News
Mekong Lowest levels in 50 Years
VIENTIANE – Low water levels on the upper Mekong River have renewed criticism over hydropower dams China has erected on the waterway’s upper reaches. Environmental groups and governments have pinned blame on China’s inward-looking water management policies, although some experts say the real culprit is unusually severe drought conditions in southwestern China, northern Thailand and Laos.
Chinese authorities have said water levels in the country are at their lowest in 50 years, and they reject as groundless reports blaming their dams for the parched state of the river. The Mekong River Commission (MRC), an inter-governmental body that promotes and coordinates sustainable management and development of the Mekong River basin, said in a February 26
statement that levels in the upper Mekong are lower than in 1993, which came on the heels of the most serious regional drought on record in 1992.
Although Beijing says it takes into account the needs of downstream countries and has set up joint monitoring stations along the river, there is still considerable doubt about its sincerity in maintaining the river’s normal flow. The MRC, for its part, has little direct leverage over Beijing, leaving member countries to approach China either through the United Nations or their individual diplomatic missions.
Underscoring the heightened tensions, a March 3 MRC meeting held in Laos’ old royal capital of Luang Prabang agreed to send an official letter to Beijing’s representative at the United Nations to seek its cooperation in finding a solution to the Mekong’s low flow. It marked the first time that the MRC sent an official letter of complaint to China.
Thailand has been particularly vocal, calling for the four MRC members – that is, itself, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam – to apply bilateral diplomatic pressure on Beijing through their respective foreign ministries. During a weekly television address on March 7, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said “we’ll ask China to help manage the water flow along the river better so countries in Southeast Asia would not be affected”.
The low water levels, including certain stretches which have completely dried up, have all but stopped shipping on the Mekong. The river is a fast emerging major cargo route between the southern Chinese city of Jinghong and the northern Thai town of Chiang Saen, where a new river port is currently under construction. From there cargo is carried into Thailand and the rest of Southeast Asia.
The route is expected to be an important trade link in the implementation of the new China-ASEAN Free Trade Area. The agreement, which came into force in January, will pave the way for closer economic integration between Southeast Asia and China, an area with a combined population of 1.9 billion people and a combined gross domestic product (GDP) of around US$6 trillion.
By mid-February, over 20 Chinese cargo vessels were grounded in the section of the river that borders Myanmar and Laos. The vessels were later pulled to higher waters or into ports in Thailand. Four days later, China’s Marine Affairs Bureau in Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture had in response to the low water levels stopped issuing permits for vessels to travel south.
According to Chiang Saen’s customs department, an estimated $4.6 million worth of cargo has been left stranded on the river. To bypass the dried-up Mekong, shippers have turned to the recently completed Route 3 roadway, which links Jinghong with northern Thailand through northwestern Laos. As many as 50 trailer trucks per day are now using the road when just a few months ago that number was around 50 per month.
The low water has also affected the availability of drinking water and irrigation for dry season crops. The MRC says the situation is particularly acute in the northern provinces of Laos and Thailand, areas that are already among the poorest in both countries. In Laos, irrigation systems and pumping stations for drinking water have been affected in Vientiane, Borikhamxay and Khammuan provinces. In Luang Prabang, there are reports of drinking water shortages, with only the tourist area in the city center receiving 24-hour service.
According to the MRC, water levels are expected to diminish further over the next month before rising again in late April or early May. Agrarians, environmental groups and affected citizens in Thailand have been quick to point the finger at China for the lack of water. The Save the Mekong Coalition and other environmental groups have said that China’s dams on the upper Mekong are to blame for the unusually low water levels.
Four major dams have been built on the Mekong’s upper reaches in China and another four are planned. Those completed include the Xiaowan dam, which began storing water in its reservoir in October. It is the second-largest hydroelectric dam in China after the Three Gorges Dam. Of the four planned dams, the Nuozhadu is expected to be completed in 2014 and will hold back even more water in order to generate 5,000 megawatts (MW) of power, the most of any of the eight dams.
Downstream tensions
It’s not the first time that China’s dams have generated downstream tensions. Environmentalists say that there have been unusual water flows on the Mekong ever since the first of the eight dams planned by China became operational in 1993. They often claim that Chinese dam construction has disrupted river traffic, has impacted adversely on fisheries and endangering some species, including the Mekong dolphin and the manatee, and has caused river blockages that hinder fish from swimming upriver to spawn.
