Mekong Power Plan Will Affect Millions Of Lives : Activists

[Humphrey Bear]

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.

Sorry, but after 15 minutes the video was still trying to load - I gave up.

I believe that this UN FPA is a United Nations NGO spin-off?

Therefore looking all the time to generate funds from various governments and to self-perpetuate itself and grow in organisational status?

So scare-monger stories are generated to shock politicians and shake loose the purse-strings of the more prosperous governments (who will raise taxes by a couple of percent on the issue - pass 0.5% on to the NGO in question and use the other 1.5% for their own internal growth and self-perpetuating civil service).

Also - as you stated - the VN government are not going to turn away large dollops of cash that are heading their way. It's all good for building more power stations.

Down in Ca Mau, where I was in 2008/9, the land is still extending 15 metres per year into th sea, as it has done for years - thanks to the deposits brought down by the Mekong.

We have just harvested the rice after Tet - one of three crops per year. These are being irrigated nicely, thank you. And the water available for cooling power stations is available as well. Some evaporates, sure, but most is returned (cooled) to the source. What hapens to the evaporated water? It is returned over the next seven months as rain.

And the rainfall has not diminished over the past years. Still ample for irrigation, with enough left over to flood half the towns of VietNam as usual.

[Humphrey Bear]

Oh, and by the way, it is melting glaciers that provide the headwater flow for several major rivers in the area, supplemented by water run-off and aquifers in the hilly regions through which these rivers run.

Melting glaciers are not the problem.

Replenishing the glaciers is possibly a provblem.

This could be caused - I am no meteorologist - by changes to precipitation, or changes in wind direction/force, or by general climate change. On this I am open.

But as to the causes and solutions to such problems, and whether they are the most important problems, such matters are not solvable in this sort of discussion.

I personally believe that bringing the countries of SE Asia up to a standard of life (education, leisure as well as prosperity in full employment) that the Western world has enjoyed for 150 years in comparison, is a more worthwhile objective than bleating about something as nebulous as 'climate change'.

Look - it's raining too much in Rio de Janeiro now, not snowing enough in the Himalayas.

How do people propose to alter that?

Who will decide where the rain/snow should go, where it is not necessary?

I worked in Abu Dhabi a few years ago - where I was it had not rained for five years. Plenty of trees there - palms that needed a little salty water, other trees that needed irrigation. We built a desalination plant yielding 100 million gallons per day of irrigation water. That took a lot of energy. Now, would it be right to divert rainfall to this area and use the energy for other things?

India and China want to be left to go their own way as far as carbon controls go - although China does realise that control is necessary - but what about the smaller players, such as Vietnam. They can be bullied by the major powers, whose politicians are swayed by polls, and the polls are run by media hounds who are fixated on certain emotive issues like feminism and climate change.

So is Vietnam to be condemned to continuing poverty because Rupert Murdoch wants to sell more papers (as well as rule the world)?

Solve problems that can be solved before turning to the impossible.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Humphrey Bear

[RickBradford]

One of the problems with finding out exactly what effect China's dams are having on the Mekong is that it is apparently taking time for China to emerge from decades of ingrained secrecy and begin to share data in a pro-active manner, as this article notes.

[LaoPo]

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

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

3. 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?

4. 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.

1. Yes; that's correct. I wrote earlier in the link below:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/China-Denies...87#entry3414187

"You can see that the Mekong water supply is for 16% from China and the rest (84%) indeed from the other countries: from Myanmar: 2%, Laos: 35%, Thailand: 18%, Cambodia: 18% and Vietnam: 11%. This water is coming from thousands of small streams and smaller or larger rivers, all ending up in the Mekong."

Map of The Mekong River Basin's water supply with %'s :

2. yes; see # 1

3. Several studies, by foreign- as well as Chinese scientists have found that the glaciers in Qinghai Province in China as well as Tibet are decreasing. Qinghai is the origin of the Lancang/Mekong river. Combined with the extreme droughts since August 2009 (!) in SW China and parts of Thailand and Laos it is no wonder that the Mekong levels are extremely low; lower than many decades before.

4. Of course. The Pak Mun Dam near the Cambodian border (5,5 kms away) shows that Thailand is taking care of it's own water supplies (own soil) first, before letting the oversupply run into the shared Thai/Cambodian bordered Mekong, running further south from there.

5. What's more: It is odd that the MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION - MRC- supplied the following facts of Mekong water levels:

Measured on April 8, 2010 !

http://ffw.mrcmekong.org/north.htm

Where one can see that the water level up north in Thailand is -1.84M Chiang Saen*** and even 3.23M at Luang Prabang/Laos -!!!- but decreases further and further, running along the Thai/Laos border....and THAN......going up again at the Cambodian water checkpoints Stung Treng/Cambodia 2.22M and Kratie/Cambodia with 6.58M !!!

see here: http://ffw.mrcmekong.org/central.htm

Now, who's using that water between the inflow from China/Burma/Laos borders and the lower Mekong ?

*** In Chiang Saen, the Mekong enters Thailand, coming from the Burma/Lao bordered river)

LaoPo

[Tejas]

I appreciate your productive and informative response.

Please give me time to study what you posted--bit complicated.

I have only casually examined it.

I have no intention of responding to the spammers who keep trying to get us off topic (we both know who they are).

I will respond to your post within 24 hours.

[brahmburgers]

One of the problems with finding out exactly what effect China's dams are having on the Mekong is that it is apparently taking time for China to emerge from decades of ingrained secrecy and begin to share data in a pro-active manner, as this article notes.

