ABSTRACT
Impact Study (EIA) claims emissions would be negligible, this dam, along with at least one other that would be needed upstream to supply water for Belo Monte’s turbines in the dry season, would have a negative impact on global warming for at least 41 years, with the magnitude of the impact exceeding that of greater São Paulo during the rst ten years (Fearnside 2009a, b). This negative impact is based on comparison with the same energy generation with fossil fuels. Of course, the relative impact of the dams would be worse if compared with measures to increase the eciency of electricity use or to generate with sources like wind and solar power. The option of simply not generating this electricity, part of which would be exported to other countries in the form of aluminum ingots, would give the best result (Fearnside 2016a). The idea that hydroelectric dams produce “clean energy,” which is constantly repeated by the Brazilian government and by the hydroelectric and aluminum industries, is what dominates the view of the public.
