This is not true due to the fact that because of the Ilisu Dam, many fisherman, who used the river for fishing would lose their job. Another example is that, the farmers prior to the dam had a lot of land to grow crops and raise livestock. Due to their relocation, they did not have any land to make any money from agriculture and livestock as they did before the dam.

While it does provide jobs for people in need, these jobs will NOT make up the amount of money loss for the dam to be built. For example, the Belo Monte Dam, despite providing 19,000 jobs for the people, will cost by the end of its construction an estimate of 18 billion dollars, an amount that the money that 19,000 jobs cannot make up for. Also, since the dam was originally estimated 13 billion dollars at the end, it shows that the total cost can easily increase.

I disagree. For example, the three gorges dam may have some economic benefits, but this is nothing compared to the million people that were displaced, and potentially millions more if something doesn’t change.

While this is true in most cases, having to provide jobs for those displaced, and monetary compensation, or construction of residences for those people could prove to be very harmful. Countries like China whose debt is 5.3 trillion dollars, should not have to spend this large sum of money on top of the building cost of a dam to provide locals with jobs, homes, or some form of compensation.

Jobs are scarce in the location in which the people are being displaced. Yes the amount of electricity is really necessary for Turkey, but keep in mind that the lifespan of the Ilisu dam is around 50-70 years. Is it worth it to displace over 25 thousand citizens for 50 years?

This is not true due to the fact that because of the Ilisu Dam, many fisherman, who used the river for fishing would lose their job. Another example is that, the farmers prior to the dam had a lot of land to grow crops and raise livestock. Due to their relocation, they did not have any land to make any money from agriculture and livestock as they did before the dam.

Yes, people do have to be just relocated but when you think about it most of the people that have to be relocated are from unprivileged communities. For example, The Narmada Sardar Sarovar Dam, has caused over 200,000 people to be relocated most of which are rely on their farm land for their main source of income . The government states that there will be a R & R program (resettlement & rehabilitation) for the tribal and native community in the area but those ended up be broken promises.

In some countries such as India, Thousands of people are told by the Indian government that they will have to be relocated as their ancestral lands are flooded out every monsoon season. Even though the dam would make up for the shortage of electricity in Turkey, many people are left homeless.

The Belo Monte dam created a lot of problems, as many people protested. It is not benefit the environment, as the rain forest, a place that provides us with 25% of our medicine, is being chopped down to make the Belo Monte dam.

The Belo Monte Dam may not release greenhouse gases, however, parts of a carbon sink within the Amazon rainforest will be depleted. Also, the dam is not that environmentally friendly, as it will cut down 1500 km of the rainforest, which will lead to the loss of natural resources and more.

While what you said is true for the most part, dams have also been known to not only displace locals but also push animals indigenous to the area out of their natural habitat. Take the Three Gorges Dam as an example, this dam ended up causing the extinction of a rare Chinese River Dolphin. Many dams face this issue including a dam in Egypt the Grand Renaissance Dam, which poses a threat to Nile Crocodiles.

When you state "Economically friendly" do you not recognize that most dams lead to deforestation and destruction of land through mass irrigation. An example of deforestation is the Bello monte where already Brazil is facing over deforestation of the rainforest.

I strongly support this argument, since by displacing a few people the number of beneficiaries is a lot larger than the displaced people. Besides, even displaced persons are beneficiaries since in their relocation sites there are a lot more employment opportunities. For example, the relocation sites of the people in the Ilisu dam will create 10,000 new jobs and with the creation of a tourist center, tourism will be given a boost, thereby bringing more income only to the people.

Does the delegate not realise that the sum is over 250,000 and the people are usually left to fend for themselves, ignored by the government. On top of that the delegated has stated that it provides agricultural needs however if the Narmada dam overflows again such as when it did in 2013 it could cripple the economy as it would mean destruction of many crops and property.

I disagree with your argument because you are stating that people will be getting new homes after the old ones have been destroyed, but in reality yes people will be getting new homes, but they will have to pay for them, which some families can not afford, as well as some houses do not fit the needs of families, such as providing sheds for livestock, etc. It would be the same as someone breaking your laptop and then saying "Oh don't worry, Ill give you a new one, but you have to pay me a lot of money for it" it is just unfair to the people who are losing there homes and farms, some even their business for a simple dam, it is a complete violation of human rights.

A small fraction of people that are not benefiting still means something, as they are still people and do not deserve to be treated any differently to the people who are benefiting.

You said dams have positive impacts on agriculture, but some dams, like Narmada Sardar Sarovar dam because the constant irrigation leads to an increase in water salination, which degrades the fertile soil. Therefore, making the land toxic for plant and animal species.

I disagree with your argument mainly because that is not possible, because all the water inside the Ilisu dam is deprived of oxygen, This means that all the minerals required are not reaching the water because of the dam. This area is known as the ecological dead zone because it kills all the fish in the water, and so people will not be able to use the water neither to grow crops and/or eat the food sources inside due to the fact that there will be none.