Agree, Chinese authorities' ingrained habit of secrecy is an on-going issue. Plus, they're only going to put forth info that bolsters their plans for getting as much resources for themselves as possible.

All the countries in the Mekong's watershed contribute to the water flow, and like climate itself, it's mutable, with some regions getting more than average precipitation while others getting less. Just as important are issues of water usage/conservation, and the terrain variations within the watersheds. Some areas have been stripped of trees, therefore have less capacity for storing water, etc.

To me, some of the most pressing issues re; Mekong water flow, are:

A. Greediness. Countries want dams, but need to balance out their needs with other factors - and try to tune in to the overall impacts of what they're building. Currently, the mentality is: "China is building a quantity of giant dams as quick as they can, so we need to build big dams as quick as we can, in order to try and retain as much water as possible." That's not a good attitude. Quite immature actually, and harmful for the environment overall.

B. Environmental Considerations taking a back seat. Sure, there's talk of environmental concerns, but there's scant action being taken that really benefits the environment. It's like 'greenwash' of large corporations - where they talk about E issues (like using better light bulbs) while concurrently doing harmful things they've always been doing - though better disguised.

C. Maintaining water guzzling crops, and multiple crops-per-year. Growing paddy rice in drought-prone areas is just plain stupid. Sorghum or any number of other grains would be a lot smarter, but old habits take decades to change - if they change at all.

[RickBradford]

^^^

In light of what you say, it might be too late for this fellow...

The Mekong giant catfish is perhaps the most interesting and most threatened species in the Mekong river. For this reason conservationists have chosen it as a sort of “flagship” species to promote conservation on the Mekong. With recorded sizes of up to 3.2 meters and 300 kilograms, the Mekong’s giant catfish currently holds the Guinness Book of World Record’s position for the world’s largest freshwater fish.

Endemic to the lower half of the Mekong river, this catfish is in danger of extinction due to overfishing, as well as the decrease in water quality due to development and upstream damming. The current IUCN Red List for fishes classes the species as Critically Endangered; while the number of individuals living in the wild is not known, catch data indicate that the population has fallen by 80 percent in the last 14 years.

[Tejas]

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

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

3. 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?

4. 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.

1. Yes; that's correct. I wrote earlier in the link below:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/China-Denies...87#entry3414187

"You can see that the Mekong water supply is for 16% from China and the rest (84%) indeed from the other countries: from Myanmar: 2%, Laos: 35%, Thailand: 18%, Cambodia: 18% and Vietnam: 11%. This water is coming from thousands of small streams and smaller or larger rivers, all ending up in the Mekong."

Map of The Mekong River Basin's water supply with %'s :

2. yes; see # 1

3. Several studies, by foreign- as well as Chinese scientists have found that the glaciers in Qinghai Province in China as well as Tibet are decreasing. Qinghai is the origin of the Lancang/Mekong river. Combined with the extreme droughts since August 2009 (!) in SW China and parts of Thailand and Laos it is no wonder that the Mekong levels are extremely low; lower than many decades before.

4. Of course. The Pak Mun Dam near the Cambodian border (5,5 kms away) shows that Thailand is taking care of it's own water supplies (own soil) first, before letting the oversupply run into the shared Thai/Cambodian bordered Mekong, running further south from there.

5. What's more: It is odd that the MEKONG RIVER COMMISSION - MRC- supplied the following facts of Mekong water levels:

Measured on April 8, 2010 !

http://ffw.mrcmekong.org/north.htm

Where one can see that the water level up north in Thailand is -1.84M Chiang Saen*** and even 3.23M at Luang Prabang/Laos -!!!- but decreases further and further, running along the Thai/Laos border....and THAN......going up again at the Cambodian water checkpoints Stung Treng/Cambodia 2.22M and Kratie/Cambodia with 6.58M !!!

see here: http://ffw.mrcmekong.org/central.htm

Now, who's using that water between the inflow from China/Burma/Laos borders and the lower Mekong ?

*** In Chiang Saen, the Mekong enters Thailand, coming from the Burma/Lao bordered river)

LaoPo

Hi LaoPo.......as I said, "good post."

The data clearly show that glaciers are melting and negatively impacting the main rivers in Southeast Asia.

The data also show that the Mekong "system" is undergoing more "stress" (i.e., lower levels over time) as it makes its way along the Thai-Lao border.

This no doubt has to do with agricultural production in eastern Thailand. Farmers are, in essence, draining the river. There are, no doubt, other factors involved.

It is interesting to see a detailed map of the Mekong, from its origin to end point. There are so many maps, but the one you directed me to is the most detailed I have ever seen.

There are, of course, two other rivers: the Chao Phraya and Irrawady. The Irrawady clearly originates near the same place as the Mekong--thus, melting glaciers will have a serious impact on both of these rivers.

You presented information stating that 16% of the Mekong's water comes from China.

I wonder if all three of the major rivers are connected at some point (e.g., point of origin).

I can't find extremely detailed maps for all three rivers.

My guess is that they are connected--at least the Irrawady and Mekong. Most people say the origin on the Chao Phraya is inside Thailand....something I find hard to believe....although some maps show that.

