China begins construction on world's largest dam in Tibet – DW – 07/21/2025
China's Premier Li Qiang announced that construction has begun on what will be the world's largest hydropower dam on the Yarlung Tsangpo river, at the eastern rim of the Tibetan Plateau.
The announcement was made at the ceremony on Saturday, as reported by the Chinese media.
However, the planned dam has sparked concerns from India, Bangladesh and NGOs.
The Yarlung Tsangpo river, which is 2,900 kilometres long, starts in the Himalayas and winds through what is said to be the world's deepest land-based canyon. At one section, the river drops 2000 meters (6561 feet) in elevation within 50 kilometers (31 miles).
China has cited expanding renewable energy, reducing carbon emissions, and economic goals in the Tibet region as reasons behind the estimated $170 billion (€147.4 billion) project.
"The electricity generated will be primarily transmitted to other regions for consumption, while also meeting local power needs in Tibet," state media reported.
The dam will reportedly consist of five cascade hydropower stations with capacity to produce 300 billion kilowatt hours of electricity each year — equivalent to the amount consumed by the UK last year.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
As the Yarlung Tsangpo flows south, it becomes the Brahmaputra river in India and Bangladesh. Millions rely on the river as a water source and for agriculture. Both countries have expressed concerns over the dam's impact on millions of people living downstream. NGOs have also warned of risks of irreversible damage to the ecologically sensitive plateau.
In January, India's Foreign Ministry raised concerns with China, saying it will "monitor and take necessary measures to protect our interests." The ministry stressed that China has been "urged to ensure that the interests of the downstream states of the Brahmaputra are not harmed by activities in upstream areas."
A 2020 report from the Lowry Institute, an Australian think tank, reported that "control over these rivers gives China a stranglehold on the Indian economy."
Chinese authorities have not said how many people would be displaced by construction of the Yarlung project. In December, China's Foreign Ministry said that the project would not have any "negative impact" downstream, adding that Beijing "will also maintain communication with countries at the lower reaches" of the river.
This is not the first time geopolitical issues have been raised by rivers which cross international borders.
The Yarlung Tsangpo dam is expected to be operational in the 2030s.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Int'l Business Times
an hour ago
- Int'l Business Times
India's Modi And UK PM Starmer Ink Trade Deal
Prime Minister Keir Starmer praised Britain's "unique bonds" with India as he and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi formally signed a recently announced UK-India trade deal during talks on Thursday. Starmer hailed the agreement as a "landmark moment" for both countries as he hosted India's leader at his Chequers country estate, northwest of London. "This is not the extent or the limit of our collaboration with India," added the British premier, whose year-old government is struggling to fire up an economy weakened by years of stagnant growth and high inflation. "We have unique bonds of history, of family and of culture and we want to strengthen our relationship further, so that it is even more ambitious, modern and focused on the long term," he said. Starmer and Modi announced in May they had struck a free trade agreement that the British government says will eventually add GBP4.8 billion ($6.5 billion) a year to the UK economy. The UK and India hope the accord will boost trade between the two countries by GBP25.5 billion, as well as bolstering the British economy and wages. Modi, standing alongside Starmer during a media appearance, described the deal as a "blueprint for our shared prosperity". Britain and India are the sixth and fifth largest global economies respectively, with a trade relationship worth around GBP41 billion and investment supporting more than 600,000 jobs across both countries. The accord slashes tariffs on imports of UK goods into India, including whisky, cosmetics and medical devices. In return, the United Kingdom will cut tariffs on clothes, footwear and food products including frozen prawns from India. Starmer and Modi were also likely to discuss last month's Air India disaster in which 241 people died when a London-bound flight crashed after taking off from Ahmedabad in western India. Some 169 Indian passengers and 52 British nationals were killed in the June 12 crash, one of the deadliest plane disasters in terms of the number of British fatalities. A lawyer for 20 British families said this week the repatriation of victims had been marred by errors with one relative finding that a returned coffin contained "co-mingled" remains. A different family was told a coffin contained the body of someone else entirely, not their loved one, he said, according to UK media. India's foreign ministry has said all remains "were handled with utmost professionalism" and that it is "continuing to work with the UK authorities on addressing any concerns related to this issue". Another tricky topic of discussion could be that of Scottish sikh blogger Jagtar Singh Johal, imprisoned in India since 2017 on accusations of being part of a terror plot against right-wing Hindu leaders. He has not been convicted of a crime and in March was cleared of one of the nine charges against him. His brother Gurpreet Singh Johal said in a statement the case "should be high on the agenda" during the two leaders' meeting. Starmer and Modi have met twice recently, at the G7 summit in Canada last month and at the G20 meeting in Brazil last year. Modi was also due to see King Charles III during his brief stay in Britain, his fourth visit since becoming India's leader in 2014. The accord slashes tariffs on imports of UK goods into India, including whisky, cosmetics and medical devices AFP
DW
an hour ago
- DW
National climate inaction just got harder – DW – 07/23/2025