Floods in 2008, which caused severe damage in Laos Thailand, were also blamed in part on China’s dams – an accusation China likewise rejected. Some experts say that fluctuations in water levels are to be expected during dam construction and may cause lower water levels during the current dry season. In the longer-term, however, they say China’s dams could actually be of benefit during drought conditions because of their capacity to release water downstream. China’s dams will eventually be able to increase dry season water flow by as much as 30%-40%, if Beijing so chooses.
Hydroelectric dams along the river are designed to store water in the wet season and release it during the dry season to generate electricity. An MRC report on March 5 indicated that China’s dam operations in early and mid-January may have actually delayed the onset of low water conditions downstream experienced since the later part of that month.
Beijing insists that the situation is a result of a severe drought conditions in southwest China and not its dam operations. Southwestern Yunnan has been the hardest hit province, but Guangxi, Guizhou, Sichuan and Chongqing have also been affected. The drought was brought on by a lack of rainfall and high temperatures, and is not expected to end until the rainy season begins in May.
Chinese authorities say that 7.5 million people and more than 4 million livestock are now suffering from inadequate water supplies in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces. Yunnan’s governor, Qin Guangrong, told a drought relief meeting on February 23 that those numbers could climb to 7.92 million people in March, 9.51 million and April and 10.14 million by May. In February, Yunnan provincial authorities reported that 187 forest fires caused by the drought had been extinguished since November.
China’s Ministry of Agriculture announced on Sunday that the drought had affected 4.09 million hectares of farmland by March 5. About 2.20 million of those hectares have been seriously affected. Although the area is not a major grain-growing region, it is China’s second-largest producer of rubber and sugarcane. Government figures say the drought could reduce sugar production by 12% this year, leaving an amount insufficient to meet China’s domestic demand. Preliminary government estimates indicate that the drought has caused $1.4 billion in losses.
The MRC and Thailand’s National Disaster Warning Center have backed Beijing’s meteorological explanation for the Mekong’s low flows. They both have said that it is too early to conclusively link low water levels to China’s dam construction and operations. In a recent statement, the MRC said the situation is the “result of drought conditions in northern Thailand and Lao PDR [People’s Democratic Republic] and are part of a wider regional drought being experienced upstream in Yunnan province in China.”
A MRC spokesman based at its secretariat in Vientiane told Asia Times Online that MRC figures indicate that monthly precipitation has been significantly below average since September 2009. Mekong tributaries, such as the Nam Ou and Nam Khan in Laos, are also experiencing low water levels; the lowest in 20 years for the Nam Ou and the lowest in 50 years for the Nam Khan, according to the MRC spokesman. Water levels in Vientiane during the rainy season were the fifth-lowest on record in the past 98 years
In Thailand, all 17 districts of northeastern Nong Khai province have been declared drought-hit areas. Water levels in major Thai dams are well below 50%, and the Royal Irrigation Department has warned that reserves in certain areas are at critical levels. Many farmers are worried that they may not have enough water for their dry season crops.
While northern Thailand and Laos are clearly suffering from drought conditions, some observers note that Beijing’s frequent claims that only 14% of the Mekong’s flow originates in China are somewhat misleading. That figure, they say, is a percentage of the total flow that, after snaking through Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, eventually empties into the South China Sea. The percentage of Mekong water that must pass through China before reaching northern Thailand and Laos is nearly 100%, they say.
China’s unwillingness to release detailed information about its dams, which it considers a national security issue and thus not open to public disclosure, has long bred suspicion among downstream countries. China has thus not formally joined the MRC, but along with Myanmar has been a dialogue partner to the grouping since 1996.
In the absence of greater transparency from China, observers are left to wonder how much water is currently held behind China’s Mekong dams after the long drought and low rainfall suffered across the region in 2009. Additionally, they contend that it is unlikely China would be willing to release additional water beyond what is necessary for electricity generation while the current drought continues.
In response to the criticism, China extended invitations this week for Mekong country representatives to visit its Jinghong dam later this month. Some viewed this as an encouraging step towards more transparency and multilateral cooperation, but detractors say that without a truly inclusive and empowered MRC, downstream countries will remain in the dark and vulnerable to China’s secretive water management.
Brian McCartan is a Bangkok-based freelance journalist. He may be reached at [email protected].
A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
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 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.
SOURCE | CNN
(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.
-
News3 years agoLet’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years agoHow Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years agoTop Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles2 years agoAries Soulmate Signs
-
Health2 years agoCan I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Movies2 years agoWhat Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Learning2 years agoVirtual Numbers: What Are They For?