Because some people don't understand the significance of what we are talking about (or trying too if the spammers allow us to do so), I would like to post the following quote:

Southeast Asia's few dense population clusters are relatively small and lie separated from one another by areas of much sparser human settlement. Reasons for population clusters are three favorable natural environments. They include the valleys and deltas of Southeast Asia's major rivers such as the Irrawaddy, Chao Phraya, Mekong River and the Red River-Tonkin Basin--most densely populated basin in SE Asia; volcanic soil; and regions that were once part of colonial plantation-Malaya. Large scale invasions from other regions have not occurred historically because physical obstacles hinder overland travel along routes into SE Asia-rugged mountains and limits to agricultural pursuits due to densely covered tropical rainforests with their attendant soils leaded by heavy monsoonal rains.

What does that mean? It means that people have historically settled around these rivers. Economies (particularly agriculture) are in large part guided by these rivers. Food production depends on these rivers. The sources of the rivers are melting.

What will happen to these economies as the glaciers melt away?

At the minimum, what will happen will not be good. No doubt social chaos will result......famine, water wars, economic problems magnified.........etc.

If you think the Reds are mad now, imagine a future where it has become increasingly difficult for them to engage in agriculture.

Well, right now the future is here on a small scale--rivers are drying up....ponds are drying up.......small fish are being removed and eaten (thus negatively impacting future fish stocks).

I will leave it at that for now.

[LaoPo]

One of the problems with finding out exactly what effect China's dams are having on the Mekong is that it is apparently taking time for China to emerge from decades of ingrained secrecy and begin to share data in a pro-active manner, as this article notes.

Agree, Chinese authorities' ingrained habit of secrecy is an on-going issue. Plus, they're only going to put forth info that bolsters their plans for getting as much resources for themselves as possible.

All the countries in the Mekong's watershed contribute to the water flow, and like climate itself, it's mutable, with some regions getting more than average precipitation while others getting less. Just as important are issues of water usage/conservation, and the terrain variations within the watersheds. Some areas have been stripped of trees, therefore have less capacity for storing water, etc.

To me, some of the most pressing issues re; Mekong water flow, are:

A. Greediness. Countries want dams, but need to balance out their needs with other factors - and try to tune in to the overall impacts of what they're building. Currently, the mentality is: "China is building a quantity of giant dams as quick as they can, so we need to build big dams as quick as we can, in order to try and retain as much water as possible." That's not a good attitude. Quite immature actually, and harmful for the environment overall.

B. Environmental Considerations taking a back seat. Sure, there's talk of environmental concerns, but there's scant action being taken that really benefits the environment. It's like 'greenwash' of large corporations - where they talk about E issues (like using better light bulbs) while concurrently doing harmful things they've always been doing - though better disguised.

C. Maintaining water guzzling crops, and multiple crops-per-year. Growing paddy rice in drought-prone areas is just plain stupid. Sorghum or any number of other grains would be a lot smarter, but old habits take decades to change - if they change at all.

A: here's a map with operational-, under construction- and proposed dams in the 5 Mekong countries:

from:

The Increasing interest in hydropower development in the Mekong Basin

an article by the Mekong River Commission - MRC:

http://www.mrcmekong.org/ish/increasing-interest.htm

I can't help it but you seem to focus your rants towards China all the time and that's a little odd since the in-stream of water supply of the Mekong, coming from China, is a mere 13-16% depending who writes about it; but...let's assume 16%.

That leaves 84% of water coming from the other 4 countries rather than China with a MAJORITY of water coming from Laos' and Thailands' other streams itself, combined together: 53%and for Thailand 18%, still more than the waters from China whilst Laos counts for 35%...but that's no wonder since the Lao area is very mountainous :

Have a look:

http://maps.google.nl/maps?f=q&source=...amp;t=p&z=7

If I read about the protests on this forum and the international press about the low-levels of the Mekong, most people did NOT study the facts.*

* Facts by the MRC: Mekong river monitoring, as of TODAY, April 9th , 2010:

http://ffw.mrcmekong.org/north.htm

If you move your mouse over the various points along the river you will see the water levels:

Interesting that today the Mekong level was at Chiang Saen 1.85M and a little further down the river, at Luang Prabang it's even 3.22M proving that more water is coming from the mountains within mostly Laos and to a lesser extent from Thailand since the Mekong runs only a small part along the Northern Thai/Lao border; after that it runs a long time in Laos itself before returning to Laos/Thailand's borders again.

Thailand should be happy with the extra Laos' waters and stop blaming exclusively the source country of the Lancang/Mekong, China.

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

Hi LaoPo.......as I said, "good post."

The data clearly show that glaciers are melting and negatively impacting the main rivers in Southeast Asia.

The data also show that the Mekong "system" is undergoing more "stress" (i.e., lower levels over time) as it makes its way along the Thai-Lao border.

This no doubt has to do with agricultural production in eastern Thailand. Farmers are, in essence, draining the river. There are, no doubt, other factors involved.

It is interesting to see a detailed map of the Mekong, from its origin to end point. There are so many maps, but the one you directed me to is the most detailed I have ever seen.

There are, of course, two other rivers: the Chao Phraya and Irrawady. The Irrawady clearly originates near the same place as the Mekong--thus, melting glaciers will have a serious impact on both of these rivers.

You presented information stating that 16% of the Mekong's water comes from China.

I wonder if all three of the major rivers are connected at some point (e.g., point of origin).

I can't find extremely detailed maps for all three rivers.

My guess is that they are connected--at least the Irrawady and Mekong. Most people say the origin on the Chao Phraya is inside Thailand....something I find hard to believe....although some maps show that.

The Irrawaddy in Burma orginates in the upper north of Burma on the Himalayan Glaciers.

