Push for Thai climate fund

[webfact]

Push for Thai climate fund

By PRATCH RUJIVANAROM 
THE NATION

 

 

Activists to table bottom up approach to combat global warming and its effects at UN conference.

 

CIVIC GROUPS will push next week for the creation of a climate fund for victims of climate change, bottom-up climate policies and the empowerment of local people to boost climate resilience, when they meet at a United Nations sponsored conference in Bangkok.

 

Civil society organisations, activists and people affected by the adverse impact of climate change from across Thailand yesterday gathered at Chulalongkorn University to talk about climate change and offer recommendations for climate change prevention and mitigation.

 

The recommendations are primarily intended to build local capacity for communities to prepare for, adapt and mitigate climate change. They will be submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and then to global delegates attending a climate conference to be held at the UN Conference Centre in Bangkok from September 4 to 9.

 

 

Climate change presents a huge problem for all of mankind, said Preeda Kongpaen, an executive at the Chumchon Thai (Thai Community) Foundation. It is vital that local people and communities take part in the effort to reverse climate change, as they are the first to suffer its impacts.

 

“Previous climate change negotiation forums were mostly negotiations between the superpower nations, the elite and big conglomerates,” Preeda said.

 

“However, poor local people, who are on the frontline and are hit the hardest by climate change, do not normally have the chance to raise their voices and make demands to the climate negotiation forums.”

 

Therefore, she said, the conference in Bangkok next week will be give them a great opportunity to raise their concerns and suggestions about climate policies.

 

She said it is important that civil society is not left out of what she deems “the most important missions of humanity of this |century” – promoting sustainable development and reversing climate change.

 

Among the major suggestions presented to the meeting yesterday was the creation of a climate-change relief fund for people affected by the changes.

 

Other suggestions included promoting renewable energy, phasing fossil fuels out of the national Power Development Plan, modernising related laws and regulations and revising the 20-year national strategies to include mitigating climate change and promoting food security.

 

Poor most vulnerable

 

Maitree Jongkraijug, coordinator of Community Disaster Management Network, noted that poor, rural and marginalised people were the most vulnerable to changing climate, including extreme weather and the environmental degradation being brought about by the changes.

 

Yet these groups are not receiving remedies or compensation for their losses. Maitree said this is largely because Thai authorities have, so far, failed to recognise that the impacts of climate change, including coastal erosion, are national disasters and qualify for compensation.

 

“Many people regard the impacts from climate change as natural disasters, but actually they are manmade disasters, because our activities and consumption emit large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and cause climate change,” he said.

 

“However, poor and marginalised people contribute the lowest proportion of greenhouse gases emission in contrast to the wealthy elite and big conglomerates, which emit the largest amount of greenhouse gases but suffer the least impacts.”

 

Those who contribute to global warming should be held responsible for their actions by paying a carbon tax to a climate change relief fund, which would be used to help those affected, as per the “polluter pays” principle.

 

Maitree also said the lack of understanding and awareness about climate change among local people presents a challenge.

 

Raising awareness and education is very important for empowering local people and helping them better prepare for upcoming disasters.

 

“It is also important that these people are included in the global effort to mitigate climate change, so as to ensure climate policies are suitable for all parties and will not cause further adverse impacts on the most marginalised people,” Maitree concluded.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30353284

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-08-30

[Antonymous]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

“Many people regard the impacts from climate change as natural disasters, but actually they are manmade disasters, because our activities and consumption emit large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and cause climate change,” he said.

 

“However, poor and marginalised people contribute the lowest proportion of greenhouse gases emission in contrast to the wealthy elite and big conglomerates, which emit the largest amount of greenhouse gases but suffer the least impacts.”

 

Those who contribute to global warming should be held responsible for their actions by paying a carbon tax to a climate change relief fund, which would be used to help those affected, as per the “polluter pays” principle.

 

Maitree also said the lack of understanding and awareness about climate change among local people presents a challenge.

