A lack of ambition at COP26 puts Thailand’s future at risk

[webfact]

 

By Dominic Chakrabongse

 

This November, the 197 member countries of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will gather in Glasgow to negotiate the world’s collective fate in combatting climate change. Thailand was recently ranked as 9th in the world for vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather. However, as of the time of writing, Thailand’s stance towards successfully reducing carbon emissions risks falling short.

 

137 countries around the world have so far pledged to reach carbon neutrality. Most of these countries’ commitments have been announced in the runup to this latest Climate Change Conference, commonly known as COP26. Most commitments are centred around achieving this goal by 2050 with currently only Bhutan and Suriname having already achieved this ambition.

 

Why is this goal so important? 

 

Carbon neutrality means to reduce net carbon emissions to zero through a combination of cuts to existing emissions, absorbing carbon through carbon sinks and offsetting emissions. It is a goal recognised by most leading scientists as the only way that countries can truly get emissions down sufficiently to stave off the worst effects of human induced climate change or global heating.

 

Full story: https://www.thaienquirer.com/34083/a-lack-of-ambition-at-cop26-puts-thailands-future-at-risk/

 

-- © Copyright Thai Enquirer 2021-10-19

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow ASEAN NOW on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[clivebaxter]

Thailand is right not to bother with this nonsense, man made Co2  is not causing climate change and not responsible for global warming. Co2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, man made is just 3% of that. If the carbon zealots were serious they would be concentrating on the Chinese output of Co2, Thailand's is a drop in the ocean.

[Cake Monster]

2 minutes ago, clivebaxter said:

Thailand is right not to bother with this nonsense, man made Co2  is not causing climate change and not responsible for global warming. Co2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, man made is just 3% of that. If the carbon zealots were serious they would be concentrating on the Chinese output of Co2, Thailand's is a drop in the ocean.

Thailand has been ranked as the 8th worst polluter on the Planet.

Its not just about CO2 , its also about the Plastic Waste, Chemical Dumping Etc.

All these things add up to be a huge problem in Thailand, and indeed all over SE Asia.

[Clydesdale]

It is right to do what we can to reduce pollution but you cannot reverse the forces of nature. Global warming is not a man-made phenomenon as the greenies want you to believe. Our well-intentioned efforts yield little overall benefit (particularly while China, India, U.S. and others still continue to pollute). Please inform us when they have found a way to stop volcanoes erupting.

[bkk_bwana]

That picture of Wat Khu Samut Cin is misleading. The northern gulf of Thailand is a flood plain/delta. That land has been reclaimed from the sea for fish farming by putting up bunds for a long time. There is even evidence of power cables out at sea, showing where the land used to reach. But this is reclaimed land that is no longer worked. Obviously they have preserved the temple, as the picture shows. This is not a global warming story.

[clivebaxter]

3 hours ago, Cake Monster said:

Thailand has been ranked as the 8th worst polluter on the Planet.

Its not just about CO2 , its also about the Plastic Waste, Chemical Dumping Etc.

All these things add up to be a huge problem in Thailand, and indeed all over SE Asia.

Ranked by who?

[mfd101]

So, some 18000 (or, depending who you believe, 25000) people are about to descend on the Glaswegians, waving their arms & signalling their virtue. It'll be fascinating to watch Boris trying to pretend he's in control ...

 

The obvious question to ask is: How are countries doing in actually reducing their greenhouse emissions as undertaken at Paris and earlier bunfights? And Thailand, for example?

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, Cake Monster said:

Thailand has been ranked as the 8th worst polluter on the Planet.

Its not just about CO2 , its also about the Plastic Waste, Chemical Dumping Etc.

All these things add up to be a huge problem in Thailand, and indeed all over SE Asia.

"Thailand's Carbon Dioxide Emmissions Have Significantly Increased Over the Past 10 Years"

Dec. 2020

https://www.climatescorecard.org

 

Note that PM Prayut has been in power for about 6.5 years to the date of the article. 

His government continues to add fossil-fueled power plants, plans to use palm oil as plant fuel, and used city planning that in effect increases CO2 emmission traffic.

Ye, Prayut has allowed some alternative energy projects but EGAT continues to only accept grid-parity prices of electricity generated from renewable sources.

https://www.reuters.com

April 2018

 

[ArcticFox]

7 hours ago, bkk_bwana said:

That picture of Wat Khu Samut Cin is misleading. The northern gulf of Thailand is a flood plain/delta. That land has been reclaimed from the sea for fish farming by putting up bunds for a long time. There is even evidence of power cables out at sea, showing where the land used to reach. But this is reclaimed land that is no longer worked. Obviously they have preserved the temple, as the picture shows. This is not a global warming story.

Of course it's misleading - it's meant to.

