Eco concern raised over bulk drug park in Andhra's Anakapalli
Jal Biradari, a water conservation network founded by environmentalist Dr Rajendra Singh, issued a statement urging the government and the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) to proceed cautiously and responsibly.
Drawing on experiences from Telangana's Patancheru, Bollaram, Sangareddy, and Jeedimetla, the group warned of the long-term consequences of unchecked bulk drug manufacturing. These include chemical contamination of rivers and groundwater, farmland degradation, rising chronic illnesses, and industrial accidents affecting workers and local communities. Biradari stressed that these examples should serve as warnings to AP.
To mitigate risks, the organisation proposed a series of safeguards. It called for independent Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) conducted by credible, transparent institutions and truly inclusive public hearings to ensure local voices are heard. The group advocated for mandatory Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) systems, frequent audits of effluent treatment, and real-time environmental monitoring with public data access.
It cautioned against permitting such projects in ecologically sensitive areas without thorough risk assessments. Jal Biradari emphasised the importance of balancing industrial growth with environmental sustainability and urged active citizen, media, and political engagement to ensure accountability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
'Ready to resist': Russia blasts Trump over 'unlawful' US tariffs on Global South nations
Russia has described the Trump administration's tariff policies as a 'direct encroachment' on national sovereignty and an 'attempt to interfere' in the internal affairs of other countries read more This combination photo shows President Donald Trump in a business roundtable, May 16, 2025, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a signing ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow, May 10, 2025. AP In a sharp rebuke, Russia on Monday (August 4) accused the US of clinging to global dominance through a 'neocolonial' strategy, particularly targeting nations in the Global South with economic pressure. The criticism follows President Donald Trump's recent announcement of new tariffs on countries like India and Russia. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated that the US is grappling with the decline of its global hegemony and resorting to 'politicised economic pressure' against nations that refuse to align with its foreign policy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Zakharova described the Trump administration's tariff policies as a 'direct encroachment' on national sovereignty and an 'attempt to interfere' in the internal affairs of other countries. She warned that such measures threaten global trade and economic stability. Zakharova then reiterated Russia's commitment to fostering a fair and multipolar world order, expressing readiness to collaborate with Global South partners, including BRICS nations and new members like Egypt, Iran, and Indonesia, to counter unilateral sanctions and promote a balanced international system. She also criticised Western 'protectionism,' noting that the imposition of tariffs contradicts the free trade principles once championed by the West. Addressing Washington's tariff policies targeting key Global South partners, Zakharova remarked, 'Sanctions and restrictions have unfortunately become a defining feature of the current historical period, impacting countries across the globe. Unable to accept the erosion of its dominance in an emerging multipolar international order, Washington continues to pursue a neocolonial agenda, employing politically motivated economic pressure against those who choose an independent course on the international stage.' She further elaborated, 'This approach runs counter to the very principles of free trade once championed by Western nations. Instead, we now witness politically driven protectionism and the arbitrary imposition of tariff barriers. Brazil, our strategic partner in Latin America and the Caribbean, is one of the main victims of this policy. Such actions by the United States represent a direct infringement on the sovereignty of other nations and an attempt to interfere in their internal affairs. Beyond these concerns, this policy risks slowing global economic growth, disrupting supply chains, and deepening the fragmentation of the international economic system.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Zakharova underscored Russia's resilience, stating, 'We firmly believe that no tariff wars or sanctions can halt the natural course of history. We are supported by a vast number of partners, like-minded states, and allies, particularly among the countries of the Global South and, above all, within #BRICS, who share this perspective.' She concluded by affirming Russia's readiness to deepen cooperation with these nations to resist 'unlawful unilateral sanctions' and shape a 'genuinely multipolar, just, and equitable international order.' Trump's threat to India The tensions intensified with Trump's latest statement on Monday, posted on Truth Social, where he announced plans to 'substantially raise' tariffs on India for purchasing 'massive amounts of Russian Oil' and selling it on the open market 'for big profits.' Trump claimed India's actions disregard the human cost of the Ukraine conflict, stating, 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!' India, in response, staunchly defended its energy policy. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Monday rejected criticism from the US and the European Union as 'unjustified and unreasonable.' The MEA stressed that India's oil imports from Russia are driven by the need to ensure affordable and predictable energy costs for its consumers, asserting the country's sovereign right to prioritise national interests and economic security. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
The jobs data revisions that cost a US government statistician her job
Synopsis Significant downward revisions to U.S. payroll gains for May and June led to the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner. The combined revision of 258,000 jobs is the largest since 1979, excluding the pandemic period. June's initial estimate was reduced by 133,000, and May's by 125,000, marking substantial deviations from historical trends. AP FILE- A sign announces hiring, July 15, 2025, in Richardson, Texas. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File) The revisions to previous estimates of the size of U.S. payrolls gains for May and June that prompted President Donald Trump to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Friday were by any measure extraordinarily large. Indeed, the combined downward revision for the two months of 258,000 was the largest - outside of those during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic - since at least 1979. Here's a quick graphical breakdown:The monthly nonfarm payrolls report, released typically on the first Friday of each month, includes an initial estimate of employment changes for the immediately preceding month and revisions to the earlier estimates for the prior two months. BLS makes the revisions because more survey responses come in over the ensuing weeks and because it updates the seasonal factors affecting each month's estimates. The BLS on Friday said 133,000 fewer jobs had been created in June than first estimated. Over the last several years, the first estimate of the net change in payrolls each month has been revised lower more often than not. It has been revised down in eight of the last 12 BLS reports over the last year. The downward revision on Friday was the largest since the first estimate of payrolls gains for March 2021, published in April 2021, was revised down by 146,000 a month later. Over the last three years through June, the median estimate revision was -10,000. That contrasts with a median increase of 8,000 during the decade before the pandemic and a median increase of 2,000 over the series history since 1979. The total for May's payroll gains was revised lower by 125,000 in Friday's report, when the third estimate for payrolls for that month was published. That figure was the largest downward reduction of payrolls gains for a second revision - outside of the pandemic era - since the estimate for March 1983 was revised down by 127,000 in the report published in June combined downward revision for the two previous months - May and June - was larger than anything reported outside of the pandemic era. Indeed, the estimates for the two prior months combined have more often than not been revised higher. Since 1979, the median two-month combined estimate change was an upward revision of 10,000. Measured in absolute terms - revisions in either direction - Friday's revision also stands out. There have only been four larger revisions: +709,000 for November and December 2021; -642,000 for March and April 2020; +285,000 for August and September 1983; and +414,000 for April and May 1981.
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
Trump says he doesn't trust the jobs data, but Wall Street and economists do
AP President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before boarding Air Force One at Lehigh Valley International Airport, Sunday, Aug. 3, 2025, in Allentown, Pa. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson) The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were "RIGGED" to make him and other Republicans "look bad." Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large - the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. "The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable," Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. "We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. "Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market." Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says "it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid." The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers - when they are good. These are the figures Trump is attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to "boost" Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory," yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations - including multiple locations for the same business - covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest - outside recessions - since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and said, "What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers." Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: "When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed." Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. "We are at an inflection point," the report said. "To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future.