The river has nothing to do with the Mekong nor the Chao Phraya river which originates in Thailand itself.

Irrawaddy river: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrawaddy_River#Source

Chao Phraya river: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chao_Phraya_River

Mekong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekong

LaoPo

[Tejas]

Thanks..........I have seen the wikipedia stuff already. What I have not seen are extremely detailed maps of both the Irrawady and Chao Phraya.

You directed me to the most detailed map I have ever seen of the Mekong..........here:

That map shows a very elaborate, extensive riverine system, extending far beyond the main river.

That "extension" made me think that there might be a connection at some point between the Mekong and Chao Phraya.........also, the Irrawady and Chao Phraya which both, no doubt, are elaborate with branches reaching far beyond their main rivers.

The information you presented on dams (proposed, under construction, existing) on the Mekong was interesting. But my main concern is how these three rivers are being impacted by global warming and climate change. That is why I keep focusing on "source" and "connections."

With that in mind, I would like to know more of what you know about the source of water for these systems.

Please correct the following. At this point, I am not that concerned about the location of the source (s), but if you want to add that info. again, feel free to do so:

1) MEKONG: source: glaciers (%) and rainfall (%)

2) CHAO PHRAYA: source: rainfall (100%)

3) IRRAWADY: source: glaciers (%) and rainfall (%)

If that is correct, I really would like to know these things:

a. the percentage of water in the Mekong and Irrawady that comes from glaciers and rainfall (please fill out the above %)

b. your view on what will happen to the Mekong and Irrawady riverine systems if the glaciers that feed them completely melt (under this scenario all of the water will come from rainfall)

c. your view on what will happen to the Chao Phraya, Mekong, and Irrawady if rainfall patterns are disrupted (which appears to be happening right now)

d. your view on what will happen to the economies and social structures in Southeast Asia if the worst case scenario materializes (i.e., melting glaciers and significant warming with droughts and insufficient water for agriculture)

As far as I know, using existing models of climate change, it is not possible to say with precision whether rainfall will increase or decrease as global warming and climate change intensify.

That is the scary part about it........nobody is sure, so we are "playing with fire."

[Tejas]

Thanks..........I have seen the wikipedia stuff already. What I have not seen are extremely detailed maps of both the Irrawady and Chao Phraya.

You directed me to the most detailed map I have ever seen of the Mekong..........here:

That map shows a very elaborate, extensive riverine system, extending far beyond the main river.

That "extension" made me think that there might be a connection at some point between the Mekong and Chao Phraya.........also, the Irrawady and Chao Phraya which both, no doubt, are elaborate with branches reaching far beyond their main rivers.

The information you presented on dams (proposed, under construction, existing) on the Mekong was interesting. But my main concern is how these three rivers are being impacted by global warming and climate change. That is why I keep focusing on "source" and "connections."

With that in mind, I would like to know more of what you know about the source of water for these systems.

Please correct the following:

1) MEKONG: source: glaciers (%) and rainfall (%)

2) CHAO PHRAYA: source: rainfall (100%)

3) IRRAWADY: source: glaciers (%) and rainfall (%)

If that is correct, I really would like to know these things:

a. the percentage of water in the Mekong and Irrawady that comes from glaciers and rainfall (please fill out the above %)

b. your view on what will happen to the Mekong and Irrawady riverine systems if the glaciers that feed them completely melt (under this scenario all of the water will come from rainfall)

c. your view on what will happen to the Chao Phraya, Mekong, and Irrawady if rainfall patterns are disrupted (which appears to be happening right now)

d. your view on what will happen to the economies and social structures in Southeast Asia if the worst case scenario materializes (i.e., melting glaciers and significant warming with droughts and insufficient water for agriculture)

As far as I know, using existing models of climate change, it is not possible to say with precision whether rainfall will increase or decrease as global warming and climate change intensify.

That is the scary part about it........nobody is sure, so we are "playing with fire."

[LaoPo]

Thanks..........I have seen the wikipedia stuff already. What I have not seen are extremely detailed maps of both the Irrawady and Chao Phraya.

You directed me to the most detailed map I have ever seen of the Mekong..........here:

That map shows a very elaborate, extensive riverine system, extending far beyond the main river.

That "extension" made me think that there might be a connection at some point between the Mekong and Chao Phraya.........also, the Irrawady and Chao Phraya which both, no doubt, are elaborate with branches reaching far beyond their main rivers.

The information you presented on dams (proposed, under construction, existing) on the Mekong was interesting. But my main concern is how these three rivers are being impacted by global warming and climate change. That is why I keep focusing on "source" and "connections."

With that in mind, I would like to know more of what you know about the source of water for these systems.

Please correct the following. At this point, I am not that concerned about the location of the source (s), but if you want to add that info. again, feel free to do so:

1) MEKONG: source: glaciers (%) and rainfall (%)

2) CHAO PHRAYA: source: rainfall (100%)

3) IRRAWADY: source: glaciers (%) and rainfall (%)

If that is correct, I really would like to know these things:

a. the percentage of water in the Mekong and Irrawady that comes from glaciers and rainfall (please fill out the above %)

b. your view on what will happen to the Mekong and Irrawady riverine systems if the glaciers that feed them completely melt (under this scenario all of the water will come from rainfall)

c. your view on what will happen to the Chao Phraya, Mekong, and Irrawady if rainfall patterns are disrupted (which appears to be happening right now)

d. your view on what will happen to the economies and social structures in Southeast Asia if the worst case scenario materializes (i.e., melting glaciers and significant warming with droughts and insufficient water for agriculture)

As far as I know, using existing models of climate change, it is not possible to say with precision whether rainfall will increase or decrease as global warming and climate change intensify.

