See the post I placed at the header of the undergraduate environmental sociology blog this week. And see the short 'update' to the documentary of Who Killed the Electric Car. An insider story of that old man talking, talking of GM as still adamant about killing his University's revived 'museum model' of EV-1 all-electric cars.
And I am reposting Park Daeyun's post so she doesn't have to. It was attached at the base of the previous week because it slipped my mind in this busy week to make a different thread for us.
That's corrected now. Post to this thread.
Like her post below, I discuss the issue of whether ecological modernization or 'treadmill' ideas fits the banning of bisphenol-A, though of course in lecture (and in my discussion of the film) I implied that the logic ideas of their models of a 'treadmill' can be commensurate with each other instead of required to be environmental degradative like Schnaiberg believes.
1. Park Daeyun
2. GE's green arm eyes Mideast for expansion
3. Ecological modernization suggests for positive sum solutions such as new efficiencies through pollution reduction and the development of profitable pollution control technologies.
I think GE is a good example of ecologically innovating corporate sector mentioned at ecological modernization.
According another article I searched, GE has released its 2005 ecomagination report, showing that revenues from the sale of energy efficient and environmentally advanced products and services hit a great amount of dollars.
-----------------------
By Nadia Saleem, Staff Reporter Published: April 19, 2008, 00:33
Dubai: Ecomagination, a green initiative of General Electric (GE), is looking to expand in the Middle East's construction and infrastructure sectors as the US firm seeks to bolster its credentials in energy-efficient and water conservation products.
GE, which heavily deals in conventional energy systems, said its green initiative, launched more than two years ago, provides efficient sources of energy or technologies that are cost effective and safe.
Lorraine Bolsinger, vice-president of Ecomagination, said the company has made significant investments in clean energy projects, passing the $1billion mark in such technologies.
The company has been increasing its investment $200 million a year and hopes to continue the trend.
"Our commitment is to double our investment in clean technology from $700 million annually to $1.5 billion annually by 2010," Bolsinger said.
The company has lowered its carbon footprint by 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and saved a $100 million in energy costs simultaneously, according to Bolsinger.
[I write: yes, that may be true here, though at the same moment GM is adamant about keeping the all electric car 'killed'. See this short video about the 'revival of the GM EV-1 electric car' and GM's legal antics to stop it.]
"Of the original 1115 GM EV1s only 40 or so still exist. These were severely disabled by GM and given to universities and museums. A few more may still exist as part of GM's fuel cell research projects. In Early December of 2007 one of them was resurrected, making its first public appearance Dec 8th at Renewable L.A., and then a few days later at the Seattle chapter of the Electric Auto Association's monthly meeting on December 11th. [Then GM told its lawyers to threaten the group with a lawsuit unless they dismantled this working example of an all-electric car.]"
The 1997 PbA (Lead Acid) EV1 was reanimated by university faculty, students, EV Bones, and Pv's donated Tech2 scanner! Mike, a retired instructor made sure to mention that the car was a part of their ongoing Hybrid project as GM stipulated that the EV1 must not be used as an EV as part of their agreement when donating it to the school.
For clarification, there are two EV-1's at the two different video links. One is all-electric though the old man says he is going to convert it to a hybrid, the other is all-electric and is going to stay that way--and GM threatened that group with a legal letter to keep it off the streets.
Personally, I would like to see that all-electric EV-1 driven across the United States over and over, back and forth between the West Coast and Washington D.C., until they probably get arrested. That would cause lots of media attention about why they are arresting the driver instead of arresting GM for killing the car?
2. so much for the selling point of GMOs: GM-soya trials produce less than conventional soya; so their only point for their existence currently is as a proprietary patent monopoly.
3. Interesting data from long term experiment in Kansas. I have read something about this before, though this one is getting media time. The original selling feature was they would survive the application of Monsanto's herbicide RoundUp Ready, which at least one journal article I have seen (in the journal Cancer) indicates that this #1 seller of Monsanto is a carcinogen, particularly leading to non-Hodgekins lymphoma.
