News

Death by Dam for the Mekong River

–

A woman is shown watching boats pass the Pak Beng pier on the Mekong River in northern Laos

PAK BENG – The sleepy town of Pak Beng, Laos, best known as a stopover for slow boats connecting the Laos-Thailand border to the ancient Lao capital of Luang Prabang, will be transformed later this year by the launch of a third major hydro-dam on the lower Mekong River.

Only 180 kilometers away, Thai communities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) along another section of the Mekong are lobbying for the dam to be stopped to prevent negative impacts on fisheries, crops and livelihoods.

The US$2.4 billion Pak Beng dam, a 912-megawatt hydropower project being developed by China Datang Overseas Investment, a Beijing-based power development company, will export 90% of its generated electricity to Thailand.

Thailand’s privately held Electricity Generating PCL, or EGCO, and the Lao Ministry of mines are also key shareholders in the venture.

Workers pass a bank of signs in Mandarin titled “Datang (Laos) Pak Beng Hydropower Plant right bank road,” which list the Chinese contractors on the road-building project, along with safety information for workers. Photo: Jenny Denton

–

The dam’s plan came under heavy fire during the six-month consultation process concluded in June organized by the Mekong River Commission – an intergovernmental body that brings together the four riparian states of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam towards the goal of sustainable development of the region’s water resources.

The MRC’s panel of experts found many flaws in the dam’s design and a lack of credible environmental impact studies, Le Anh Tuan, a Mekong expert at Can Tho University located in Vietnam’s Mekong delta, told Asia Times.

“Laos should take additional time for consultation and delay the construction plan for Pak Beng dam because all the environmental impact figures of the project are very backward, insufficient and fail to follow international standards.”

Mekong River in the morning in Pak Beng – Lao

–

Those concerns, however, are not expected to deter its developers. The rush to build a cascade of 11 mainstream dams on the lower Mekong has been driven by China’s construction of six dams upstream and Beijing’s eagerness to push development downstream into Laos as a springboard into mainland Southeast Asia.

With Mekong riparian neighbors Cambodia, Laos and Thailand all being wooed by Chinese loans, aid and construction projects, critics say concerns about environmental harm have been pushed aside in a rush to cash-in on lucrative investment projects.

The Lao government claims that the income from hydropower exports is essential to lift the country out of its status as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (Asean) poorest member. Landlocked and underdeveloped, the country has aimed to position itself as a hydro-electric “battery” for the region’s rising energy demand.

Daovong Phonekeo, permanent secretary at the Lao Ministry of Energy, has argued the Pak Beng dam would “promote economic growth and reduce the poverty rate.”

In addition to China’s six upstream dams on the upper Mekong, known in China as the Lancang, the Pak Beng dam will tighten its hold over the region’s hydrology and Beijing’s rising geo-political hegemony over Southeast Asia’s longest and most strategically important river.

China is not a MRC member and has set up a rival organization – the Lancang Mekong Coordination Mechanism (LMC) – as an alternative framework for the region’s water resource management.

The biggest challenge to the Mekong’s dams has been launched in northern Thailand, led by an NGO network spanning eight provinces known as ‘Chiang Khong Conservation’ based in the international river border town of the same name.

Environmental activists hold up pictures of natural resources and activities of people living in communities along the Mekong River, outside the Administrative Court 08 June 2017. – Photo AFP

–

Niwat Roykaew is the group’s founder and plaintiff in a court case filed against the Thai Water Resources Department and the Thai National Mekong Committee, state authorities that have lent support to the dam.

“We accuse the Thai state agencies [for] failing to carry out their duties,” he says, insisting they should have studied impacts before supporting the dam. No hearings have been held in the case, which was filed on June 8.

Time is of the essence, experts say. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Mekong specialist Marc Goichot claims the river has now reached an ecological “tipping point” due to all the dams that have been built in recent years.

“Fisheries are declining, river erosion is increasing at an alarming rate and the Delta is sinking,” Goichot said. “Many things are contributing to these problems, including land use change, intensifying agriculture and industry, sand and gravel mining, and climate change is aggravating all. But large dams are the prime suspects.”

The simmering conflict over water resource conservation and power generation projects has exposed that there never was a shared good governance and environmentally sound vision for the Mekong

Earlier there was hope that the MRC, established under the multilateral 1995 Mekong Agreement, could fulfil its mandate to protect the delicate river region. The first Strategic Environment Assessment on the Mekong, released by MRC in 2010, recommended a moratorium on all Mekong mainstream dams for ten years while further scientific studies were carried out.

Under the 1995 agreement’s established consultation process, major infrastructure projects like dams on the mainstream of the Mekong must be submitted to the MRC’s headquarters in Vientiane for consultation and review by member states. Laos, a signatory to the agreement, refused to even consider the report, according to Jeremy Bird, the MRC’s chief executive officer at the time.

The MRC secretariat, meanwhile, allowed the report to gather dust despite the fact Vietnam and Cambodia endorsed its findings. The simmering conflict over water resource conservation and power generation projects has exposed that there never was a shared good governance and environmentally sound vision for the Mekong.

Inside the MRC, the official Mekong delegations of Cambodia and Vietnam had earlier strongly opposed the construction of Laos’ Xayaburi dam, another massive hydroproject on the Mekong that Thailand and Laos support. The Pak Beng dam, backed by the Lao and Thai governments and opposed by downstream Cambodia and Vietnam, has followed suit.

A Thai fisherman on the Mekong river in Wiang Kaen, a district in the northern Thai province of Chiang Rai bordering Laos. Photo – Christophe Archambault

–

In the eyes of civil society and MRC donor countries, any hope that the commission would resolve environmental and water conflicts has receded with each new dam’s log-jammed consultations. The dams’ impact on fisheries is of particular concern.

According to MRC data released in 2015, wild capture fisheries on the Mekong contributed US$11 billion to the four Mekong countries’ economies. The catch is a crucial source of protein for the still largely impoverished region.

Pham Tuan Pham, the MRC’s current chief executive admitted during the Pak Beng consultations that “the dams on the Mekong River will cause certain impacts to the ecosystems throughout the basin”, but also made the controversial claim that “hydropower on the Great Mekong will not kill the river – I think we should understand this point clearly.”

“I wonder: just how dead is dead?’” asked Philip Hirsch, former director of the Mekong Research Center at the University of Sydney, in response to the comment. “The overwhelming evidence shows that the full cascade of mainstream dams will leave the Mekong severely disabled.”

He said the MRC is playing an “overly cautious game” of trying not to offend governments rather than taking care of the river. Pham has since claimed in email correspondence with Asia Times that “my remarks have been taken out of context.”

The US-based Stimson Center, a think tank, argues that there are several rational cost-effective alternatives to hydro-power, including solar and wind, to meet the fast-growing region’s spiking energy needs.

In its 2017 report Mekong Power Shift: Emerging Trends in the GMS Power Sector, Stimson contends that a policy shift is needed to deal with the environmental and social fallout of large-scale hydropower development in the region.

Brian Eyler, director of the Stimson Center’s Southeast Asia program, says there is an urgent need for new policy thinking. “We try to steer the thinking away from hydropower,” he said.

But while evidence mounts of the ill-effects of damming on the Mekong and civil society mount challenges to the state power driving the lucrative projects, Pak Beng will mostly likely be the next dam to block the Mekong’s fading flow.

By Tom Fawthrop
Asia Times

Read more articles by Tom Fawthrop click here

Another Realated article from Asian Times: Despite the risks, Laos goes ahead with Pak Beng Dam

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP