Mekong Power Plan Will Affect Millions Of Lives : Activists

[Artabus]

Well, some of these comments are very surprising.

1) Someone with twenty years experience in the power industry, who thinks the only storage system is water pumping.

2) Someone else thinks that an unflooded rainforest releases as many GHG as a flooded one.

But, irrespective of disagreements over this figure or that figure - we can all find aspects that reinforce our respective viewpoints, and all of us can disagree over the same set of information - I have one fundamental set of questions for you guys :

Why are you SO vitriolic about conservationists?

Why do you object to those of us who want to make the world - as shaped by humans - more sustainable?

Why do you make stupid comments about species that don't even exist?

What is wrong with us wanting to maintain biodiversity?

What is wrong with us taking a long-term view of the world?

Why do you assume that if we are pro-environmentalism, we must somehow be anti-humans?

Do you not realise that it is the natural environment that supports humankind?

I could go on and list some other questions, but I would be interested to know your answers to these - but please be polite. Thank you.

[RickBradford]

What is wrong with us taking a long-term view of the world?

One valid reason might be that people who take a long-term view of the world often do so in the confident belief that they have a good idea of how the future will look, and history teaches us that they are usually wrong.

Why do you assume that if we are pro-environmentalism, we must somehow be anti-humans?

It's a fair assumption, given the large number of people killed by green policies such as the DDT ban, and biofuels, plus calls by greenie after greenie to cull the world population, such as the Club of Rome, who called for the population of the U.S. to be reduced by 100 million people by the year 2050.

[LaoPo]

Well, some of these comments are very surprising.

1) Someone with twenty years experience in the power industry, who thinks the only storage system is water pumping.

2) Someone else thinks that an unflooded rainforest releases as many GHG as a flooded one.

But, irrespective of disagreements over this figure or that figure - we can all find aspects that reinforce our respective viewpoints, and all of us can disagree over the same set of information - I have one fundamental set of questions for you guys :

Why are you SO vitriolic about conservationists?

Why do you object to those of us who want to make the world - as shaped by humans - more sustainable?

Why do you make stupid comments about species that don't even exist?

What is wrong with us wanting to maintain biodiversity?

What is wrong with us taking a long-term view of the world?

Why do you assume that if we are pro-environmentalism, we must somehow be anti-humans?

Do you not realise that it is the natural environment that supports humankind?

I could go on and list some other questions, but I would be interested to know your answers to these - but please be polite. Thank you.

You ask a lot of questions but do not give any positive feedback yourself..............and you also ask other members: "please be polite...."

...yet you write: "Why do you make stupid comments .............."

hmmm...

LaoPo

[Artabus]

You ask a lot of questions but do not give any positive feedback yourself..............and you also ask other members: "please be polite...."

...yet you write: "Why do you make stupid comments .............."

hmmm...

LaoPo

What positive feedback would you like? This is a genuine question, I'm not being sarcastic.

I do not believe comments about non-existent species are intelligent, nor do I think those comments advance the debate. Hence the use of the word "stupid". But if it offends you, then I'll withdraw it.

The questions are an attempt to understand the viewpoints of those people who clearly think differently from myself. No more, no less, no hidden agenda. I felt it better to seek their opinions, than to point out where mine differ. Fair enough?

[Artabus]

What is wrong with us taking a long-term view of the world?

One valid reason might be that people who take a long-term view of the world often do so in the confident belief that they have a good idea of how the future will look, and history teaches us that they are usually wrong.

Why do you assume that if we are pro-environmentalism, we must somehow be anti-humans?

It's a fair assumption, given the large number of people killed by green policies such as the DDT ban, and biofuels, plus calls by greenie after greenie to cull the world population, such as the Club of Rome, who called for the population of the U.S. to be reduced by 100 million people by the year 2050.

Thank you for your comments.

A long term view being wrong? Hmm. Not sure that in this case I'd agree with you about that, even if generally I might.

Yes, I know the DDT ban was controversial, fair point.

You won't find me anything other than opposed to Palm Oil, as one variant of biofuel.

The point about the size of the human population is probably THE point in this debate isn't it? Can we agree that the important issue is how to maximise the quality of life for everyone? Some of us think that can be more easily achieved if there are fewer of us. Now, that to me is not an anti-human position; it's actually wanting the best for each of us, but wanting it in a manner which does not go beyond the ability of the planet's ecosystem to support us.

[webfact]

MRC SUMMIT

China vows talks on Mekong dams

By Pongphon Sarnsamak

The Nation

Hua Hin

HUA HIN: -- China has made a strong commitment for the first time to the five countries on the lower Mekong - Mynmar, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand - that all countries should talk together before building dams that might damage the environment or harm people living along the river.

The mekong River Commission Summit will today endorse a declaration over four issues - food security, energy and hydropower development; the climate change impact mitigation; infrastructure development; and increasing involvement of civil society stakeholders in planning activities and decision making processes.

Vice Foreign Minister, Song Tao told the two-day mekong River Commission Summit at Hua Hin, that Thailand and China had agreed that all six countries along the mekong r should confer before installing any projects along the river.

"We need to collect information from all projects whether or not it would damage the Mekong," he said.

Kasit said he believed China and Mynmar would become MRC members and further collaborate to improve the development of water management.

He added that he had consulted with China over the World Bank and Asian Development Bank becoming the new financial resource to develop the water management among the MRC's state members.

Chen Mingzhong, director-general of China's International Cooperation, Science and Technology Department, said China would continue to complete 14 dam projects to be installed in future along the river.

He believed these dams would help downstream countries mitigate the impact of drought and flooding.

Environment and Natural Resources Ministry permanent secretary Saksit Tridej said Thailand would put the drought and flooding issue into the declaration as well as the impact from haze and forest fires.

Jeremy Bird, head of the MRC secretariat, said Asean had collaborated with the MRC on sustainable development of the mekong River basin.

Bird said Asean would provide the information to help mekong countries mitigate the impact of flooding, drought, and climate change.

Asean also expected it could further collaborate with the MRC in future.

Bird said the MRC was now conducting a study to draw up models to reduce the impact from dam construction on the river.

The mekong River Commission this year celebrates its 15th anniversary and held its first summit in Thailand, hosted by the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry.

-- The Nation 2010-04-05

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[RickBradford]

Some of us think that can be more easily achieved if there are fewer of us.

Obviously true, but with global population growing at 80 million per year, what policies can you envisage which will achieve your goal?

A long term view being wrong? Hmm. Not sure that in this case I'd agree with you about that, even if generally I might.

If you agree generally, what makes you think this case will be any different?

Edited April 5, 2010 by RickBradford

[webfact]

China dismisses Mekong dam criticism at regional meeting

by Rachel O'Brien

HUA HIN (AFP) -- China rejected criticism Monday of its dams on the shrinking Mekong River, telling Southeast Asian leaders that it was not to blame for a regional drought affecting millions of people.

At a landmark meeting with the heads of four Southeast Asian nations, Beijing's Vice Foreign Minister Song Tao denied activists' criticism that the hydropower dams had exacerbated decades-low water levels downstream.

"Statistics show that the recent drought that hit the whole river basin is attributable to the extreme dry weather, and the water level decline of the Mekong River has nothing to do with the hydropower development," he said.

The leaders of Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam -- the member-states of the Mekong River Commission (MRC) -- convened in the Thai coastal town of Hua Hin to discuss management of the river, on which more than 60 million people rely.

China -- itself suffering the worst drought in a century in its southwest, with more than 24 million people short of drinking water -- attended the talks as a dialogue partner of the MRC, as did military-ruled Myanmar.

"China itself is also a victim of the present severe drought," Song told the summit, where the four MRC states signed a treaty pledging to prioritise tackling climate change and responding to drought.

The so-called "Mighty Mekong" has dropped to its lowest level in 50 years in northern Thailand and Laos, alarming communities who depend on the critical waterway for food, transport, drinking water and irrigation.

More than 60 million people rely in some way on the river, which is the world's largest inland fishery, producing an annual estimated catch of 3.9 million tonnes, according to the MRC.

The commission has warned that the health of the Mekong Basin and the river's eco-systems could be threatened by proposed dams and expanding populations.

The abnormally low levels have raised fears over already endangered species such as the Mekong giant catfish.

At the first summit in the commission's 15-year history, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva warned the Mekong "will not survive" without good management.

"The Mekong River is being threatened by serious problems arising from both the unsustainable use of water and the effects of climate change," he said, adding the meeting was "an important wake-up call."

The Chinese delegation arrived Sunday and met for bilateral talks with MRC countries seeking more information about the economic power's dams, seen by activists as being behind the current water shortage.

In a bid to end speculation about its river projects, China -- which has eight planned or existing dams on the mainstream river -- recently agreed to share data from two stations during this dry season.

During the talks, Beijing offered to release further information from its mainstream dams -- which was hailed as a "significant step forward" by the MRC Secretariat's chief, Jeremy Bird.

Abhisit for his part said he hoped China's cooperation would become "more regular" in the future.

Priorities laid out in the summit's declaration included identifying the opportunities and challenges of hydropower and other infrastructure development in the Mekong Basin, as well as improvements in information sharing.

Environmentalist Anond Snidvongs, director of the Southeast Asia START Regional Centre, which researches environmental change, called for the data also to be made available to the general public and scientific communities.

Thailand invoked a tough security law and deployed thousands of troops in Hua Hin to ensure protesters did not disrupt the summit, in light of mass anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies in Bangkok since mid-March.

-- ©Copyright AFP 2010-04-05

Published with written approval from AFP.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Tejas]

Thanks for getting this thread back on track (maybe the hijackers will go away and allow us to discuss this important issue).

What strikes me most about the international conversations about this issue is the dancing around the source of the problem: glaciers melting in China that feed the Mekong and Yellow rivers, among others.

This is the fundamental problem.

The other problem is overpopulation coupled with a continuous rise in population levels even in the face of declining fertility rates.

The other problem is increased economic and agricultural activity associated with the desire to raise living standards and simply meet the basic needs of a rising human population.

All of these problems work together.

I do not see "dams" as the main problem..........only one of several interrelated problems.

The main thing is that if global warming/climate change is not stopped, there will be no easy solutions for the freshwater system.

If the source of the freshwater is removed..........the end result is no water at all. It is that simple.

Of course, by that time perhaps govt. will be attempting to convert saltwater to freshwater on a very large scale..........then they will have to find a way to get it to where it needs to be........a very, very expensive solution given present technology.

[webfact]

MRC SUMMIT

China reassures MRC on water use

By Pongphon Sarnsamak,

Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation Hua Hin

HUA HIN: -- China yesterday reassured the Mekong River Commission that its use of the river is governed by care for the environment and full accommodation of the interests of downstream countries.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Song Tao told the summit of leaders from the four countries in the lower mekong basin - Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam - that his country follows many measures and acts in strict compliance with prevailing international environmental standards.

China came under heavy criticism for over-utilisation of the Southeast Asia's longest river as its series of hydropower dams are partly blamed for environmental events downstream, notably drought.

"We took many steps on our own initiative to protect the environment and some actions even came at the expense of hydropower development, " Song said in his prepared speech at the summit here.

China cancelled the Mengsong hydropower plant project on the mekong to prevent abnormal downstream water level fluctuations caused by power plant operation, he said.

China plans to build the Ganlanba counter-regulation reservoir, in order not to affect the water temperature of the Mekong, which is called the Lancang while passing through China.

It also set aside 200 million yuan (Bt964 million) for the stratified water intake project in the Nuozhadu hydropower plant construction plan, he said.

"The scientific survey and research has suggested that China's ongoing hydropower development has little impact on the water amount and environment of the mekong and its lower reaches," he said.

Instead, the regulating effect of the water dams can improve navigation conditions and help flood prevention, drought relief and farmland irrigation of the downstream countries, he said.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who chaired the summit, praised China's contribution of hydrological data from the Jinghong and Manwan dams in China's southwestern Yunnan province to facilitate drought disaster relief of the downstream countries during this year's dry season.

Such cooperation would bring China closer to the downstream countries and the MRC, paving the way for China to become a full member of the grouping in the near future, he said.

The MRC, which looks after the lower part of the mekong River, expressed its wish to see dialogue partners China and Burma become full members.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and Laotian Prime Minister Bouasone Bouphavanh expressed support for China and Burma joining as full members.

Song did not make any comment on the MRC's invitation to be a member but said China would continue to strengthen its dialogue and cooperation with the MRC and jointly contribute to the economic and social development of the region.

The first MRC summit ended with the Hua Hin Declaration to show the commitment of the members to further cooperation through the MRC's strategic plan for 2011-2015.

The next MRC summit will be hosted by Vietnam in 2014.

-- The Nation 2010-04-06

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[RickBradford]

If the source of the freshwater is removed..........the end result is no water at all. It is that simple.

Yes, it is. Lucky, then, that the source of the Mekong (Himalayan glaciers, for the most part) are doing just fine.

(Robert Felix) As a matter of fact, many Himalayan glaciers are growing. In a defiant act of political incorrectness, some 230 glaciers in the western Himalayas - including Mount Everest, K2 and Nanga Parbat - are actually growing.

"These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world," says John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha. "And all of them are either holding still, or advancing."

And get this. Eighty seven of the glaciers have surged forward since the 1960s. (I don't know how many Himalayan glaciers are being monitored, but my guess would be fewer than a thousand, so it's possible that hundreds more are growing. There aren't enough glaciologists in the world to monitor them all.)

[Tejas]

This is an important topic.

If any person has something intelligent to say about it, please do so.

Further attempts to hijack the subject will not be responded to (at least by me).

The topic, by the way, gets lost in the confusion caused by people who don't want us to discuss it.

The topic is: Mekong Power Plan Will Affect Millions of Lives.

It is not about whether global warming/climate change is real.

[RickBradford]

What strikes me most about the international conversations about this issue is the dancing around the source of the problem: glaciers melting in China that feed the Mekong and Yellow rivers, among others.

This is the fundamental problem.

JR, if you want this thread to concentrate on Mekong power plans, you will have to stop introducing the subject of Chinese glaciers , especially with half-baked nonsense like the above.

Edited April 6, 2010 by RickBradford

[brahmburgers]

If you can explain to me where one drop of water will be lost (other than evaporation) to hydro-generation, I'll admit defeat.

You named a big one: evaporation. In a drought year particularly, the amount of evaporation in standing lakes of water would be significant. Just put a large bowl of water out in the sun on a hot day, and see how much is missing by evening ....and artificial lakes are a whole lot bigger area than a bowl top.

The Colorado River is mighty big, but not one drop gets down to its delta at the Sea of Cortez, when water is needed upstream.

There is also something to be said for naturalness. There was a small dam project proposed for a part of northern California where I once resided. It was French designed. The locals banded together to successfully defeat the proposal (google SYRCL) at the ballot box. The main reason? Locals didn't want industry to spoil their naturally flowing river. Asians in general and Chinese in particular don't have any considerations for nature in that regard. Yes, they'll be able to procreate and survive for centuries without parks or natural rivers, but the cost to the soul are another matter. Already, northern Thailand has no wild mammals. You can hike up and down, east and west for months and you may see one little squirrel if you're lucky. Economically, preserving nature doesn't account for anything. In fact it's economically advantage to have no wild animals - except certain tourist venues stand to gain from naturalness and wildness. But overall, economics in places like China (and Asia in general) doesn't give a hoot about the environment. Indeed, former Malaysian PM had a serious proposal to make a large fake forest in the heart of KL - using rubber and plastic. That's what Asia will come to: virtual nature - for it's children and grandchildren.

And the Mekhong will dry up before it gets to the sea, probably within 5 years - you heard it predicted first here. Mark my words.

Solar is the wave of the future, for more reasons than can fit on a page in this blog.

If you can swing it, take your kids and go down and visit the Mekong. Take some photos. It won't be more than a dribble of itself in coming years. The Chinese will make sure of that. There's no stopping the Chinese when they get their sights set on a natural resource.

Next up: The Salween. (oh sorry, they're already working on destroying that river also, with ample help from the Burmese junta).

[brahmburgers]

China ready to fully cooperate in solving the drying of the Mekong River

BANGKOK (NNT) -- The People's Republic of China has expressed its readiness to collaborate with all country members to resolve the ongoing drought crisis of the Mekong River, according to the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, Suwit Khunkitti.........

-- NNT 2010-04-04

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

BLAH BLAH BLAH ...... Chinese authorities want two things:

A. lots of resources

B. As few hassles as possible from neighbors (they already control their own people sufficiently).

So, their appearances of concern are just that: appearances.

They could appoint me as their spokesman, and I would know exactly what I needed to say:

"Yes, we cherish our cordial relationship with SE Asian countries, and would never do anything to strain our good relationships. We will do studies to ensure that any dam activity will be taken with the best interests of the farmers and our other friends downstream ....... BLAH BLAH BLAH "

It's a whole lot of talk which sounds like appeasement and compromise, but the bare bones result is already known: CHINA WILL DO WHAT THE HECK IT WANTS - IN ORDER TO SECURE AS MUCH RESOURCES FOR ITSELF AS POSSIBLE.

All else is BLAH BLAH BLAH ....hot Chinese air.

[Tejas]

Glad to see somebody wants to discuss the actual topic as opposed to the topic the spammers want us to discuss.

I agree, China will basically do what it wants.........it needs resources for its own people.

The good news is that China did act to reduce its population size with its one-child policy.

The bad news is that the population continues to grow, albeit at a much slower rate. And it is way past a sustainable point.

Question: Why should China share its water?

The source of the Mekong is the glaciers inside Chinese territory or territory it effectively controls. Those glaciers are melting (so even if China takes all of the water it will still have a massive problem in the future as the rivers dry up.........along with the Yellow River).

That may seem like an odd question. But here are others:

Why should the USA share its oil with Mexico?

Why should Saudi Arabia share its oil with Yemen?

Why should South Africa share its diamonds with Zimbabwe?

I think you get what I am hinting at.

Water, like oil and diamonds, is a valuable resource. As long as we play the sovereign nation-state game, we set ourselves up for country-specific control over various resources.........resources that, largely due to population and economic growth, are becoming increasingly scarce.

Throw global warming and climate change into the mix, and you end up with a massive water problem worldwide.

We have set the stage for water wars.

[RickBradford]

The source of the Mekong is the glaciers inside Chinese territory or territory it effectively controls. Those glaciers are melting

JR, if you're going to insist on talking about Himalayan glaciers, at least try to get it right. The glaciers are not melting, they're growing.

[brahmburgers]

Tibetan Glaciers Melting at Stunning Rate

Michael Reilly, Discovery News

Nov. 24, 2008 -- Glaciers high in the Himalayas are dwindling faster than anyone thought, putting nearly a billion people living in South Asia in peril of losing their water supply.

Throughout India, China, and Nepal, some 15,000 glaciers speckle the Tibetan Plateau, some of the highest land in the world. There, perched in thin, frigid air up to 7,200 meters (23,622 feet) above sea level, the ice might seem secluded from the effects of global warming.

But just the opposite is proving true, according to new research published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and a team of researchers traveled to central Himalayas in 2006 to study the Naimona'nyi glacier, expecting to find some melting. Mountain glaciers have been receding all over the world since the 1990's and there was no reason this one, which provides water to the mighty Ganges, Indus, and Brahmaputra Rivers, should be any different.

But when the team analyzed samples of glacier, what they found stunned them. Glaciers around the planet are usually dated by looking for two pulses pulse of radioactivity buried in the ice. These are the leftovers from American and Russian atomic bomb testing in the 1950's and 1960's.

In the Naimona'nyi samples, there was no sign of the tests. In fact, the glacier had melted so much that the exposed surface of the glacier dated to 1944.

complete article here

[RickBradford]

In 2008, and studying a single glacier, they say:

"Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and a team of researchers traveled to central Himalayas in 2006 to study the Naimona'nyi glacier, expecting to find some melting.... In fact, the glacier had melted so much that the exposed surface of the glacier dated to 1944."

In March 2010, studying hundreds of glaciers, they say:

"As a matter of fact, many Himalayan glaciers are growing. In a defiant act of political incorrectness, some 230 glaciers in the western Himalayas - including Mount Everest, K2 and Nanga Parbat - are actually growing.

"These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world," says John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha. "And all of them are either holding still, or advancing."

And get this. Eighty seven of the glaciers have surged forward since the 1960s."

[Tejas]

Good post, but why argue with a "person" who ignores the overwhelming evidence that glaciers are melting worldwide?

In fact, that is what the spammer (who simply vomits up Exxon-Mobile funded crap) wants us to do.

He/she hijacks every thread even remotely related to global warming/climate change....along with his/her buddies: Teatree and Cannukmuk.

The subject is not whether global warming and associated climate change are real.