---------------------------
Exposed: the great GM crops myth
Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent
Andrew Fox
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted - the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development - concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor Sunday, 20 April 2008
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.
The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work.
First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed.
This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.
But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity.
The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over. (See graphic above.)
Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped.
It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.
Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it requires more complex modification.
And Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington – and who was one of the first to predict the current food crisis – said that the physiology of plants was now reaching the limits of the productivity that could be achieved.
A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with human runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile more than 50 years ago, the best time has improved only modestly . "Despite all the advances in training, no one contemplates a three-minute mile."
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.
Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: "The simple answer is no."
3.I think many environmental problems can be solved if each of us has a small garden to grow some flowers and crops. This will bring us a huge change of thought and mind. We could feel more connections with lifes and soil. To make this short, i want to say 'Agriculture' can be a starting point of environmental betterment. And of course, agriculture needs to change first.
--------------------------
Agriculture - The Need for Change RELATED ARTICLES World must reform agriculture now or face dire crisis: report Change in Farming Can Feed World - Report Free food trade threatens environment, poor: report S&T has vital role in sustainable farming /top_stories/article/34770 Washington/London/Nairobi/Delhi, 15 April 2008 - The way the world grows its food will have to change radically to better serve the poor and hungry if the world is to cope with a growing population and climate change while avoiding social breakdown and environmental collapse. That is the message from the report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, a major new report by over 400 scientists which is launched today.
The assessment was considered by 64 governments at an intergovernmental plenary in Johannesburg last week.
The authors' brief was to examine hunger, poverty, the environment and equity together. Professor Robert Watson Director of IAASTD said those on the margins are ill-served by the present system: "The incentives for science to address the issues that matter to the poor are weak... the poorest developing countries are net losers under most trade liberalization scenarios."
Modern agriculture has brought significant increases in food production. But the benefits have been spread unevenly and have come at an increasingly intolerable price, paid by small-scale farmers, workers, rural communities and the environment.
ADVERTISEMENT
It says the willingness of many people to tackle the basics of combining production, social and environmental goals is marred by "contentious political and economic stances". One of the IAASTD co-chairs, Dr Hans Herren, explains: "Specifically, this refers to the many OECD member countries who are deeply opposed to any changes in trade regimes or subsidy systems. Without reforms here many poorer countries will have a very hard time... "
The report has assessed that the way to meet the challenges lies in putting in place institutional, economic and legal frameworks that combine productivity with the protection and conservation of natural resources like soils, water, forests, and biodiversity while meeting production needs.
In many countries, it says, food is taken for granted, and farmers and farm workers are in many cases poorly rewarded for acting as stewards of almost a third of the Earth's land. Investment directed toward securing the public interest in agricultural science, education and training and extension to farmers has decreased at a time when it is most needed.
The authors have assessed evidence across a wide range of knowledge that is rarely brought together. They conclude we have little time to lose if we are to change course. Continuing with current trends would exhaust our resources and put our children's future in jeopardy.
Professor Bob Watson, Director of IAASTD said: "To argue, as we do, that continuing to focus on production alone will undermine our agricultural capital and leave us with an increasingly degraded and divided planet is to reiterate an old message. But it is a message that has not always had resonance in some parts of the world. If those with power are now willing to hear it, then we may hope for more equitable policies that do take the interests of the poor into account."
Professor Judi Wakhungu, said "We must cooperate now, because no single institution, no single nation, no single region, can tackle this issue alone. The time is now." ------------------------------- http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/34770
2. Water privatization, will it work properly in Korea?
3.Most people in Korea distrust tap water. But goverment of Korea seems to step backward from their responsibility of providing clean tap water. Goverment tries to introduce water privatization which are making serious conflict world wide.This article is spporting water privitization for two reason. first, telephone services, railway transportation, electricity and other utilities are already privatized or in the process of privatization. Water cannot be the exception. Second,subsidized prices is too low that it is causing a financial deficit. Low price also causing wasting of water.Aithough it mentions remedy for poor and distant people from water, I think reformation of public system is better than water privatization. Water is certainly different from telephone services, railway transportation, electricity. We can do without them(very inconvenient, though) but not water. And regardless of price, rich people will use water as much as they like.
