eliotness

After nearly 5 years here,i have given up worrying or telling Thai's that i am with littering is not good. When i lived before with my ex wife i would go around the house and shop she had over the road picking it up,and putting it in the large bin outside the shop,everyday. I recentley had to go back to get a ladder i had left there,both house and shop where like a tip.However not all Thai people are like this my new girlfriends house,is spotless inside and out ,not even a scrap of cellophane,or plastic straw to be seen.Education is the key,public ad's on tv,teach in the schools not to litter,thinks will change slowly if this is done,but it does not seem an issue at present.

I've helped organise outdoor events in the UK, where large bins were placed all over the field, but at the end of the events the bins are only 1/2 full but the field was covered in litter, including used babies nappies. Littering is a problem all over the world, but in Thailand it seems to be the use of various plastics for food containment that is the major issue. The use of such containers was supposed to be banned at that event, so who neglected their duty to enforce that ban ?

This is not news

Visakha Bucha Day comes every year as do comments from the usual "farang" suspects who have no respect for local culture,custom and belief.

Unfortunately it's not just the farangs, there will be many Thais drinking that day. Just go to the temples, women will far outnumber men and groups of males will be sat around the village with a bottle or 2 of Lao Khow.

As the date nears the half truths and downright lies will intensify, from BOTH sides. I just hope the British public sees through all the BS before they cast their votes.

He seems to be doing the "jollies" trips to the max, with of course a plane load of "assistants".

He seems go be doing the "jollies" to the max.

Think, but don't speak your mind if it's not in line with prescribed government ideas.

Sobriety check: Thailand has many students who study business, in order to get U degrees, because they and their parents are seized on the idea that a biz degree will guarantee the highest salary. Money is God.

Yet, how many Thais are well-versed in alternative power? Answer: nearly zero. How many Thais are developing cutting edge technology re; generating power from rivers, tides, waves, jetstream, or thermal. My educated guess is: ZERO.

Thailand has hundreds of thousands of biz graduates, but nearly no experts on alternative power.

P.S. What to biz graduates do? Essentially try to tweak and cheat the system to try and make as much money as possible.

I agree with your comments. The problem is it is near impossible to teach science and engineering in Thai and that's why most countries in ASEAN insist those subjects ate taught in English, but this is Thailand. The science teacher in my local school can't speak a word on English !

A few treaty signing with the Russians might just tip the scales with the EU to impose a red card on the fishing industry. That of course would not be mentioned by the politicians in Brussels, but it would, bearing in mind the present situation over the Ukraine, annoy them somewhat !!! Bad timing I think by the PM.

Hundreds of millions of euros will be small change for the huge multinational mining companies operating in South Africa, but lung diseases are a risk in all mining activities around the world. The question is did the mining companies instruct their workers about the risk and what mitigating measures did the companies take to minimise the risk ? I think I know the answer having worked in SA.

Everyone on this site has agreed that the water management in Thailand has been poor, currently and in the past. A drought is only really a problem if your water management is poor. Zimbabwe had good water management until they expelled those with experience. Wildlife reserves had some waterholes with boreholes to add additional water if necessary. All the equipment is now broken because of no maintenance and no spare parts, no future water resource planning has taken place for decades. The strange fact is that most of the wildlife has been killed either for meat, ivory or trophy, so one wonders just what Uncle Bob has left to sell.

South Africa has excellent water management and the likes of the Western Cape have some of the best water management in the world and they are struggling with water supply because of the drought, so please dont comment on what you not know

I have seen it all now ! A Robert Mugabe apologist

You have seen nothing, as not an Uncle Bob apologist, the man should have been killed at birth, i was mearly correcting the geriatric know its alls who are commenting on subject they know sh@t about, the drought in Southern Africa is affecting mutiple countries and nothing to do with water management or Uncle Bob controlling the weather...