That is the scary part about it........nobody is sure, so we are "playing with fire."

..Do you think I'm superman?

I can't possibly answer all your questions and I suggest also that we stick to the topic on hand which is the Mekong river.

All I know is that the Mekong/Lancang find it's origins on the Tibetan plateau in Qinghai province (where the earthquake happened, just today).

How much water the % is from the glaciers and rain is not within my knowledge.

My views what will happen if the glaciers stop feeding the rivers......and have to just survive from rainwater...????

Well, if the glaciers would be gone I suppose much of the greater area: Tibetan Plateau and far beyond will become desert and desert mountains and rain will not fall also.

A gruesome future.....for hundreds of millions of people; not just in Thailand but far beyond those borders, going East, North, South and West as well...

A pretty dark view.

The earthquake of today, which happened at a very high altitude and in the same area as where the Lancang/Mekong finds it's origins, made a thought come up that an earthquake could also easily block the Lancang river and "steer" it's waters into a complete other direction and thus the inflow of waters from China could come to a complete halt

The waters coming from streams in Thailand and mainly Laos have to do the job for the Mekong from that moment onwards......

It happened before and could happen again!

LaoPo

[Tejas]

Thanks..........I have seen the wikipedia stuff already. What I have not seen are extremely detailed maps of both the Irrawady and Chao Phraya.

You directed me to the most detailed map I have ever seen of the Mekong..........here:

That map shows a very elaborate, extensive riverine system, extending far beyond the main river.

That "extension" made me think that there might be a connection at some point between the Mekong and Chao Phraya.........also, the Irrawady and Chao Phraya which both, no doubt, are elaborate with branches reaching far beyond their main rivers.

The information you presented on dams (proposed, under construction, existing) on the Mekong was interesting. But my main concern is how these three rivers are being impacted by global warming and climate change. That is why I keep focusing on "source" and "connections."

With that in mind, I would like to know more of what you know about the source of water for these systems.

Please correct the following. At this point, I am not that concerned about the location of the source (s), but if you want to add that info. again, feel free to do so:

1) MEKONG: source: glaciers (%) and rainfall (%)

2) CHAO PHRAYA: source: rainfall (100%)

3) IRRAWADY: source: glaciers (%) and rainfall (%)

If that is correct, I really would like to know these things:

a. the percentage of water in the Mekong and Irrawady that comes from glaciers and rainfall (please fill out the above %)

b. your view on what will happen to the Mekong and Irrawady riverine systems if the glaciers that feed them completely melt (under this scenario all of the water will come from rainfall)

c. your view on what will happen to the Chao Phraya, Mekong, and Irrawady if rainfall patterns are disrupted (which appears to be happening right now)

d. your view on what will happen to the economies and social structures in Southeast Asia if the worst case scenario materializes (i.e., melting glaciers and significant warming with droughts and insufficient water for agriculture)

As far as I know, using existing models of climate change, it is not possible to say with precision whether rainfall will increase or decrease as global warming and climate change intensify.

That is the scary part about it........nobody is sure, so we are "playing with fire."

..Do you think I'm superman?

I can't possibly answer all your questions and I suggest also that we stick to the topic on hand which is the Mekong river.

All I know is that the Mekong/Lancang find it's origins on the Tibetan plateau in Qinghai province (where the earthquake happened, just today).

How much water the % is from the glaciers and rain is not within my knowledge.

My views what will happen if the glaciers stop feeding the rivers......and have to just survive from rainwater...????

Well, if the glaciers would be gone I suppose much of the greater area: Tibetan Plateau and far beyond will become desert and desert mountains and rain will not fall also.

A gruesome future.....for hundreds of millions of people; not just in Thailand but far beyond those borders, going East, North, South and West as well...

A pretty dark view.

The earthquake of today, which happened at a very high altitude and in the same area as where the Lancang/Mekong finds it's origins, made a thought come up that an earthquake could also easily block the Lancang river and "steer" it's waters into a complete other direction and thus the inflow of waters from China could come to a complete halt

The waters coming from streams in Thailand and mainly Laos have to do the job for the Mekong from that moment onwards......

It happened before and could happen again!

LaoPo

Superman? Of course! You are the almighty LaoPo

I think we can agree on the future implications of the combination of human stupidity (especially with regard to energy, population and water) and nature taking its revenge.

These disasters take time to unfold, usually. So, we fail to respond to them in time (human are on a different time clock than nature).

OK...........you take the lead on this topic. I have little more (if anything) to say.

[LaoPo]

Superman? Of course! You are the almighty LaoPo

I think we can agree on the future implications of the combination of human stupidity (especially with regard to energy, population and water) and nature taking its revenge.

These disasters take time to unfold, usually. So, we fail to respond to them in time (human are on a different time clock than nature).

OK...........you take the lead on this topic. I have little more (if anything) to say.

I wish I would know more, but the circumstances regarding the Mekong Power Plan are diverse and very complicated. There are 6 countries involved in the complex "road" the Lancang/Mekong is running and every country fights for it's own citizens, environment, agricultural needs and water needs.

I am and was just trying to bring a balance into this discussion and explaining that it is not just one country to be blamed but 6......they're all responsible, not just for their own sakes but for their neighbors as well.