 

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, clivebaxter said:

Thailand is right not to bother with this nonsense, man made Co2  is not causing climate change and not responsible for global warming. Co2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, man made is just 3% of that. If the carbon zealots were serious they would be concentrating on the Chinese output of Co2, Thailand's is a drop in the ocean.

Can you share the source of these nonsensical assertions. Let's start out with the percentage of CO2 contributed by humans. Before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels were about 278 ppm. Now they're about 50% higher. What's more the source of this CO2 can be proven thanks to isotope rations. Carbon 14 is consistently being created from nitrogen thanks to cosmic rays. Carbon 14 decays over time. So fossil fuel sources have virtually no Carbon 14. By measuring the ratio of carbon 14  dioxide/ carbon 12 dioxide comared to what would be expected were it all from non fossil fuel sources, it's easy to compute that fossil fuels are responsible for most of the increase.

".In addition, fossil fuels are the only source of carbon consistent with the isotopic fingerprint of the carbon present in today’s atmosphere. That analysis indicates it must be coming from terrestrial plant matter, and it must be very, very old. These and other lines of evidence leave no doubt that fossil fuels are the primary source of the carbon dioxide building up in Earth’s atmosphere."

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-do-we-know-build-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-caused-humans

 

As for the CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This is old established science. It was all the way back in 1858 that John Tyndall, the great Irish physicist, measured the greenhouse effect of CO2.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0066

Do try and catch up. At least to the 20th century.

 

Anyway, apart from these 2 minor points, thanks for your contributions. 

[Scott]

Troll post reported and removed.

 

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, Clydesdale said:

It is right to do what we can to reduce pollution but you cannot reverse the forces of nature. Global warming is not a man-made phenomenon as the greenies want you to believe. Our well-intentioned efforts yield little overall benefit (particularly while China, India, U.S. and others still continue to pollute). Please inform us when they have found a way to stop volcanoes erupting.

More nonsense. Who cares what the greenies believe or don't believe? . It's what climatologists believe that counts, And as the latest IPCC report shows, they overwhelmingly believe that anthropogenic climate change is a huge and increasing threat to humans and the environment. 

Yours is just a feeble attempt to distract attention away from the people whose opinions count. Such an obvious ploy.

 

I'm guessing your reference to volcanoes is a way of attributing the rise in CO2 to them. Any evidence that there's been more volcanic activity in the last 200 years than before. 

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/#:~:text=According to the U.S. Geological,CO2 emissions every year worldwide.

[Stargeezr]

China will not be attending this meeting, and it is the worlds largest carbon emitter. The volcanoes around the world

that keep belching gases like carbon do affect us as well as humans.   One thing I do hope that most of the world realizes 

is that oil is needed everywhere, as there is a million things made from it, just like the screen on your computer, or the one

on your laptop, your tablet, or cell phone.   Everyone that owns a vehicle whether it is gas diesel or electric would not

have a vehicle if it were not for all of the oil products in it. For example, the battery, dashboard, bumpers, the 

comfy seats under the leather wrap etc.  I still hear a few people who say, leave the oil in the ground, we do not

need it.

Geezer

[Stargeezr]

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

China will not be attending this meeting, and it is the worlds largest carbon emitter. The volcanoes around the world

that keep belching gases like carbon do affect us as well as humans.   One thing I do hope that most of the world realizes 

is that oil is needed everywhere, as there is a million things made from it, just like the screen on your computer, or the one

on your laptop, your tablet, or cell phone.   Everyone that owns a vehicle whether it is gas diesel or electric would not

have a vehicle if it were not for all of the oil products in it. For example, the battery, dashboard, bumpers, the 

comfy seats under the leather wrap etc.  I still hear a few people who say, leave the oil in the ground, we do not

need it.

Geezer

Clearly you didn't read the link to the scientific American article that references the US Geological Survey's report that lhuman activity generates over 100 times more CO2 than do volcanoes.

As for oil being needed everywhere, there's a difference between burning it and using it as an ingredient.

[Guderian]

Thailand just needs to make the right noises and the occasional, largely symbolic, gesture. Then sit back, business as normal, until the rich nations have sorted out things like cheap air pumps for air conditioning, hydrogen-fuelled jet engines, and how to build cheap electric cars that normal people might actually want to pay money for. Oh, and how to stop the family waterbuffalo from farting, too, though that one may take a while, lol!

[placeholder]

42 minutes ago, Guderian said:

Oh, and how to stop the family waterbuffalo from farting, too, though that one may take a while, lol!

Problem solved!

Australian 'super seaweed' supplement to reduce cattle gas emissions wins $1m international prize

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-18/csiro-super-seaweed-cattle-supplement-wins-$1m-prize/12992888