----------------------- [EDITORIAL] Subsidized water 2007-07-19 10:02
The central government plans to privatize the provision of tap water or hand it over to government-run companies by 2012, and thus free local governments from subsidizing it. The plan, though belated, is commendable. When the plan is successfully implemented, the quality of water will certainly improve though its price may go up.
Opposition to the plan cannot be justified, given that telephone services, railway transportation, electricity and other utilities are already privatized or in the process of privatization. Tap water alone cannot remain as a public good that the government is obligated to provide at a price lower than the cost.
The main problem with the provision of tap water is its subsidized prices. Local governments provide tap water at the average price equal to 80 percent of the cost. In 2005, 1 cubic meter of water was priced at 563 won on average, much lower than 2,446 won in Germany and 1,804 won in Japan.
As a result of subsidies, the local governments have incurred debts of as much as 2 trillion won. The snowballing debt makes it difficult to replace old pipes with new ones at regular intervals, causing the leakage of 570 billion won worth of water each year.
Low prices also lead to waste. It is necessary to save water, given a report that the nation`s water shortage will amount to 340 million cubic meters in 2011.
Metropolises may begin with local government-run corporations if the public is opposed to privatization. Smaller towns may entrust Korea Water Resources Corp., a state-run company, with the management of their tap water businesses.
Before starting the privatization plan, the central government and local governments will have to take remedial measures for low-income families and residents in out-of-the-way places, including small islands. They will continue to subsidize the provision of tap water for them as part of their social welfare programs.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
5 comments:
1.
See the post I placed at the header of the undergraduate environmental sociology blog this week. And see the short 'update' to the documentary of Who Killed the Electric Car. An insider story of that old man talking, talking of GM as still adamant about killing his University's revived 'museum model' of EV-1 all-electric cars.
It's about bisphenol-A / BPA being banned in Canada: a hormone altering piece of the plastic production process.
2.
And I am reposting Park Daeyun's post so she doesn't have to. It was attached at the base of the previous week because it slipped my mind in this busy week to make a different thread for us.
That's corrected now. Post to this thread.
Like her post below, I discuss the issue of whether ecological modernization or 'treadmill' ideas fits the banning of bisphenol-A, though of course in lecture (and in my discussion of the film) I implied that the logic ideas of their models of a 'treadmill' can be commensurate with each other instead of required to be environmental degradative like Schnaiberg believes.
1. Park Daeyun
2. GE's green arm eyes Mideast for expansion
3. Ecological modernization suggests for positive sum solutions such as new efficiencies through pollution reduction and the development of profitable pollution control technologies.
I think GE is a good example of ecologically innovating corporate sector mentioned at ecological modernization.
According another article I searched, GE has released its 2005 ecomagination report, showing that revenues from the sale of energy efficient and environmentally advanced products and services hit a great amount of dollars.
-----------------------
By Nadia Saleem, Staff Reporter
Published: April 19, 2008, 00:33
Dubai: Ecomagination, a green initiative of General Electric (GE), is looking to expand in the Middle East's construction and infrastructure sectors as the US firm seeks to bolster its credentials in energy-efficient and water conservation products.
GE, which heavily deals in conventional energy systems, said its green initiative, launched more than two years ago, provides efficient sources of energy or technologies that are cost effective and safe.
Lorraine Bolsinger, vice-president of Ecomagination, said the company has made significant investments in clean energy projects, passing the $1billion mark in such technologies.
The company has been increasing its investment $200 million a year and hopes to continue the trend.
"Our commitment is to double our investment in clean technology from $700 million annually to $1.5 billion annually by 2010," Bolsinger said.
The company has lowered its carbon footprint by 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and saved a $100 million in energy costs simultaneously, according to Bolsinger.
