Connect with us

News

Mekong River Being ‘Dammed’ with Uncertainty by China and Laos

Thailand News , Chiang Rai Times , CTN News Thailand, CTN, news, world news, Thailand , top news, interesting news , blog , thailand news , top news , today’s news , best news , good news , phuket thailand, bangkok thailand,thailand tourism,bangkok tourism , bangkok news, thailand travel, thailand vacation, news Thailand ข่าว, เชียงรายไทม์, CTN News, ประเทศไทย, CTN, ข่าว, ข่าวโลก, ประเทศไทย, เชียงราย, ข่าวเด่น, ข่าวที่น่าสนใจ, บล็อก, ข่าวในประเทศไทย, ข่าวเด่น, ข่าววันนี้, ข่าวดี, ข่าวดี, phuket thailand, กรุงเทพประเทศไทย, เที่ยวไทย, เที่ยวกรุงเทพ, ข่าวกรุงเทพ, เที่ยวไทย, เที่ยวไทย, ข่าว, ไทย

Mekong River Being 'Dammed' with Uncertainty by China and Laos

Last week, it was reported that authorities in China notified the Mekong River Commission (MRC) that Jinghong Dam in Yunnan province will reduce its rate of water discharge by half from the beginning of the month until late January. For communities living along the Mekong, unusual water fluctuations in the Mekong River are not new. This has been happening for more than a decade.

Before the construction of the Lancang cascade, of which 11 dams are already online in China, there had been no extreme water fluctuations in the Mekong River. For many millions of years, the Mekong water levels rose and receded in accordance with the cycle of the seasons. We used to have dry and rainy seasons.

But when the dam cascade blocked the upper Mekong, locals living on Thai-Lao border experienced a changed Mekong that has now been controlled by dams for a period of 20 years. So far, 11 dams have been built in the Upper reaches. The one closest to the Thai border is the Jinghong Dam, only 340km from the Golden Triangle, in Chiang Rai’s Chiang Saen district.

In the rainy season, the Mekong River flooded along both banks, its tributaries and wetlands. Rising water levels allowed fish and aquatic life to migrate to the Upper Mekong and its tributaries to breed.

But as the Upper Mekong dams began to store and control the water, the river ecology has changed. There are no floods in the rainy season. This adversely affects the cycle of life of this river. What were originally wetlands and flood-prone areas became barren, resulting in negative impacts that have been accumulating over the years.

reducing water flow from the Jinghong Dam

Reduced water flow from the Jinghong Dam

During the rainy season, the Upper Mekong dams store massive amounts of water. And now sediment and nutrients are disappearing in lower areas. The blue and clear Mekong means the abundance and source of life are slowly vanishing from the river system.

The notification to the MRC by China about reducing water flow from the Jinghong Dam is evidence that the dams cause ecological destruction. This cannot be denied.

The evidence is now strong, and the MRC website shows that water level of the Mekong at Chiang Saen station has dropped sharply since the early days of 2021. This has been long noticed by local fishermen, farmers, and children of the Mekong River.

The damage and disruption reflect how policymakers have focused on one dimension: macro-economic development. But in reality, the Mekong River and its associated communities have many other dimensions such as culture, water supply, agriculture, food security and its role as an important source of income for the local economy.

In other words, the Mekong River’s resources are the backbone of communities that live on both sides

But the current direction of development shows that regional decision-makers do not acknowledge the broader value of the river, ignoring other users of this shared resource. The so-called development has been focused on large infrastructure construction. The adverse impacts aren’t an overnight occurrence. Besides, the impact and damage is regional and does not just a small group of people — we are talking about tens of millions throughout the Lower Basin.

This problem needs to be fixed immediately by and Mekong riparian governments must accept the transboundary impacts of dams on the river.

We drink from the same river

We drink from the same river

The Mekong River management is in the hands of a small group of elites, in governments and businesses. Ordinary people, villagers, fishers, farmers, those powerless people who rely largely on the Mekong River have had no say in the decision-making process. I’ve seen that only the state and business receive benefits, economically and politically.

In order to fairly manage the Mekong River as a regional common resource, there must be meaningful participation from all stakeholders.

It’s time to stop looking at the Mekong River as a cake to share among those at a party. The mighty Mekong must be viewed as an important common resource to be carefully shared sustainable and equitable manner.

The Chinese Embassy in Bangkok once said in a statement, “We drink from the same river.” So, different stakeholders must be included in the planning and management of the Mekong.

Moving forward together, the Mekong River management process needs to based on knowledge-based decision-making, not centred around the economic and political interests of a few powerful people. This is to enable the Mekong society to live together sustainably over the coming years.

With regard to the “notification” from China to the MRC, I, as a local, am of the view that although the management of the Mekong River needs more than data sharing, that alone is not enough. Local communities in Chiang Rai have been complaining for many years, probably over a decade, that we need the seasonal ecological flow. This means changes to the way dams are operated. The Mekong needs better and more accountable governance so that these ecological impacts can be solved sustainably. The livelihoods of millions of people depend on it.

During the past two years, our flood season has evaporated. Even worse, during the dry season, the water level now fluctuates unusually, with drought as well as floods. The damage caused is cumulative and will eventually be irreversible.

In order to sustainably manage the Mekong River, we need to look holistically, well beyond the border of the nation-state.

By Niwat Roykaew

Niwat Roykaew is Chairperson of Chiang Khong Conservation Group, and a member of the Network of Thai People in Eight Mekong Provinces.

News

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

Google

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

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.

google

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

Continue Reading

News

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

Supreme Court

(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

SEE ALSO:

Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.

Scientists Awarded MicroRNA The Nobel Prize in Medicine.

US Inflation will Comfort a Fed Focused on Labor Markets.

Continue Reading

News

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

shkreli

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.

shkreli

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.

shkreli

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

Continue Reading

Trending