There are indeed so many disasters that "we" do not even blink an eye anymore when we hear about yet another disaster, earthquake, tsunami, landslides, bombings, killings etc. .............UNLESS, it's around the corner and hurting the ones we love.

For the rest, we don't give a darn anymore and maybe that's a good thing since we couldn't possibly survive ourselves if we would really care for every single disaster or dying children in Africa (as an example).

100 years ago nobody cared if thousands of people died at the other end of the world, simply because they had no access to fast information sources like we have now.

20 years ago we didn't even talk to each other, the way we do now....

LaoPo

[Tejas]

Superman? Of course! You are the almighty LaoPo

I think we can agree on the future implications of the combination of human stupidity (especially with regard to energy, population and water) and nature taking its revenge.

These disasters take time to unfold, usually. So, we fail to respond to them in time (human are on a different time clock than nature).

OK...........you take the lead on this topic. I have little more (if anything) to say.

I wish I would know more, but the circumstances regarding the Mekong Power Plan are diverse and very complicated. There are 6 countries involved in the complex "road" the Lancang/Mekong is running and every country fights for it's own citizens, environment, agricultural needs and water needs.

I am and was just trying to bring a balance into this discussion and explaining that it is not just one country to be blamed but 6......they're all responsible, not just for their own sakes but for their neighbors as well.

There are indeed so many disasters that "we" do not even blink an eye anymore when we hear about yet another disaster, earthquake, tsunami, landslides, bombings, killings etc. .............UNLESS, it's around the corner and hurting the ones we love.

For the rest, we don't give a darn anymore and maybe that's a good thing since we couldn't possibly survive ourselves if we would really care for every single disaster or dying children in Africa (as an example).

100 years ago nobody cared if thousands of people died at the other end of the world, simply because they had no access to fast information sources like we have now.

20 years ago we didn't even talk to each other, the way we do now....

LaoPo

I agree........the situation is complex.......every country is self-interested (first and foremost, family, then city, then state, then nation.........then way, way down the line, other countries).

I also think that is the product of human evolution, but that is another story.

The time thing: I was intimating that humans, having such a short life span, tend to see time in short segments (maybe 100 years at most). Nature, if it could see time, would likely see things in terms of hundreds, thousands, millions, even billions of years.

Many of our problems are slow to develop in terms of human time but very fast in terms of "geological time." A good example is global warming. So, it is hard for most people to appreciate its ultimate impact on generations that will follow us (provided that happens ).

We tend to pay more attention to things that hit us in the face abruptly, like a truck in the fast lane of human time (e.g., earthquake, volcanic eruption, tidal wave, tornado, famine).

I think your point about all nations being self-interested is a good one.

I think your point about China not being the only "villain" is a good one.

It is clear that Thailand is acting in its own self-interest and is draining the Mekong.

I will leave with this thought: All of these natural and man-made problems point to a solution that we must focus on--creating local sustainability in terms of economics, population and environment.

If we do not do that--and we are not doing that......we are, in fact, doing the precise opposite........future generations will run out of rope trying to hang us all.

Maybe sanity will prevail..........it has happened before.

Sometimes when things are at their worst, solutions start to become more clear.

Unfortunately, we are now drowning in a sea of pseudo-intellectual bullshit, perpetuated by a culture of irresponsibility (that rewards people for acting irresponsibly), dominated by a global ruling elite (men and women who stand at the top of a corporate-political-military triangle of power) that controls the now global flow of information.

In short, they are teaching us how to exploit ourselves...........and now most of us are puppets doing what they want us to do.

They did not, however, control what I just wrote.

[RickBradford]

Let's stay on topic and dump the World Conspiracy BS, shall we?

A report just out has generally bad news all round:

A MASSIVE dam slated to be built on the Mekong River in Kratie province [Cambodia] is one of two projects that pose an even greater threat to human and food security and livelihoods than similar projects in China, according to a new report that calls for a moratorium on dams along the river.

The report, released Wednesday afternoon in Washington by the Henry L Stimson Centre, a nonpartisan think tank promoting international peace and security, raises an alarm about the US$5 billion Sambor Rapids dam as well as the US$300 million Don Sahong dam project in Laos, even as, in the aftermath of this week’s Mekong River Commission summit, international attention has been focused on the potential harm caused to the river by Chinese-built dams.

“These two dams, more than others planned further north, threaten critical migratory paths for 70 percent of the most commercially valuable species of wild fish,” states the report, titled Mekong Tipping Point: Hydropower Dams, Human Security and Regional Stability.

Richard Cronin, the report’s lead author and a senior associate and director of the Stimson Centre’s Southeast Asia programme, raised similar concerns about the Sambor Rapids project during testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission in February, saying it would “create a total barrier to the spawning migration” of fish that travel through the Hou Sahong channel in the Khone Falls area of southern Laos.

In a prepared statement, Cronin said the Hou Sahong channel is “the only one of 18 channels that allows unimpeded year-round spawning migration by hundreds of fish species that are worth as much as $9 billion or more annually, and which supply up to 80 percent of the animal protein of as many as 60 million people”.

[Tejas]

Let's stay on topic and dump the World Conspiracy BS, shall we?

Wow.........miracles happen............you finally realize you have been trying to get people off topic and that your world conspiracy ideas are total bullshit. Great.

It is about time!

