamath River and Salmon:
Why the Klamath Dams Don’t Provide “Green” Energy
Sobering News for This Fish Lover
I had read in Grist on April 15 that Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway had cancelled six proposed coal plants, but now it seems that opposition to building new coal plants is spreading, among Wall Street investors and the American public. Back in August 2007, 1600 Utahans signed a petition asking Buffett to cut Rocky Mountain Power’s dependence on coal, with the added message that Utahans want their utilities to investigate cleaner energy sources.
The most recent issue of Solar Today includes an article by Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute about the public outcry all across American which, in addition to the cost of the plants, has led to the cancellation of hundreds of coal plant construction projects. And a survey conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation, published yesterday, shows that “79% of respondents would prefer to try and meet demand through greater energy-efficiency and conservation before building more coal-fired plants. Only 19% say they disagree.” With that kind of public opposition, it’s not surprising that Wall Street is cooling on coal plants, too. According to Brown:
- “In July, Citigroup downgraded coal company stocks across the board and recommended that its clients switch to other energy stocks.
- In January, Merrill Lynch downgraded coal stocks.
- In early February, investment banks Morgan Stanley, Citi and J.P. Morgan Chase announce that any future lending for coal-fired power would be contingent on the demonstration that the plants can be economically viable under future federal restrictions on carbon emissions.
- On Feb. 13, Bank of America followed suit. “
Follow the money. It appears that Wall Street is ready to look toward the future; now the only question is: will our government stop putting up road blocks?
]]>