The International Court of Justice ruling on climate inaction could see badly affected states seek reparations from big polluters. In a ruling that is non-binding, but that experts say is likely to have far-reaching consequences, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has made clear that the climate must be protected for "present and future generations." Outlining the obligations of states to protect the human rights of citizens being impacted by rising global temperatures, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" is a human at the UN's top court on Wednesday, he added that failing to protect the planet from the impacts of climate change may be a violation of international law. The consequences of a country failing to fulfill its duty would be "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,' he said. In other words, the ruling paves the way for countries, groups or individuals being impacted by extreme weather and other climate impacts to sue high-emitting nations, including over past emissions. Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, welcomed the ruling as a "lifeline" for Pacific communities facing some of the worst impacts of climate change. "The world's smallest countries have made history," he said. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities." Reading the ruling, Iwasawa said "greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities and have cross-border effects" with far-reaching consequences. These, he said, "underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change." The judge further said that countries have an obligation under both international laws — including human rights legislation — and international climate treaties to protect the environment and ensure a stable climate. As such, countries are obliged to cooperate on preventing harm caused by climate change. They must make sure their national climate targets represent the highest possible ambition, according to the court. In its ruling, the ICJ also said countries have a duty not to turn away migrants whose lives would be endangered by climate change in their home countries. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Former human rights chief, Mary Robinson, said the ruling was "a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of climate change." "This is a gift from the Pacific and the world's youth to the global community, a legal turning point that can accelerate the path toward a safer, fairer future," said Robinson, who is also a member of The Elders, an independent group of global leaders working toward justice and a healthy planet. The case began in 2020 after students from Pacific Island countries lobbied governments into calling for the legal clarification of national obligation on tackling climate change. The state of Vanuatu asked the ICJ to rule on the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment — and by extension present and future generations — from greenhouse gas emissions. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Speaking in front of the court following the decision, Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu called the ruling a "landmark milestone for climate action." "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time. For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity, which is climate change," he added. "It points to the critical nature of this issue and also the consensus of most people in the world that we need to really address it as a matter of urgency." Last December, the court heard testimonies from almost 100 countries and 12 international organizations. Some called for greater legal protections from climate change. Others said existing UN treaties — primarily the 2015 Paris Agreement — provided enough legal guidelines on action toward slowing climate change. Germany and the US were among the latter. President Donald Trump has since announced his country's withdrawal from the landmark accord that saw 195 nations agree to reduce carbon emissions and pursue efforts to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). But experts say the Paris Agreement was never intended to define all laws around climate change. Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told DW the scope of climate change means there is space for a lot of different laws. "The climate treaties remain very important, they're just not the only game in town," she told DW. In bringing the case to the court, Vanuatu also asked for clarification on the legal consequences for countries that failed to meet their obligations on slowing their emissions. Some experts have said countries and regions that have emitted most CO2 cumulatively — including the United States, China, Russia and the European Union — carry the most responsibility for global warming. "Past emissions matter," Chowdhury told DW, adding that harm has already been done. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Poorer countries have long been calling for richer nations to pay for damage caused by extreme weather linked to the emissions heating the planet. Many of these less wealthy states are experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, despite having done the least to contribute to the crisis. The ICJ advisory warned that "adverse impacts and loss and damage will escalate with every increment of global warming." It made clear that countries have to meet their climate obligations or potentially see affected nations seek reparations through legal action.A loss and damage fund was established at UN climate negotiations two years ago in Dubai, but has only received around $700 million in pledges. That is far lower than the hundreds of billions of dollars experts say climate change could cost in damages by 2030. "The world's highest court has spoken – reinforcing what frontline communities have long demanded: justice means remedy," Chowdhury said. "The verdict is out: polluters must pay," she added. The ICJ advisory opinion is one of three that have been delivered in past months outlining state obligations around climate action. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion asserting countries' obligations to protect citizens' human rights by ensuring a healthy environment and stable climate. Although advisory opinions are not legally binding, they hold significant legal weight and moral authority. One impact could be on litigation being brought against governments and companies over climate impacts. So far, around 3,000 cases have been filed in almost 60 countries. Joana Setzer, associate professorial research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, said the advisory opinion marks a "turning point" for litigation. "It's authoritative interpretation of countries' legal obligations will serve as a crucial tool for domestic courts, litigants and advocates striving to hold governments accountable," she said. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
World's top court paves rules on countries' climate inaction – DW – 07/23/2025
