Lowering sea level.

[All Seeing Eye]

Ah, I see. I mistook your original spec of "extremely wide" for "extremely large", and took that to mean there would only be a few of them.

Well everyones idea of an "extremely wide" for "extremely large" river or estuary will vary depending on the person.

 

[RobertScorpio]

In digging out all that land, you'd expend more power than the hydro would generate back.

It's not about generating power, that's just an addition to it, the whole idea is to prevent sea level rise, sea level rise that will kill millions of people and destroy the Netherlands.

Okay, but I'm just noting that your suggestion about generating power is not an advantage.



I mean that you're merely displacing a large amount of water from one place to another. To lower sea level, you have to flood somewhere else. You don't gain any total land area, but you do lose a lot of existing land that has potential use... if it's not already in use. Hope there are no people there already! Maybe they can move to the Netherlands.

The only thing you'd accomplish is to mess up a lot of existing infrastructure and destroy a lot of wildlife.

Are you kidding, the new rivers and estuary's will be a new place for wildlife to thrive.

After you destroy the wildlife that was already there. This is all right with you?

Besides, what kind of new wildlife would thrive around a river full of salt water?

Well, to be honest? I could hardly care what harm would come to any animals if OPs idea came true. I don't care because not enough people care to care. Be it the USA, or CHINA, or INDIA or Russia...anything that can be done to save humanity, that may cause loss of wildlife or spawning areas, will be done because it has always been done. People like to live. People would rather live than care about frogs in a pond or Bears in a forrest. If you don't believe me then you are denying the past 600+ years of our existence...

I am for PEOPLE!!!! I love people!!!! I can mate with PEOPLE!!! Animals??? sorry...they should have evolved quicker. They are there to look at and to eat..and that's just about it. Humanity decided long ago what an animal's fate would; which is why so many animals are extinct. And this basic will to live and make our lives easier and full of materialistic desires isn't just an Anglo/saxon thingy; it has been part of our human expansion. Just ask the Mamoths and the Bison...they were not hunted to extinction by us. It has been decided that prehistoric men, and those just after the last ice age, had a lot to do with the fate of those two animals...Humans like to have sex..and eat..and have little babies. (and will be the same when we get into space IMO)

May sound selfish? But oh well. Until proven otherwise, thats what pretty much has been happening since the moment the other tribe wanted the women of another tribe and bigger huts..

Rob