---
http://www.gulfnews.com/business/Industry/10206811.
3.
[I write: yes, that may be true here, though at the same moment GM is adamant about keeping the all electric car 'killed'. See this short video about the 'revival of the GM EV-1 electric car' and GM's legal antics to stop it.]
Resurrected EV1 comes to SEVA [nine minute video]
"Of the original 1115 GM EV1s only 40 or so still exist. These were severely disabled by GM and given to universities and museums. A few more may still exist as part of GM's fuel cell research projects. In Early December of 2007 one of them was resurrected, making its first public appearance Dec 8th at Renewable L.A., and then a few days later at the Seattle chapter of the Electric Auto Association's monthly meeting on December 11th. [Then GM told its lawyers to threaten the group with a lawsuit unless they dismantled this working example of an all-electric car.]"
The 1997 PbA (Lead Acid) EV1 was reanimated by university faculty, students, EV Bones, and Pv's donated Tech2 scanner! Mike, a retired instructor made sure to mention that the car was a part of their ongoing Hybrid project as GM stipulated that the EV1 must not be used as an EV as part of their agreement when donating it to the school.
Added: 4 months ago
From:D0li0
Views: 2,768
For clarification, there are two EV-1's at the two different video links. One is all-electric though the old man says he is going to convert it to a hybrid, the other is all-electric and is going to stay that way--and GM threatened that group with a legal letter to keep it off the streets.
Personally, I would like to see that all-electric EV-1 driven across the United States over and over, back and forth between the West Coast and Washington D.C., until they probably get arrested. That would cause lots of media attention about why they are arresting the driver instead of arresting GM for killing the car?
1. Mark Whitaker
2. so much for the selling point of GMOs: GM-soya trials produce less than conventional soya; so their only point for their existence currently is as a proprietary patent monopoly.
3. Interesting data from long term experiment in Kansas. I have read something about this before, though this one is getting media time. The original selling feature was they would survive the application of Monsanto's herbicide RoundUp Ready, which at least one journal article I have seen (in the journal Cancer) indicates that this #1 seller of Monsanto is a carcinogen, particularly leading to non-Hodgekins lymphoma.
---------------------------
Exposed: the great GM crops myth
Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent
Andrew Fox
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted - the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development - concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.
The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work.
First, it takes time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones are being developed.
This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to a "decrease" in yields.
But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity.
The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over. (See graphic above.)
Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped.
It said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.
Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it requires more complex modification.
And Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington – and who was one of the first to predict the current food crisis – said that the physiology of plants was now reaching the limits of the productivity that could be achieved.
A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with human runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile more than 50 years ago, the best time has improved only modestly . "Despite all the advances in training, no one contemplates a three-minute mile."
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger.
Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: "The simple answer is no."
---
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html
1. se kyoung, jeoung
2.Agriculture - The Need for Change
3.I think many environmental problems can be solved if each of us has a small garden to grow some flowers and crops. This will bring us a huge change of thought and mind. We could feel more connections with lifes and soil. To make this short, i want to say 'Agriculture' can be a starting point of environmental betterment. And of course, agriculture needs to change first.
--------------------------
Agriculture - The Need for Change
RELATED ARTICLES
World must reform agriculture now or face dire crisis: report
Change in Farming Can Feed World - Report
Free food trade threatens environment, poor: report
S&T has vital role in sustainable farming
/top_stories/article/34770
Washington/London/Nairobi/Delhi, 15 April 2008 - The way the world grows its food will have to change radically to better serve the poor and hungry if the world is to cope with a growing population and climate change while avoiding social breakdown and environmental collapse. That is the message from the report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, a major new report by over 400 scientists which is launched today.
The assessment was considered by 64 governments at an intergovernmental plenary in Johannesburg last week.
The authors' brief was to examine hunger, poverty, the environment and equity together. Professor Robert Watson Director of IAASTD said those on the margins are ill-served by the present system: "The incentives for science to address the issues that matter to the poor are weak... the poorest developing countries are net losers under most trade liberalization scenarios."