And the fact i referred to South Africa and your talking about Mugabe who happens to the President of Zimbawe and seeing as SA and Zim are not the same country this certainly shows your ignorance as well

Trouble with geriatrics is they have long memories and a lot of experience.

As for SA and Zims being different countries, yes true for now, but with the ANC crooks in charge it's looking more of a possibility that SA will go a similar route (to the bottom).

Thats a completely different debate entirely...and not going to disagree with that, but topic relates to the current drought in Southern Africa and what its doing to the wildlife in Zim and i would add similar things are happening through out the rest of Southern Africa

Everyone on this site has agreed that the water management in Thailand has been poor, currently and in the past. A drought is only really a problem if your water management is poor. Zimbabwe had good water management until they expelled those with experience. Wildlife reserves had some waterholes with boreholes to add additional water if necessary. All the equipment is now broken because of no maintenance and no spare parts, no future water resource planning has taken place for decades. The strange fact is that most of the wildlife has been killed either for meat, ivory or trophy, so one wonders just what Uncle Bob has left to sell.

South Africa has excellent water management and the likes of the Western Cape have some of the best water management in the world and they are struggling with water supply because of the drought, so please dont comment on what you not know

I have seen it all now ! A Robert Mugabe apologist

You have seen nothing, as not an Uncle Bob apologist, the man should have been killed at birth, i was mearly correcting the geriatric know its alls who are commenting on subject they know sh@t about, the drought in Southern Africa is affecting mutiple countries and nothing to do with water management or Uncle Bob controlling the weather...

And the fact i referred to South Africa and your talking about Mugabe who happens to the President of Zimbawe and seeing as SA and Zim are not the same country this certainly shows your ignorance as well

Trouble with geriatrics is they have long memories and a lot of experience.

As for SA and Zims being different countries, yes true for now, but with the ANC crooks in charge it's looking more of a possibility that SA will go a similar route (to the bottom).

Everyone on this site has agreed that the water management in Thailand has been poor, currently and in the past. A drought is only really a problem if your water management is poor. Zimbabwe had good water management until they expelled those with experience. Wildlife reserves had some waterholes with boreholes to add additional water if necessary. All the equipment is now broken because of no maintenance and no spare parts, no future water resource planning has taken place for decades. The strange fact is that most of the wildlife has been killed either for meat, ivory or trophy, so one wonders just what Uncle Bob has left to sell.

South Africa has excellent water management and the likes of the Western Cape have some of the best water management in the world and they are struggling with water supply because of the drought, so please dont comment on what you not know

Sorry to disappoint you but I worked in South Africa for several years and had friends in Zims who I have visited many times. My work there included ground-water and surface-water quality. So your remark kind of backfires.

Water management planning didn't end in 1992 surely.

Everyone on this site has agreed that the water management in Thailand has been poor, currently and in the past. A drought is only really a problem if your water management is poor. Zimbabwe had good water management until they expelled those with experience. Wildlife reserves had some waterholes with boreholes to add additional water if necessary. All the equipment is now broken because of no maintenance and no spare parts, no future water resource planning has taken place for decades. The strange fact is that most of the wildlife has been killed either for meat, ivory or trophy, so one wonders just what Uncle Bob has left to sell.

Let's continue to discuss the preparations for our trips. Let's see..., last week we discussed how to set the alarm to wake up on time and then take a shower....dress...brekkie...

Ah yes, we continue with point 10): sandwiches for the trip...

Don't forget the beer, wine and whisky ?

Questions - 1. why would someone have a bottle part filled with potassium nitrate ? 2. why would they then discard it ?, and 3. who stuffs out a cigarette into a bottle partially filled with white powder ? Could have been a trial run by some nutter !

I believe the UK government is gambling that so many British expats live in Europe that their vote will be to stay in the EU. We Brits that live in Thailand are of no consequence to the British government, e.g. just check the "services" offered by the Embassy in Bangkok.