Climate change is real. It is a cyclical phenomenon, occuring throughout the earth's recorded history and long before humans emitted 'greenhouse gasses'. I'd say from reading this that the lack of understanding and awareness about climate change among this group of recently brainwashed officials is going to present a challenge ... primarily in the form of new taxes.

[Bluespunk]

46 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

Climate change is real. It is a cyclical phenomenon, occuring throughout the earth's recorded history and long before humans emitted 'greenhouse gasses'. I'd say from reading this that the lack of understanding and awareness about climate change among this group of recently brainwashed officials is going to present a challenge ... primarily in the form of new taxes.

Are you denying the pivotal and catastrophic impact of human behaviour on the global warming and environmental degradation we are now facing?

[digger70]

Not again ,,, The Climate Change/ Ice Age, It's a Natural,Phenomenon that happens around every 100000 Years . It goes from Hot to Cold than from Cold to Hot. Mankind Can't change that not even with a bit of burning Gas/fuel/coal/industry/ plastic. The earth is Big It can take care of itself to regenerate.   

[bkkgriz]

Excellent. Another scam propagated by the UN to extricate money from the plebs. The poor will continue to suffer while the fund administrators will live the good life. Dirty profiteers.

 

I wonder if carbon trader billionaire Al Gore has his grubby paws in this pie?

[brain150]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Are you denying the pivotal and catastrophic impact of human behaviour on the global warming and environmental degradation we are now facing?

Yes I do !

Especially as you are talking about two completely different things:

1. Global warming

2. Environmental degradation

 

What human behavior lead to global warming ? Show me the science please ... real science, not propaganda BS please.

BTW ... pretty much all scientists and Universities call you out on your BS as well !!!

 

Environmental degradation: Yes !

But it's interesting that people who cannot keep their own backyard clean want to save the planet ...

 

 

It's all PROPAGANDA !!! And PROPAGANDA only !!!

[Bluespunk]

20 minutes ago, brain150 said:

Yes I do !

Especially as you are talking about two completely different things:

1. Global warming

2. Environmental degradation

 

What human behavior lead to global warming ? Show me the science please ... real science, not propaganda BS please.

BTW ... pretty much all scientists and Universities call you out on your BS as well !!!

 

Environmental degradation: Yes !

But it's interesting that people who cannot keep their own backyard clean want to save the planet ...

 

 

It's all PROPAGANDA !!! And PROPAGANDA only !!!

I know I’m talking about two different things. 

 

The common denominator between them is human activity, though. 

 

The truth is not propaganda and, until we all realise this, the situation will not improve. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.W4d2ceOEaEc

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

 

 

[Jeremy50]

27 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I know I’m talking about two different things. 

 

The common denominator between them is human activity, though. 

 

The truth is not propaganda and, until we all realise this, the situation will not improve. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.W4d2ceOEaEc

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

 

 

You're wasting your time trying to explain to idiots like that. Most people understand and are concerned, but for some reason these dullards have a mental block.  How would it be possible for many decades of heavy industrial emissions on a small planet not to have a serious impact?

[AtoZ]

What is bad about global warming?

 

Most expats are in Thailand because of warm climate.

 

Soon we can go to Finland.

[mok199]

the holy grail '' Climate change relief fund''..mouths watering just thinking about this cash pie to slice up...

[brain150]

If only people would know the meaning of "consensus" ?

... it is a direct contradiction of the term "science"

[yellowboat]

Trees.  Clean air,  clean water.  Plant more of them.   There should be a formula for good governance with regards forest land percentages. 

On 8/30/2018 at 5:08 AM, webfact said:

“polluter pays”

They never do.  They are big business and big government loves big business.  Look at all the plastic bags floating in the ocean. 

 

Was in Shenzhen last week.  Diesel buses are almost entirely gone as are petrol power motorbikes.  50% of taxis are electric.  Many delivery companies are adding EV to their fleets too. 

 

The way things look technology will fix these problems, and China will dominate, because too many do too little.