[RickBradford]

The dams are taking heavy flak in some new reports:

The Don Sahong Dam spells disaster for Mekong fish. Located in the Siphandone (Khone Falls) area of southern Laos, less than two kilometers upstream of the Laos-Cambodia border, the dam would block the main channel passable year-round by fish migrating between Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, threatening vital subsistence and commercial fisheries in the Lower Mekong Basin.

Along with eight dams planned for China’s Yunnan province, the report says, as many as 13 dams planned on the Lower Mekong in Laos, Thailand and Cambodia would “have an incalculable impact on human and food security and livelihoods in the whole Mekong Basin”.

“Incredibly,” [the report] says, “there is no evidence that any country planning to build mainstream dams has made any provisions for alternative livelihoods or new sources of food security.”

Though the harmful effects of the dams – particularly with respect to wild fish stocks – are likely to materialise quickly, the development of alternative employment options will take years, the report states.

For example, the Sambor Rapids dam in Cambodia has a capacity of 3.3GW, 70% of which is slated to be exported to Vietnam, which gets the power, but threatens its own population in the Mekong Delta. Ah, well that's Communism for you....

[LaoPo]

Let's stay on topic and dump the World Conspiracy BS, shall we?

A report just out has generally bad news all round:

A MASSIVE dam slated to be built on the Mekong River in Kratie province [Cambodia] is one of two projects that pose an even greater threat to human and food security and livelihoods than similar projects in China, according to a new report that calls for a moratorium on dams along the river.

The report, released Wednesday afternoon in Washington by the Henry L Stimson Centre, a nonpartisan think tank promoting international peace and security, raises an alarm about the US$5 billion Sambor Rapids dam as well as the US$300 million Don Sahong dam project in Laos, even as, in the aftermath of this week’s Mekong River Commission summit, international attention has been focused on the potential harm caused to the river by Chinese-built dams.

“These two dams, more than others planned further north, threaten critical migratory paths for 70 percent of the most commercially valuable species of wild fish,” states the report, titled Mekong Tipping Point: Hydropower Dams, Human Security and Regional Stability.

Richard Cronin, the report’s lead author and a senior associate and director of the Stimson Centre’s Southeast Asia programme, raised similar concerns about the Sambor Rapids project during testimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission in February, saying it would “create a total barrier to the spawning migration” of fish that travel through the Hou Sahong channel in the Khone Falls area of southern Laos.

In a prepared statement, Cronin said the Hou Sahong channel is “the only one of 18 channels that allows unimpeded year-round spawning migration by hundreds of fish species that are worth as much as $9 billion or more annually, and which supply up to 80 percent of the animal protein of as many as 60 million people”.

If you quote, please submit the source.

But, it's probably from this source:

http://www.stimson.org/southeastasia/?SN=SE20060519999

Nice to see they use a (small) image from the MRC - Mekong River Commission, a copy of this image:

Good there are institutions like the Stimson Center but I prefer to study the reports from the MRC since they are the ones who are in the region themselves and not in far away Washington DC which has to relate on information from that same region.

The MRC is a very well informed organization and from whom, other than the MRC, does the Stimson Center gets it's info and writes biased articles....?

Can you tell me?

LaoPo

[RickBradford]

If you quote, please submit the source.

But, it's probably from this source:

http://www.stimson.org/southeastasia/?SN=SE20060519999

No, it isn't.

As I posted, the report is called "Mekong Tipping Point: Hydropower Dams, Human Security and Regional Stability." That is the source.

And from whom, other than your own supposition, do you get the certainty that the Stimson Center writes biased articles....?

[brahmburgers]

An already sad state of affairs re; fish stocks in the Mekong, will deteriorate noticeably with the building of the dams mentioned. And don't be surprised if new dams come along even after the current slew of dams get built. It's bad enough for people, even the ignorant masses who keep planting a water-guzzling crops like rice ....but at least people can move to other places when local environment gets too shitty. Fish are stuck with just dying, period. Not too long ago there were turtles, exotic birds and other interesting species - but say goodbye to all those and more as things deteriorate along the Mekong watershed.

Asians in general and Chinese in particular don't give a coot's ass for the environment - when stacked against acquiring resources and amassing riches. Indeed, if there was some nearly extinct animal which Chinese lore said helped old men get hard-ons in its dried/powdered state, it would be gone as fast as people could kill it and ship it up to China. It's already happening, and don't expect cultural habits to change to nurture the environment any time soon. As long as there are primitive thinking people throughout the Mekong watershed, the natural environment will continue to degrade.

[retarius]

I stand by the initial post - whatever you try to do, even it's nothing, some greenie will bitch about it. If there's not enough power, bitch. You burn fossil fuels, bitch. You build a hydro dam, bitch. And usually it's coming from idealistic young students who still think they know everything. They enjoy all the creature comforts of a modern society while they whine about development projects that will benefit those at the bottom of the heap. And yes, some get the dirty end of the stick, but I don't believe the proportions are as you describe them.

The Snowy River Scheme in Australia is a great system that saves the people of NSW and Victoria a fortune in power stations that they don't need to build. It cycles the water in the way I have described above.

As for your assertion that a hydro dam gives off greenhouse emissions similar to a coal fired station; it is simply ridiculous and another example of a little science being a dangerous thing. Yes, the dams give off carbon dioxide. Why? Because of the decomposition of vegetable and animal matter washed into them. Because this process happens at the bottom, at at high pressure, it flashes off as pressure is dropped when the water is released. Hasn't it occurred to you that it was going to happen anyway? How else is a body of water going to produce CO2? fish farting perhaps?