Rick, have you noticed how up2u2 ignores the points he can't give an educated reply to, but just keeps on about global warming, quoting things that are in partisan sites on the internet. I suspect he is a student doing a PhD on climate change and has locked into this site. Because of this I think we are wasting our time trying to debate whether the signing of the document in the UN will make a difference. Therefore I will make no further comments to his rants and I suggest maybe you should do likewise, but up to you !

I must confess some points I do ignore. They get a little too foolish for me to respond too. My view on GW / CC is supported by 99.996% of the scientific community. 0.004% of the scientific community agrees with yours and the view of the Fossil Fuel funded Climate Denier blog-o-sphere.

???? live your dream, ignorance is bliss. As one of the 0.004% I say your distortion of facts, your use of half truths, your use of insults, makes you a zealot for the new religion. Reasonable debate is beyond your mindset. OK up2u.

I hope they all travel in the same double decker bus with a regular driver and no police escort.

The improvement to the political landscape could be huge.

You can hope, but this is a chance for a mega jolly for those involved, best hotels, best food and drink, trip for your girlfriend (oops I meant secretary). Unfortunately this is normal practice for even elected politicians around the world.

Millions of people have been forced to live on marginal land because of the ever increasing human population. Even in countries like Britain housing estates have been built on flood-plains because of the shortage of land for building houses. In the third world this effect is vastly increased, putting them at risk even if the sea levels rise just a few inches. Forests have been cut down, water supplies diminished, land made barren by overgrazing, land made toxic by industrial waste. Man has in the past had a marked effect on the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.

With the ever increasing human population any changes in climate will have a profound effect. OK. In the past 10 thousand years humans have adapted to different climates and changes therein. But they had space and time to adapt. With the human population expected to be over 12 billion by 2100 we have neither the time or the space to adapt. The birth-rate is unsustainable, pure and simple and to cloud the issue with things like man-made global warming is hypocrisy.

So the politicians think by signing a document and raising taxes they will solve one of the (possible) effects of human activity. If anyone believes that then they live in nice soft pink dream world. With 12 billion people it ain't going to happen PERIOD !

You were on the right track until your closing sentences. Sure there will be some wasted spending. When has a government anywhere in the world done anything without wasted spending? If you want to list wasted and stupid spending by governments, it will be a very long list, and spending to clean the environment won't be near the top.

There's no doubt human population explosion is the #1 problem facing the planet. International deals are an indirect way to try and deal with the adverse affects of that. No politician can dare say that overpopulation is the greatest threat. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, but it's too much of a hot potato to say so now, in plain language.

Any agreement (on anything) by world countries is an achievement, particularly getting China on board, because Chinese (and Russians) usually try to counter western initiatives. The agreements with China and India are far from ideal, but something is better than nothing. If you want to create a vegetable garden by your house, you might start by taking out weeds and then tilling the soil. Doing those things alone will not grow veges, but it's a start, and it's better than doing nothing at all.

I can't help but think some of the posters who are so adamantly against agreements, are themselves involved with fossil fuel biz in some way. 'fess up guys. It would clear things up to why some of you are so fully fixated on being contrary to any improvements to lessening fossil fuel emissions.

If I thought all the money raised on fossil fuel and other green taxes was going to be spent on worthwhile environmental projects, then I would support the politicians on this UN deal. Most politicians just see this as "a milk cow" and a great way to raise more taxes from the general public. Most politicians are in the pockets of the big multinationals, which includes the fossil fuel industries, so your anger should be directed at them and not the scientists who dare to question the "new religion".

Rick, have you noticed how up2u2 ignores the points he can't give an educated reply to, but just keeps on about global warming, quoting things that are in partisan sites on the internet. I suspect he is a student doing a PhD on climate change and has locked into this site. Because of this I think we are wasting our time trying to debate whether the signing of the document in the UN will make a difference. Therefore I will make no further comments to his rants and I suggest maybe you should do likewise, but up to you !

