The tunnelling world is often keen to promote underground construction as the environmentally acceptable alternative. Whether installing a gas main or nuclear waste storage, tunnelling is usually seen as the best option to minimise surface excavation. So why is it that many underground construction projects still attract the attention of ‘green’ lobbyists? The main reason is all major construction is regarded as bad and the tool of big business.
In this issue our regional focus is on Asia, where economic development or recovery is the number one priority. M M Madan, chief engineer with the Indian National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, has provided us with a comprehensive review of hydroelectric projects in India. The programme shows the determination of India to provide a balanced, easily controlled power supply which is claimed to be environmentally friendly. However, hydroelectric projects worldwide, are currently under heavy ‘green’ pressure.
When those lobbyists object to a construction project, perhaps they should consider likely alternatives. Should power be generated, for example, from fossil fuel with attendant increase in carbon dioxide emissions and global warming? Should the drive be for nuclear power, which, while it may be statistically safe on average, has disastrous consequences if there is total failure? Or perhaps the less fortunate populace is expected to remain underdeveloped. With criticism of one route for development comes a responsibility to state acceptable alternatives.
If the real objectives of infrastructure projects were not to benefit the majority but are to increase the riches of a few, then they would be harder to justify. Similarly, construction for the sake of construction, with little discernible need, as revealed in Japan and some other countries, is long-term folly, even if it keeps the economy afloat in the short term. These are surely the valid targets for environmentalists.