[brain150]

15 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

Trees.  Clean air,  clean water.  Plant more of them.   There should be a formula for good governance with regards forest land percentages. 

They never do.  They are big business and big government loves big business.  Look at all the plastic bags floating in the ocean. 

 

Was in Shenzhen last week.  Diesel buses are almost entirely gone as are petrol power motorbikes.  50% of taxis are electric.  Many delivery companies are adding EV to their fleets too. 

 

The way things look technology will fix these problems, and China will dominate, because too many do too little.

Where is the electricity coming from ?

[yellowboat]

31 minutes ago, brain150 said:

Where is the electricity coming from ?

From the same place that allows you to run your aircon at 16 degrees centigrade and keep your bottles Chang ice cold.  If you would like to be the first to go without electricity, by my guest.   Also for your edumication :

http://fortune.com/2015/06/18/china-is-utterly-and-totally-dominating-solar-panels/     So, that might answer your question.   As I said:  most do too little. 

[CGW]

26 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

From the same place that allows you to run your aircon at 16 degrees centigrade and keep your bottles Chang ice cold.  If you would like to be the first to go without electricity, by my guest.   Also for your edumication :

http://fortune.com/2015/06/18/china-is-utterly-and-totally-dominating-solar-panels/     So, that might answer your question.   As I said:  most do too little. 

Is this not a "sponsered" article so like most of these scaremongering pieces useless?

Less than 5% of power in China is Solar, over 50% is coal generated, which then generates the electric vehicles. ?

[yellowboat]

1 hour ago, CGW said:

Is this not a "sponsered" article so like most of these scaremongering pieces useless?

Less than 5% of power in China is Solar, over 50% is coal generated, which then generates the electric vehicles. ?

These power plants would persist anyway.  Is there some sort of nihilist argument to be made?   It is easier to control a few power plants than millions of cars, buses, motorbikes and trucks.  It is easy to see China will have little trouble dominating.   

[CGW]

7 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

nihilist argument to be made?

Depends if your cup is half full or empty? ? 

If you want to believe that having electric vehicles with close to zero emissions running around a city that is choked with the fumes from coal fired plants is a positive thing ?

[Cadbury]

On 8/30/2018 at 11:11 AM, bkkgriz said:

Excellent. Another scam propagated by the UN to extricate money from the plebs. The poor will continue to suffer while the fund administrators will live the good life. Dirty profiteers.

 

I wonder if carbon trader billionaire Al Gore has his grubby paws in this pie?

When Al Gore left Congress he had about $2 million. That has now risen to $300 million courtesy of the Al Gore global warming gravy train. He also has a gas guzzling private jet gravy plane. And his mansion has a power bill 20 times that of an average home. Al Gore and some Thai political generals have much in common.

[brain150]

1 hour ago, CGW said:

Depends if your cup is half full or empty? ? 

If you want to believe that having electric vehicles with close to zero emissions running around a city that is choked with the fumes from coal fired plants is a positive thing ?

Depends if electro-smog is regarded as "emission". [By many scientists it is !!! And a very dangerous one]

... but then again: Why would you care as long as long as you can sound good by repeating all the nonsense you see on the main stream media ?

[zzaa09]

On 8/29/2018 at 9:11 PM, bkkgriz said:

Excellent. Another scam propagated by the UN to extricate money from the plebs. The poor will continue to suffer while the fund administrators will live the good life. Dirty profiteers.

 

I wonder if carbon trader billionaire Al Gore has his grubby paws in this pie?

My only instinct would suggest that the so called global climate change debate is about gathering profit - nothing more, nothing less.

Regardless of pro/con politics and science behind it. 

There's no altruistic notions behind either side - 

All about profiting of some manner.

 

 

Should this not be surprising to anyone? 

With the exception of the greater percentage of dumbed down.