Millions of people have been forced to live on marginal land because of the ever increasing human population. Even in countries like Britain housing estates have been built on flood-plains because of the shortage of land for building houses. In the third world this effect is vastly increased, putting them at risk even if the sea levels rise just a few inches. Forests have been cut down, water supplies diminished, land made barren by overgrazing, land made toxic by industrial waste. Man has in the past had a marked effect on the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.

With the ever increasing human population any changes in climate will have a profound effect. OK. In the past 10 thousand years humans have adapted to different climates and changes therein. But they had space and time to adapt. With the human population expected to be over 12 billion by 2100 we have neither the time or the space to adapt. The birth-rate is unsustainable, pure and simple and to cloud the issue with things like man-made global warming is hypocrisy.

So the politicians think by signing a document and raising taxes they will solve one of the (possible) effects of human activity. If anyone believes that then they live in nice soft pink dream world. With 12 billion people it ain't going to happen PERIOD !

Problem solved sit back and do nothing. Brilliant.

Dear up2u2, sit back and do nothing is not what I said. Man is adaptable, technologies will be developed, but we need time. The uncontrolled explosion in the human population since WW2 is not giving us that breathing space. Unless all politicians and especially Religious Leaders realise that fact then the conflicts and mass migrations we have at present will increase exponentially during the next few decades, such that any change in the climate will seem trivial.

That is the elephant in the room.

Millions of people have been forced to live on marginal land because of the ever increasing human population. Even in countries like Britain housing estates have been built on flood-plains because of the shortage of land for building houses. In the third world this effect is vastly increased, putting them at risk even if the sea levels rise just a few inches. Forests have been cut down, water supplies diminished, land made barren by overgrazing, land made toxic by industrial waste. Man has in the past had a marked effect on the planet. I don't think anyone can deny that.

With the ever increasing human population any changes in climate will have a profound effect. OK. In the past 10 thousand years humans have adapted to different climates and changes therein. But they had space and time to adapt. With the human population expected to be over 12 billion by 2100 we have neither the time or the space to adapt. The birth-rate is unsustainable, pure and simple and to cloud the issue with things like man-made global warming is hypocrisy.

So the politicians think by signing a document and raising taxes they will solve one of the (possible) effects of human activity. If anyone believes that then they live in nice soft pink dream world. With 12 billion people it ain't going to happen PERIOD !

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

Let me help you out then.

'Life Cycle Analysis' CO₂ emissions comparison Nuclear Power Station vs Coal Fired Power Station:

Mean over the life of each technology including construction

Coal - 888 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

Nuclear - 29 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

You so so miss my point, which shows your blinkered view. The whole point of life cycle analysis is to show not just the daily operational emissions but rather to consider the start-up, the construction, the operation and the close down of an activity. This appears by your comment to be something beyond your understanding. OK keep on living on your silly little world, keep on wearing your brown shirt designed by Hugo Boss, don't drink the coffee,and think the politicians are all really nice guys to be trusted.

In a Life Cycle Analysis that is all included. Seemed in your world comparative life cycle analysis had not been done. In my 'silly little world' I knew darn well they had been done. Hundreds of them and I had actually looked at them years ago. The particular numbers I quoted were actually from a report that studied 10-17 full life cycle analysis of each power producing sector and compared Mean / Low and High outputs.

Hugo Boss? I don't think so mate a little last year for me. Hugo went in the dustbin. Currently Gant is my label of choice.

Coffee? Excuse me. Freshly ground (without burning the grind) Espresso if you don't mind. I wouldn't feed 'coffee' to a pig. Especially that American percolated muck. Coffee INDEED!!!! outrageous!!!

Again my friend you so so missed my points. OK up 2 you, live in your world, but please don't try and impose your beliefs on everyone else.

