News

Mekong Residents Wary of Xayaburi Dam

A fishing community on of the island of Mekong River in Kratie Province

Chiangrai Times – Fishermen bring their boats to shore, pack away their traps and hand over the day’s catch to their awaiting families on the banks of the Mekong River in Kratie province’s Chitra Borei district.

“When my husband arrives home each day, we eat some of what he has caught, but the rest we have to sell at the market,” Ry Srey On says from one of the many houses that comprise the Thmar Kre Lue fishing community in Thmar Kre commune.

Like many other Cambodians who depend on the Mekong for their livelihood, the river has been the 35-year-old mother of five’s lifeblood since she was a child.

The rare freshwater Irrawaddy dolphins make their home in the Mekong

In recent times, however, Srey On has noticed things changing.

A drop in the number of fish being caught has corresponded with increased chatter about something that might diminish stocks even further: the arrival of hydroelectric dams on the Lower Mekong.

“At the moment, there is less fish, and I am worried that if they build a hydro dam it’s going to block fish even more,” she says.

Although far from Kratie province, the Xayaburi dam in northern Laos is one of 11 proposed hydro dams on the Lower Mekong that has sent both environmental groups and neighbouring governments into a spin over the damage it could cause.

The potential trans-boundary effects of the $3.5 billion 1,285-megawatt dam – which would send 95 per cent of its power to Thailand – have not been studied, and environmental groups say fish migration and sediment flow will be blocked.

And if reports are accurate, construction of the dam, though denied by the Lao government, has already begun.

A few doors down from Srey On, the fishing community’s chief, Chhim Sokea, says villagers are also concerned that proposed dams such as Xayaburi and the much closer – and potentially bigger – Sambor dam could damage their way of life.

“Each day, I take my boat out on the Mekong and set fishing traps and nets. Once I’ve caught something, I bring it back to my wife to sell,” Sokea says.

“We rely on fish for our livelihood, certainly,” he adds, referring to the 100 families who live in the village.

“We have no alternative to fishing,” he says. “If we cannot fish, we cannot live. I hope the government does not build Sambor, though I’m less concerned about Xayaburi, because it’s far away.”

Fish from the Mekong makes up more than 80 per cent of Cambodia’s protein intake and generates about $1 billion in produce each year.

According to Ame Trandem, Southeast Asia program director for International Rivers, these numbers could be seriously diminished if hydro dams are approved.

“Migratory fish make up a dominant proportion of annual fish production,” she says, adding that as many as 100 species could be blocked by the dams.

Fish form a major part of the dietary intake for the people living in the Mekong Basin

“Effects will be felt by millions of people who live along the river . . . because so many people fish and rely on agriculture. And if Xayaburi is approved, it is likely the others will also be approved,” she says.

On Phdao island, in nearby Sambor district’s Kampong Cham commune, about 2,000 families farm to supplement their fishing.

According to 42-year-old Sous Vy, a fisherman’s wife, they can’t survive on one without the other.

What’s more, she believes construction of dams along the Mekong will affect both agriculture and fishing.

“Construction across the river blocks the flow of water and fish and even causes flood during rainy season,” she says. “I’ve seen this coming. I’ve attended workshops and done research into the living standards of residents living near hydro dams in Thailand. From what I see, they have health problems and food shortages.”

The four member states of the Mekong River Commission (MRC) – Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos – are bound by the 1995 Mekong Agreement, under which they must work together to preserve the river from environmental damage.

In 2010, the MRC conducted a strategic environmental assessment on the proposed dams and concluded that the dams would transform more than half of the Lower Mekong into a series of stagnant reservoirs and sections of rapidly fluctuating water.

According to Gordon Congdon, freshwater conservation manager for WWF-Cambodia, in Xayaburi’s case, such breaks in connection would affect fish migration into Cambodia.

“The proposed fish passages at Xayaburi have been deemed inadequate by scientists and will reduce fish passage up and down the Mekong,” he says.

“This will reduce the quantity of fish available throughout the Mekong system, including in Kratie and Stung Treng provinces.”

The MRC’s findings estimated Cambodia would be the worst hit – with fisheries losing more than 40 per cent of stock or $500 million per year, affecting the livelihoods and food security of millions, and sediment being blocked, which would increase the need for farmers to use fertiliser, thus increasing their costs.

The MRC recommended a regional moratorium on all proposed Mekong mainstream dams for at least 10 years while further studies were carried out, and has urged Xayaburi to be postponed two times since.

Members agreed that a joint study on the trans-boundary impacts of the project was needed before construction could be carried out.

Two reports on the dam have been carried out – one by a Swiss arm of Finnish consulting and engineering firm Pöyry and the other by French dam-building company Compagnie Nationale du Rhône (CNR) – both were commissioned by Laos and both were criticised for not meeting the requests of the other MRC countries.

Laos has yet to agree to another one, but has agreed to a different study, partly funded by Japan, that will assess the impacts of all the dams.

More controversy has plagued the Xayaburi project since the developer behind the project, Thai firm Ch. Karnchang, announced in April it had signed the construction deal for the project – replete with a starting date a month earlier.

NGOs have since threatened to sue the Thailand for allowing the project, protesters have marched in the streets, Cambodia and Vietnam have written letters to Laos demanding it suspend the project and Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has vowed to intervene and halt construction.

Laos maintains that construction never began, but environmental groups including International Rivers, which claims an entire Lao village has been relocated to make way for construction, says things are quite the opposite.

According to Trandem, another structure is being built near Xayaburi to stop water from reaching the main dam site.

“This will be finished by May 2013,” she says. “That is construction. You would only build it to build a hydroelectric dam. There are already plans to build the spillway [by October next year].”

The Lao government and Ch. Karnchang could not be reached for comment.

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