[lamyai3]

On 8/30/2018 at 8:14 AM, Antonymous said:

Climate change is real. It is a cyclical phenomenon

Definitely cyclical - here's Billy Wayne Ruddick on the subject:

 

 

[canuckamuck]

We are so fortunate to be alive at a time when the climate is warming. Why do so many people want to take that away?

Not that anybody has a clue as to how we could stop warming. But we can tax you to death in the attempt

[zzaa09]

15 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

We are so fortunate to be alive at a time when the climate is warming. Why do so many people want to take that away?

Not that anybody has a clue as to how we could stop warming. But we can tax you to death in the attempt

.....and much more profiteering charitable fund raisers are required. 

Please donate. The end is near.

[VincentRJ]

There's no doubt that pollution is a major problem in the world and should be tackled.

 

Pollution is defined as anything which is harmful to the environment and to our well-being. Major examples are the contamination of water and soil from industrial waste, toxic chemicals, plastic bags, and so on, and contamination of the atmosphere with harmful emissions such sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, heavy metals such as lead, and small particles of carbon which contribute to smog and get into our lungs, causing health problems.

 

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It's a clear and odourless gas which is essential for all life. Plants cannot grow without it and therefore all creatures that feed on plants cannot survive without CO2.

 

Increased levels of CO2 encourage the growth of most plants and most food crops that we humans rely upon. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels tends to result in a 30%-40% increase in food production, using the same amount of water and chemical fertilizers.
Water-stressed plants grown in dry and arid conditions benefit even more from increased CO2 levels. The increase in CO2 causes the leaf spores to shrink in size, resulting in less evaporation, so the plants can thrive on less water.

 

Those who believe that CO2 is a pollutant seem to be in denial about these obvious benefits of increased CO2 levels, which can be verified in accordance with the best scientific practices. Farmers have been pumping CO2 gas into their greenhouse to increase crop yield for decades.

 

In view of the above points, it's reasonable to wonder why most governments are convinced that CO2 is the major pollutant, the bad guy, the demon, and that reducing the emissions of CO2 will be good for the environment and benefit everyone.

 

Here's the answer. It's a political ploy to get action on the general problem of pollution. The one major emission from the burning of any fossil fuel, whether wood, coal, petrol or gas, is CO2. It's emitted in much greater quantities than the harmful emissions such as SO2, CO, and NOX, and is much more expensive to eliminate or reduce to negligible levels.

 

It's difficult for governments to monitor the emission controls of fossil fuel plants and vehicles when the expense of such monitoring and the effective  control is a major problem, due to corruption, and the need for a society to improve its economic performance to raise living standards.

 

The terrible pollution and smog in China, India and other developing countries, has been due to the construction of cheap and old-fashioned coal power plants, inadequate emission controls on vehicles, and unregulated burn-off in forests and land for agricultural purposes.
Such countries have made a choice to tolerate atmospheric and environmental pollution for the sake of economic progress. But who would tolerate climatic devastation for the sake of economic progress?? 

 

In order to get people to behave sensibly and in the best interest of everyone, it's often necessary to exaggerate the penalty. For example, the Christian concept of everlasting Hell after death, for those who have seriously misbehaved in this life, must have a positive effect on those who believe it but might have a tendency to behave badly.

 

Likewise, the concept that CO2 emissions, if not checked, will cause extreme weather events that could destroy entire civilizations, provides the incentive for populations to tolerate the high energy prices resulting from the transition to renewables, and makes it easier for politicians and regulators to reduce the 'real' pollution by simply eliminating all fossil fuels.

 

In this sense one could say 'the ends justify the means'. Eventually, hopefully, alternative energy sources, such as solar power, will become both cheaper and cleaner than the best fossil fuel power plants, such as the Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired plants which already have very low emissions of the 'real' pollutants.

 

China has the economic sense to march ahead using the best of both worlds; manufacturing electric cars, electric buses, and solar panels, as well as building the latest Ultra-Supercritical Coal-fired power plants for the sake of their greater reliability of energy supply.
It's a pity that other countries, like Australia, don't have the nous to do that.