Modern agriculture has brought significant increases in food production. But the benefits have been spread unevenly and have come at an increasingly intolerable price, paid by small-scale farmers, workers, rural communities and the environment.
ADVERTISEMENT
It says the willingness of many people to tackle the basics of combining production, social and environmental goals is marred by "contentious political and economic stances". One of the IAASTD co-chairs, Dr Hans Herren, explains: "Specifically, this refers to the many OECD member countries who are deeply opposed to any changes in trade regimes or subsidy systems. Without reforms here many poorer countries will have a very hard time... "
The report has assessed that the way to meet the challenges lies in putting in place institutional, economic and legal frameworks that combine productivity with the protection and conservation of natural resources like soils, water, forests, and biodiversity while meeting production needs.
In many countries, it says, food is taken for granted, and farmers and farm workers are in many cases poorly rewarded for acting as stewards of almost a third of the Earth's land. Investment directed toward securing the public interest in agricultural science, education and training and extension to farmers has decreased at a time when it is most needed.
The authors have assessed evidence across a wide range of knowledge that is rarely brought together. They conclude we have little time to lose if we are to change course. Continuing with current trends would exhaust our resources and put our children's future in jeopardy.
Professor Bob Watson, Director of IAASTD said: "To argue, as we do, that continuing to focus on production alone will undermine our agricultural capital and leave us with an increasingly degraded and divided planet is to reiterate an old message. But it is a message that has not always had resonance in some parts of the world. If those with power are now willing to hear it, then we may hope for more equitable policies that do take the interests of the poor into account."
Professor Judi Wakhungu, said "We must cooperate now, because no single institution, no single nation, no single region, can tackle this issue alone. The time is now."
-------------------------------
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/34770
1.Yoonjung Kim
2. Water privatization, will it work properly in Korea?
3.Most people in Korea distrust tap water. But goverment of Korea seems to step backward from their responsibility of providing clean tap water. Goverment tries to introduce water privatization which are making serious conflict world wide.This article is spporting water privitization for two reason. first, telephone services, railway transportation, electricity and other utilities are already privatized or in the process of privatization. Water cannot be the exception. Second,subsidized prices is too low that it is causing a financial deficit. Low price also causing wasting of water.Aithough it mentions remedy for poor and distant people from water, I think reformation of public system is better than water privatization. Water is certainly different from telephone services, railway transportation, electricity. We can do without them(very inconvenient, though) but not water. And regardless of price, rich people will use water as much as they like.
-----------------------
[EDITORIAL] Subsidized water 2007-07-19 10:02
The central government plans to privatize the provision of tap water or hand it over to government-run companies by 2012, and thus free local governments from subsidizing it. The plan, though belated, is commendable. When the plan is successfully implemented, the quality of water will certainly improve though its price may go up.
Opposition to the plan cannot be justified, given that telephone services, railway transportation, electricity and other utilities are already privatized or in the process of privatization. Tap water alone cannot remain as a public good that the government is obligated to provide at a price lower than the cost.
The main problem with the provision of tap water is its subsidized prices. Local governments provide tap water at the average price equal to 80 percent of the cost. In 2005, 1 cubic meter of water was priced at 563 won on average, much lower than 2,446 won in Germany and 1,804 won in Japan.
As a result of subsidies, the local governments have incurred debts of as much as 2 trillion won. The snowballing debt makes it difficult to replace old pipes with new ones at regular intervals, causing the leakage of 570 billion won worth of water each year.
Low prices also lead to waste. It is necessary to save water, given a report that the nation`s water shortage will amount to 340 million cubic meters in 2011.
Metropolises may begin with local government-run corporations if the public is opposed to privatization. Smaller towns may entrust Korea Water Resources Corp., a state-run company, with the management of their tap water businesses.
Before starting the privatization plan, the central government and local governments will have to take remedial measures for low-income families and residents in out-of-the-way places, including small islands. They will continue to subsidize the provision of tap water for them as part of their social welfare programs.
Post a Comment