The subject is about how the Mekong Power Plan Will Affect Millions of Lives.

I posted this earlier and am curious if anybody (other than the spammers who I will ignore), has a response:

....China will basically do what it wants.........it needs resources for its own people.

The good news is that China did act to reduce its population size with its one-child policy.

The bad news is that the population continues to grow, albeit at a much slower rate. And it is way past a sustainable point.

Question: Why should China share its water?

The source of the Mekong is the glaciers inside Chinese territory or territory it effectively controls. Those glaciers are melting (so even if China takes all of the water it will still have a massive problem in the future as the rivers dry up.........along with the Yellow River).

That may seem like an odd question. But here are others:

Why should the USA share its oil with Mexico?

Why should Saudi Arabia share its oil with Yemen?

Why should South Africa share its diamonds with Zimbabwe?

I think you get what I am hinting at.

Water, like oil and diamonds, is a valuable resource. As long as we play the sovereign nation-state game, we set ourselves up for country-specific control over various resources.........resources that, largely due to population and economic growth, are becoming increasingly scarce.

Throw global warming and climate change into the mix, and you end up with a massive water problem worldwide.

We have set the stage for water wars.

[brahmburgers]

In 2008, and studying a single glacier, they say:

"Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University and a team of researchers traveled to central Himalayas in 2006 to study the Naimona'nyi glacier, expecting to find some melting.... In fact, the glacier had melted so much that the exposed surface of the glacier dated to 1944."

In March 2010, studying hundreds of glaciers, they say:

"As a matter of fact, many Himalayan glaciers are growing. In a defiant act of political incorrectness, some 230 glaciers in the western Himalayas - including Mount Everest, K2 and Nanga Parbat - are actually growing. "These are the biggest mid-latitude glaciers in the world," says John Shroder of the University of Nebraska-Omaha. "And all of them are either holding still, or advancing." And get this. Eighty seven of the glaciers have surged forward since the 1960s."

You piggy backed on my reference with a 'matter of fact' but didn't include a reference/link to your quote .

If some glaciers in the Himalaya region show they're receding to 1944 levels, and supposedly others are growing, then that's a weird mix of statistics. Even if a glacier is growing, if it had earlier been melted back to 1944 levels, then it's possible it may have grown a little bit in the past 18 months due to a colder than average winter (an anomaly in the overall trend?). It may have retreated hundreds of meters in the past 60 years, yet gained a couple inches in a recent year. Is that proof that GW is bunk? It's like assessing a large old bridge with multiple cracks in its structure, and saying, "yes hundreds of cracks appeared in the structure over the past 50 years, but one or two of the cracks appear to be filling up with bits of new mortar, so the overall structure might redeem itself."

Incidentally, many of the global warming deniers don't deny that the Earth's average temperatures are heading incrementally higher year by year. Many, if not most of them are at odds with the premise that higher temps are human caused - or they're at odds with the degree to which human activity is contributing. In other words, the fact that average temperatures are generally increasing is widely agreed upon, both by scientists and laymen like us. To what degree humans exacerbate global warming is debatable. That the planet is getting warmer, is generally agreed upon, and there are myriad indicators which show that.

A National Geographic article on glaciers in Switzerland included interviews with old timers who have resided in towns there in the upper elevations. Without exception, every one they spoke with testified that glaciers were traditionally much lower on the mountain sides than they are today, and their receding rate is alarming. Treks that were normally, just a few years ago on ice, are now on fields of rubble or rock.

Edited April 7, 2010 by brahmburgers

[RickBradford]

Incidentally, many of the global warming deniers don't deny that the Earth's average temperatures are heading incrementally higher year by year. Many, if not most of them are at odds with the premise that higher temps are human caused - or they're at odds with the degree to which human activity is contributing. In other words, the fact that average temperatures are generally increasing is widely agreed upon, both by scientists and laymen like us. To what degree humans exacerbate global warming is debatable. That the planet is getting warmer, is generally agreed upon, and there are myriad indicators which show that

.

I'm generally in agreement with that, though I'd add the rider that the climate models on which so much appears to hang do not fit with the current cooling phase and general trends.

As for some glaciers advancing and some retreating, there are local effects to consider; wind patterns, how and where industrial soot falls, and so on. This article discusses the topic, though it's from Discovery, so does not go into much depth about it.