And this is supposed to be the equivalent of thousands of tons of coal being burnt. Crap!

Maybe now a tree-hugger knows a little more.

What a repellent person you are

[LaoPo]

If you quote, please submit the source.

But, it's probably from this source:

http://www.stimson.org/southeastasia/?SN=SE20060519999

No, it isn't.

As I posted, the report is called "Mekong Tipping Point: Hydropower Dams, Human Security and Regional Stability." That is the source.

And from whom, other than your own supposition, do you get the certainty that the Stimson Center writes biased articles....?

So, not Stimson's source?

And, why don't you post your source with a link?

LaoPo

[LaoPo]

An already sad state of affairs re; fish stocks in the Mekong, will deteriorate noticeably with the building of the dams mentioned. And don't be surprised if new dams come along even after the current slew of dams get built. It's bad enough for people, even the ignorant masses who keep planting a water-guzzling crops like rice ....but at least people can move to other places when local environment gets too shitty. Fish are stuck with just dying, period. Not too long ago there were turtles, exotic birds and other interesting species - but say goodbye to all those and more as things deteriorate along the Mekong watershed.

Asians in general and Chinese in particular don't give a coot's ass for the environment - when stacked against acquiring resources and amassing riches. Indeed, if there was some nearly extinct animal which Chinese lore said helped old men get hard-ons in its dried/powdered state, it would be gone as fast as people could kill it and ship it up to China. It's already happening, and don't expect cultural habits to change to nurture the environment any time soon. As long as there are primitive thinking people throughout the Mekong watershed, the natural environment will continue to degrade.

Don't focus you points and anger on just China; that's not fair and just. You have a tendency of doing so, unfortunately.

There are criminals in China killing rare animals and/or criminals killing animals for stupid reasons elsewhere in the world and as much as there are criminals in the other 5 countries involved, but you can't prove that there is a worse or better situation in the other regional countries, involved in the Mekong's worsening situation.

And, about dams: ALL 6 countries involved should intensify their talks about the Mekong's situation and luckily they're doing so...

1. Mekong Environment and Climate Symposium 2010; Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam - 26-27 April, 2010

http://www.mrcmekong.org/MRC_news/Mekong-E...mposium2010.htm

and

2. 8th Annual Mekong Flood Forum - 26-27 May 2010 - Don Chan Palace Hotel, Vientiane, Laos

http://www.mrcmekong.org/MRC_news/8th-Annu...lood-forum2.htm

AND:

If anyone would like to know details and specifications about the MEKONG, I suggest to study the very detailed reports and findings about water levels, also from day-to-day, here:

http://www.mrcmekong.org/

LaoPo

[RickBradford]

^^

I would prefer that you read what I post, rather than constantly asking me to point out the enclosed points again and again. Anyone would think I was running an adult education center.

For the final time, then, the report is from the Henry L Stimson Center. The title is "Mekong Tipping Point: Hydropower Dams, Human Security and Regional Stability."

[LaoPo]

^^

I would prefer that you read what I post, rather than constantly asking me to point out the enclosed points again and again. Anyone would think I was running an adult education center.

For the final time, then, the report is from the Henry L Stimson Center. The title is "Mekong Tipping Point: Hydropower Dams, Human Security and Regional Stability."

I asked you if the Stimson Center was the source of your quote and you said no but now you claim it IS the Stimson Center...

It is common knowledge on Thaivisa that if anyone quotes from an article, whatever the source origin, he/she submits a link or inform the readers about the source.

You didn't......maybe it's difficult for you to post a link?

Don't blame me for making your own errors.

LaoPo

[RickBradford]

You simply didn't read my initial post. If you had, you would have seen this:

The report, released Wednesday afternoon in Washington by the Henry L Stimson Centre, a nonpartisan think tank promoting international peace and security, raises an alarm about the US$5 billion Sambor Rapids dam as well as the US$300 million Don Sahong dam project in Laos, even as, in the aftermath of this week’s Mekong River Commission summit, international attention has been focused on the potential harm caused to the river by Chinese-built dams.

“These two dams, more than others planned further north, threaten critical migratory paths for 70 percent of the most commercially valuable species of wild fish,” states the report, titled Mekong Tipping Point: Hydropower Dams, Human Security and Regional Stability.

I really can't make it much clearer than that, I'm sorry if that's still confusing.

[LaoPo]

You simply didn't read my initial post. If you had, you would have seen this:

The report, released Wednesday afternoon in Washington by the Henry L Stimson Centre, a nonpartisan think tank promoting international peace and security, raises an alarm about the US$5 billion Sambor Rapids dam as well as the US$300 million Don Sahong dam project in Laos, even as, in the aftermath of this week’s Mekong River Commission summit, international attention has been focused on the potential harm caused to the river by Chinese-built dams.

“These two dams, more than others planned further north, threaten critical migratory paths for 70 percent of the most commercially valuable species of wild fish,” states the report, titled Mekong Tipping Point: Hydropower Dams, Human Security and Regional Stability.

I really can't make it much clearer than that, I'm sorry if that's still confusing.

Of course I read it; how else could I have known about the Stimpson Center and found it after some Googling?

You didn't provide a link and that's all I asked for but you denied it was the Stimson source in the link I provided.

My last words on this.

LaoPo

[RickBradford]

...you denied it was the Stimson source in the link I provided

Because it wasn't the Stimson source in the link you provided.

It was a completely different Stimson source, and I didn't want you to be confused (but I didn't succeed, it seems)