The International Court of Justice has ruled that states' failure to tackle climate change could amount to a violation of international law and see most-affected nations seek reparations. In a ruling that is non-binding, but that experts say is likely to have far-reaching consequences, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made clear that the climate must be protected for "present and future generations." Outlining the obligations of states to protect the human rights of citizens being impacted by rising global temperatures, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" is a human right, and that failing to protect the planet from the impacts of climate change may be a violation of international law. The consequences of a country failing to fulfill its duty would be "full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction,' he said at the UN's top court on Wednesday. The other words, the ruling paves the way for countries, groups or individuals being impacted by extreme weather and other climate impacts to sue high-emitting nations, including over past emissions. Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, welcomed the ruling as a "lifeline" for Pacific communities facing some of the worst impacts of climate change. "Today, the world's smallest countries have made history," he said. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities." Reading the ruling, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa said "greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities and have cross-border effects" with far-reaching consequences. These, he said, "underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change." The judge further said that countries have an obligation under both international laws — including human rights legislation — and international climate treaties to protect the environment and ensure a stable climate. As such, countries have a duty to cooperate on preventing harm caused by climate change. They must make sure their national climate targets represent the highest possible ambition, according to the court. In its ruling, the court also said countries had a duty not to turn away migrants whose lives would be endangered by climate change in their home countries. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Former human rights chief, Mary Robinson, said ruling was "a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of climate change." "This is a gift from the Pacific and the world's youth to the global community, a legal turning point that can accelerate the path toward a safer, fairer future," said Robinson, who is also a member of The Elders, an independent group of global leaders working toward justice and a healthy planet. The case began in 2020 after students from Pacific Island countries lobbied governments into calling for the legal clarification of state obligation when it comes to tackling climate change. The state of Vanuatu requested the ICJ to rule on the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment — and by extension present and future generations — from greenhouse gas emissions. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Speaking in front of the court following the decision, Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu called the ruling a "landmark milestone for climate action." "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time. For the first time in history, the ICJ has spoken directly about the biggest threat facing humanity, which is climate change," he added. "It points to the critical nature of this issue and also the consensus of most people in the world that we need to really address it as a matter of urgency." In December, the court heard testimonies from almost 100 countries and 12 international organizations. Both those calling for greater legal protections from climate change, and those who said existing UN treaties — primarily the 2015 Paris Agreement — provided enough legal guidelines on action toward slowing climate change. Germany and the US were among them. President Donald Trump has since announced his country's withdrawal from the landmark accord that saw 195 nations agree to reduce carbon emissions and pursue efforts to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). But experts say the Paris agreement was never intended to define all laws around climate change. Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, told DW the scope of climate change meant there is scope for a lot of different laws. "The climate treaties remain very important, they're just not the only game in town," she told DW. In bringing the case to the court, Vanuatu also asked for clarification on the legal consequences for countries that failed to meet their obligations on slowing their emissions. Some experts have said countries and regions that have emitted most CO2 cumulatively — including the United States, China, Russia and the European Union — carry the most responsibility for global warming. "Past emissions matter," Chowdhury told DW, adding that harm has already been done. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Poorer countries have long been calling for richer nations to pay for damage caused by extreme weather linked to the emissions heating the planet. Many of these less wealthy states are experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, despite having done the least to contribute to the crisis. The ICJ advisory warned that "adverse impacts and loss and damage will escalate with every increment of global warming." It made clear that countries have to meet their climate obligations or potentially see affected nations seek reparations through legal action.A loss and damage fund was established at UN climate negotiations two years ago in Dubai, but has only received around $700 million in pledges. That is far lower than the hundreds of billions of dollars experts say climate change could cost in damages by 2030. "The world's highest court has spoken – reinforcing what frontline communities have long demanded: justice means remedy," Chowdhury said. "The verdict is out: polluters must pay," she added. The ICJ advisory opinion is one of three that have been delivered in past months outlining state obligations around climate action. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion asserting countries' obligations to protect citizens' human rights by ensuring a healthy environment and stable climate. Although advisory opinions are not legally binding, they hold significant legal weight and moral authority. One impact could be on litigation being brought against governments and companies over climate impacts. So far, around 3,000 cases have been filed in almost 60 countries. Joana Setzer, associate professorial research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, said the advisory opinion marks a "turning point" for litigation. "It's authoritative interpretation of countries' legal obligations will serve as a crucial tool for domestic courts, litigants and advocates striving to hold governments accountable," she said. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