EDIT: The Schroder quote is from May 2009, not March 2010.

Edited April 7, 2010 by RickBradford

[Humphrey Bear]

Nothing here about glaciers - because there is information both ways available.

With regard to the hydro-generation, and any other type of generation of energy - all the conservationists have the freedom to shout about diminution of natural resources, pollution, so on. They do so from the comfort of a society that already gives a good life, comfortable living conditions.

We are here talking about the countries along the Mekong - where many areas have no running water, no electricity, no work, little infrastructure.

In Vietnam I go to work within 40km of Saigon - driving each day on dirt roads, past trenches where they are putting in drainage and fresh water, where you can buy charcoal cooking burners on the street, where there are a thousand motor-bikes for every car, where I can employ engineers for $500 per month.

But - the country is growing in GDP at well over 7% per annum and is crying out for more power to expand faster. I was working here in 2002, when girly bars were all over the centre of Saigon. Now there is very little on show of this nature. Not just a crackdown by the authorities, but a change in prosperity. And this prosperity will continue to increase - ocean-going container ships are being loaded / off-loaded at the rate of around forty a day in Saigon, with other ports doing the same.

These people are going places, and have the determination to succeed. No environmentalists will take this away from them, nor should they try. We are giving as much acknowledgement to environmental issues as we can, commensurate with providing the nation with the means to better the lives and prosperity of it's people.

And in the forests around here one can still see butterflies - not like the UK where, as a boy in the forties and fifties I recall all manner of them, but now only the cabbage white seems to have survived. (The forests that were not destroyed by Agent Orange, that is).

[Tejas]

Since you live in Vietnam, and because it is so close to Thailand, you might want to view this movie:

A report on the effects of climate change in Viet Nam

http://asiapacific.unfpa.org/public/

Unfortunately for the spammers, it presents information on how the melting glaciers are negatively impacting Vietnam.

This link is also useful if you know how to interpret scientific data (spammers don't even need to look at it):

http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2009/en/ch1.shtml

It is clear global warming and associated climate change are happening now.

As stated earlier, I think the main problem with the Mekong is the glaciers melting...over time this will lead to no water.....no Mekong.

This will, obviously, negatively impact agriculture, causing massive social chaos.

I also don't necessarily blame the Chinese for acting in their own self-interests.

Nobody has told me why they should share water that has its source in China and Tibet.......why?

Would Saudi Arabia share its oil with Yemen? Would South Africa share its diamonds with Zimbabwe? Would the USA share its oil with Mexico? I think not.

[RickBradford]

The opening sentence of that report shows what a complete crock it is:

The temperature of the earth's surface has risen 0.74 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. This increase may not seem much, but this warming has been sufficient to disrupt many of the planet's ecosystems to pose significant risks to human well-being.

Nobody in the debate would endorse such an absurd exaggeration of the effects of warming.

Vietnam faces a severe threat in the Mekong Delta, which is made of silt from the Mekong River, and needs continued water flow with its silt to hold back the sea. If hydropower dams affect that flow, the 20 million or so people living there face a bleak future.

So, if the West is dumb enough to offer Nguyen Tan Dung $100 billion to mitigate the effects of 'climate change', he sure isn't dumb enough to turn it down.

[slapout]

upset - I love verbal duelling, especially when they bring a knife to a gunfight! God's gift to the stupid, they aren't smart enough to realize that they're stupid.

Besides having a sense of humor a right knowledgeable individual it would seem.

Have not finished all the replies but this one gave me a chuckle, especially after the recent remark by robin williams, that Aussies' are just rednecks of English stock, or something to that effect. The quote above reminded me of the rednecks back home and some of the pearls of wisdom uttered on occasion.

[Tejas]

they aren't smart enough to realize that they're stupid

Words of wisdom

[LaoPo]

Maybe the China-blamers will now understand that the problems of the low-leveled Mekong river isn't just a problem caused in or by China but part of a far greater problem....

EXTREME AND SERIOUS DROUGHTS in SE ASIA..the most extreme since 50-100 years

"Bhumibol Dam power output peaks as mercury soars"

Its reservoir now holds just 1.53 billion cubic metres of usable water - only 15.8 per cent of its maximum capacity, he added.

from: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thailand-Rea...18#entry3479018

BTW: the Bhumibol Dam's reservoir* has NOTHING to do with water coming from sources in China; it's water origins from the Ping River in Thailand itself (feeding the Chao Phraya river) and comes from Chiang Mai province and the dam's reservoir is now at a dramatic low level of just 15%...

