“The court’s naked bias against the use of rivers for hydroelectric projects is demonstrated by its words, ‘damage wrought by exploitation of the waterway.” Using this reasoning, it would be impossible to use any river for hydroelectric power.” “Environmental organizations routinely oppose the construction of dams for hydroelectric power, i.e., clean renewable energy, while professing that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are an existential threat to mankind.” “Such opposition against carbon-free capacity dwarfs, capacity-wise, support for wind and solar. How ironic, then, that the public policy program of the climate activists might be net CO2 positive.”

Back in 1992, a writer for Energy Daily [1] noticed something. “A strange thing happened to hydropower on its way to the sustainable energy ball: the party’s environmentalist hosts withdrew their invitation.” Daniel Kaplan continued:

Long a favorite of sustainable energy groups opposed to more traditional fuels … in the last 10 years environmentalists have turned on hydropower. . . . Suddenly hydro is being mentioned in the same breath with coal, oil and nuclear–precisely the fuels hydro, touted early on as an environmentally benign energy source, was to replace. Today environmentalists talk of “non-hydro renewables” like wind, solar and biomass.”

And a quarter-century later, the environmental war against the largest US source of renewable energy continues. This month, Greenwire reported “Greens score big win over Alabama hydropower project” as environmental groups obtain a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Two environmental groups, Alabama Rivers and Alabama Rivers Alliance, filed a petition back in 2013 to bring the current verdict.