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

I could say "easy, just look it up", but due to political pressure no full life cycle analysis has ever been done, or will ever be done on Nuclear power. But my point was that nuclear power is not a solution to CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations is a problem. In the UK acid rain caused by the burning of coal was also a problem, but now as most have been closed down that problem is greatly diminished. Technology is being developed currently to allow carbon-capture from power station, be they coal, oil or gas, but it needs big political support, which seems to be somewhat lacking.

As an aside, when I was working in Manchester in the early 70s, we recorded one day in central Manchester rain of pH5.0. Fortunately such acid rain no longer occurs in the UK, but I bet China and India have that problem now.

Life cycle analysis looks at ALL the environmental effects, again and again you and your cohorts continue to totally focus on just on CO2, instead of looking at the truly bigger picture. Just check out the ISO web page for the Standard on Life Cycle Analysis.

You sure about that?

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

Let me help you out then.

'Life Cycle Analysis' CO₂ emissions comparison Nuclear Power Station vs Coal Fired Power Station:

Mean over the life of each technology including construction
Coal - 888 tonnes CO₂e/GWh
Nuclear - 29 tonnes CO₂e/GWh

Sorry to rain on peoples parade, but when you undertake a "life cycle analysis" of a nuclear power station you find there is a huge amount of emitted CO2 in its construction because of the amount of high-grade steel and concrete required. Then there's the extraction of the fuel source and its enrichment. Finally there is the nuclear waste, which is a huge story in itself. So gentlemen whilst nuclear power can be a contributor to a balanced energy plan, it will not negate CO2 emissions.

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

I could say "easy, just look it up", but due to political pressure no full life cycle analysis has ever been done, or will ever be done on Nuclear power. But my point was that nuclear power is not a solution to CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations is a problem. In the UK acid rain caused by the burning of coal was also a problem, but now as most have been closed down that problem is greatly diminished. Technology is being developed currently to allow carbon-capture from power station, be they coal, oil or gas, but it needs big political support, which seems to be somewhat lacking.

As an aside, when I was working in Manchester in the early 70s, we recorded one day in central Manchester rain of pH5.0. Fortunately such acid rain no longer occurs in the UK, but I bet China and India have that problem now.

Life cycle analysis looks at ALL the environmental effects, again and again you and your cohorts continue to totally focus on just on CO2, instead of looking at the truly bigger picture. Just check out the ISO web page for the Standard on Life Cycle Analysis.

You sure about that?

Sure about what ? No nuclear life cycle analysis ! Absolutely, too much of a political hot potato.

Sorry to rain on peoples parade, but when you undertake a "life cycle analysis" of a nuclear power station you find there is a huge amount of emitted CO2 in its construction because of the amount of high-grade steel and concrete required. Then there's the extraction of the fuel source and its enrichment. Finally there is the nuclear waste, which is a huge story in itself. So gentlemen whilst nuclear power can be a contributor to a balanced energy plan, it will not negate CO2 emissions.

That better not be 'acid rain'.

What is the 'life cycle analysis' CO₂ emissions when a Nuclear Reactor is compared to a Coal Fired Power station.

I could say "easy, just look it up", but due to political pressure no full life cycle analysis has ever been done, or will ever be done on Nuclear power. But my point was that nuclear power is not a solution to CO2 emissions.

CO2 emissions from coal burning power stations is a problem. In the UK acid rain caused by the burning of coal was also a problem, but now as most have been closed down that problem is greatly diminished. Technology is being developed currently to allow carbon-capture from power station, be they coal, oil or gas, but it needs big political support, which seems to be somewhat lacking.

As an aside, when I was working in Manchester in the early 70s, we recorded one day in central Manchester rain of pH5.0. Fortunately such acid rain no longer occurs in the UK, but I bet China and India have that problem now.

Life cycle analysis looks at ALL the environmental effects, again and again you and your cohorts continue to totally focus on just on CO2, instead of looking at the truly bigger picture. Just check out the ISO web page for the Standard on Life Cycle Analysis.