Apart from that, I never read anything on this board about all the other dams in Thailand like the controversial and immense Pak Mun Dam/reservoir** Thailand has, blocking and controlling it's own rivers just before they flow into the Mekong at the Thai/Cambodia border......

Do the Cambodians like it that Thailand control it's own rivers, just before they flow into Cambodian territory also ?

Next to that, most people seem to forget that the inflow of water from the Lancang (later Mekong) river is minor to the large inflow of water coming from streams in Thailand itself but for an even greater part coming from Laos (which is a LOT more mountainous area than Thailand).

* http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=....817261&z=8

** http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&q=pak...mp;t=h&z=12

LaoPo

[Tejas]

Maybe the China-blamers will now understand that the problems of the low-leveled Mekong river isn't just a problem caused in or by China but part of a far greater problem....

EXTREME AND SERIOUS DROUGHTS in SE ASIA..the most extreme since 50-100 years

"Bhumibol Dam power output peaks as mercury soars"

Its reservoir now holds just 1.53 billion cubic metres of usable water - only 15.8 per cent of its maximum capacity, he added.

from: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thailand-Rea...18#entry3479018

BTW: the Bhumibol Dam's reservoir* has NOTHING to do with water coming from sources in China; it's water origins from the Ping River in Thailand itself (feeding the Chao Phraya river) and comes from Chiang Mai province and the dam's reservoir is now at a dramatic low level of just 15%...

Apart from that, I never read anything on this board about all the other dams in Thailand like the controversial and immense Pak Mun Dam/reservoir** Thailand has, blocking and controlling it's own rivers just before they flow into the Mekong at the Thai/Cambodia border......

Do the Cambodians like it that Thailand control it's own rivers, just before they flow into Cambodian territory also ?

Next to that, most people seem to forget that the inflow of water from the Lancang (later Mekong) river is minor to the large inflow of water coming from streams in Thailand itself but for an even greater part coming from Laos (which is a LOT more mountainous area than Thailand).

* http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=....817261&z=8

** http://maps.google.nl/maps?hl=nl&q=pak...mp;t=h&z=12

LaoPo

Hi LP........interesting post.

Certainly, the problem is more complex than most people realize.

The point about severe droughts is important.....the data (which I don't need to show.......take my word for it) show a clear pattern: severe weather events have increased substantially just over the past 30 years.

This is directly related to global warming and climate change........no.........I don't care about what the nuts (who have no understanding of science) have to say about this.

Are you saying that most of the water Thailand's farmers use is not originating in China or territories effectively controlled by China?

That, in fact, most of the water comes from Lao and mountainous areas inside Thailand? True?

If I understand you, you are not minimizing the impact of melting glaciers on the Mekong riverine system.........you are simply adding that more water comes from other sources in Lao and within Thailand. True?

Also, you are pointing out that Thailand (like China) has constructed dams and is controlling the flow of water into places like Cambodia.......true?

Interesting stuff.

I read that Cambodia is presently constructing a dam that will be used to generate hydroelectric power.........that should, if true, impact the flow of water from Cambodia to Thailand.

The rivers and ponds near where I live are all drying up now........I have never, ever seen weather like this.

As an aside, I talked with a man who has lived here for 46 years. I asked him what the weather was like 46 years ago. He said that 46 years ago at this time of the year it was much cooler and wetter than today.

I asked him if he thought all elderly Thais think this........he said "yes." I asked "are you sure about this?" He said, "totally sure."

This is a proxy measure (qualitative measure) that simply lends support to the hard quantitative data.

In science, that is the best evidence that something is actually happening in terms of climate change.

Put differently, when both quantitative and qualitative data are in agreement, there is a strong probability that what you are seeing is actually happening and not a product of random events.

[RickBradford]

I read that Cambodia is presently constructing a dam that will be used to generate hydroelectric power.........that should, if true, impact the flow of water from Cambodia to Thailand.

Actually. JR, the water flows the other way ... you know, downstream. It's called gravity.

Edited April 8, 2010 by RickBradford