You said that dams reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but when the Belo Monte Dam is built, it will flood the vegetation in the region. The decaying plants that have submerged in the water will decompose, producing Methe. This greenhouse gas will rise through the water and escape in the atmosphere.

I disagree dams are not "great for the environment". One example is the Narmada Sardar Sarovar Dam, it has caused the soil to be toxic to some species of plants, it has submerges thousands of acres of forest land which even harm many animals that lived there and it increases the risks of earthquakes.

I agree with your statement as 83% of the people who live in Ethiopia will be supplied with cheap and renewable electricity due to the building of the grand renaissance dam.

During your presentation proposing why this dam was negative, you stated that the historical loss will be minimal. How will a 12 THOUSAND year old Ancient city being flooded due to a 50 year project be minimal? As a said before, the Turkish government has set aside 25 million euros to move ancient artifacts and structures from the city of hasankeyf before 2016 but Archeologists say that 80% of the structures and artifacts are too fragile to move and would break.

You also argued that the villagers will move to a modernized Hasankeyf with new facilities. This is a true statement, although the city earned most of its money from tourism as it was a very popular destination for tourist. The dam has a major impact on the villagers along with the tourism and economy.

While dams do provide resources such as electricity, many other resources will be lost, and the project itself will be expensive way to gain other resources. An example would be the Belo Monte Dam. The total cost by the end of its construction is estimated to cost 18 billion US dollars, being a huge economical hit to not only the government, but the society, as well. Also, due to neighboring regions such as sections of the Amazon rainforest being taken down in order to provide space, natural resources such as 25% of medicine found in that region will be lost, and the gain of resources such as electricity will not be able to make up for it.

While dams do provide resources such as electricity, many other resources will be lost, and the project itself will be expensive way to gain other resources. An example would be the Belo Monte Dam. The total cost by the end of its construction is estimated to cost 18 billion US dollars, being a huge economical hit to not only the government, but the society, as well. Also, due to neighboring regions such as sections of the Amazon rainforest being taken down in order to provide space, natural resources such as 25% of medicine found in that region will be lost, and the gain of resources such as electricity will not be able to make up for it.

Although dams do provide a lot of electricity, they will not last for long, the Ilisu dam that you are talking about here was estimated to survive for a maximum of 50 years as it will eventually break down due to sedimentation. You also stated the dams will give push to economies, when in reality they don't. Dams are very expensive to build, for example the Ilisu dam which was built for $38,000,000 completely destroyed the Turkish economy, leaving them even more in debt than they ever were, putting them going more in debt $900/s, which put Turkey in a bad place.

However dams also increase the likelihood of earthquakes, landslides and the such, which can be catastrophic to the towns, and villages surrounding the dam if it ends up collapsing.

Damming some rivers like the Narmada Sardar Sarovar in India will weaken the fertile agricultural soils because of to continuous irrigation rather the seasonal irrigation which is dependent on the monsoon, and salinization, making the soil toxic to many plant species.

Why would anyone need to cross a bridge that they live no where near to? who would be left to cross the bridge after the government re-locates everyone living near-by, making them pay extra as well to get new homes (the homes won't even be any better.) Even if anyone was to cross the bridge, they'd risk many things as it is very dangerous as the likes of Egypt and Sudan are against the building of this dam! Imagine the problems that will be made! how could a country SECRETLY develop a dam?!

Not necessarily, for example once the Ilisu dam is completed it will flood the historic city of Hasankeyf.

I disagree with your argument as dam flood a large area of land which creates the lake. But before the flood there were plants and animals that live on this land. So the animals must leave the area along with many of them dying, such as fish and heavily endangered species. If they die then there will be no more left of them in the world. For example, in the Ilisu dam, there is the soft-shell turtle which only exists in the Tigris and Euphrates. With the dam, it caused the species to become heavily endangered and there will be a lot less in the world as they only exist in these few rivers. Trees and plants die under the water as well, which were a part of the farmers land.

Although I believe your statement about the carbon is true, your statement about it being ecofriendly is not. How is it ecofriendly for a dam to cause the death of thousands of animals beneficial for the environment.

I agree. The hydroelectricity means that the environment will be safe since no pollution or green house emissions will be released into the air.

How about all the money that is used to create this dam? Also you say they are beneficial in all aspects, give examples. Furthermore, the argument isn't about the carbon emissions it is about the water cycle and how the excessive use of water will contribute to unstable weather patterns.

While the Dams might not pollute the air, they certainly aren't eco-friendly. Take the Three Gorges dam for example. The dam has collected a layer of garbage 60 centimeters deep, and 50,000 square meters across.

They are not beneficial economically, as all the countries that are building dams are already in debt, and they will lose even more money by building dams.