Thailand must take climate threat seriously: experts
Wasu Vipoosanapat
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- THE GOVERNMENT has been urged to put "climate change" on the national agenda in order to boost the country's credibility in future international climate talks.

Dr Natarika Wayuparb, Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management (TGO)'s deputy executive director, said the Kingdom should pioneer new policies by addressing climate change problems at a serious level.

"Thailand needs to make a serious attempt to show we have the right policy to ensure [addressing] climate change issues are moved from a local level into an international one," she said. "We have seen good examples from international agencies such as the UN or EU that have clear policies on climate change improvement."

Other than making it an urgent issue, Natarika said the government should develop a nationally appropriate mitigation actions list in preparation for the "Road to Paris 2015''. Scientists, economists, and environmental specialists are set to meet in the French capital to work towards a climate change policy agreement in 2020.

Natarika was speaking yesterday at a "global joint action day on climate change", hosted by the EU delegation, the British Embassy and the German Embassy together with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Meanwhile, Suwanna Jungrungrueng, director general of the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA)'s Environment Department, also agreed that climate change should be part of the national agenda, adding that proper education is the best way to raise awareness.

"At present, public awareness of the problem of climate change is slow [and] it should be promoted more on a national level. For this reason, introducing it through education by motivating students and schools to become environmentally friendly will help them comprehend the climate change problems as well as encourage them to find solutions," Suwanna said.

She added that the BMA was well aware of high gas emissions from various activities in Bangkok and that it had a master plan on carbon emission. This includes improving building electricity consumption efficiency and expanding park areas.

Paul Bute, deputy head of mission at the British Embassy, said cooperation from a variety of sectors would help resolve the climate change issue.

"We recognise that climate change impact can be tackled seriously, but no one group can solve the problem."

Bute said search for answers must come from collaboration among all sectors and the public must reflect on the issues.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Thailand-must-take-climate-threat-seriously-expert-30242931.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-10

Take climate change seriously but ignore flooding ?

in order to boost the country's credibility in future international climate talks

Indeed! Thailand should be the role model for promoting climate change through increased burning of all waste material and all rice fields so that a protective layer of dense smoke can shield the country and its neighbors from any harmful rays of the sun.

'joint action day on climate change' What a bunch of clowns. Lose 2 thirds of the worlds population and we might be in with a chance of slowing climate change. British Embassy, what a joke.

Yes, let's get Thailand's deepest thinkers onto it right away...hello, anybody out there?

One wonders how this would be managed and whether Thai people would embrace climate change very seriously , within Thailand schemes are set up with no transparency, if the government ever consider renewable energy subsidies , this one would have to be signed off by the finance secretary of Singapore, before I would touch it , there is room for renewable energy , however stringent checks and balances would need to be in place or those solar panels might just cost the Government a fortune in subsidies.

I think America should lead by example here, and take climate threat seriously before Thailand does. How many people in America are convinced that burning coal is NOT what's causing global warming ? And how many people are convinced that global warming is not happening at all ?

And Australia, tell your coal companies to stop exporting the stuff, coal is slowly killing everybody. Australia, you export more coal than any other nation on planet earth.

Climate change should be taken seriously, so should The fukushima nuclear accident that continues to radiate our biosphere 24/7, yet no news little action by all world governing bodies , give it a few years and there wont be a climate.

When all the incense was burned in the temples combined with the wishes for a flood of experts, something got lost in translation.

Climate change should be taken seriously, so should The fukushima nuclear accident that continues to radiate our biosphere 24/7, yet no news little action by all world governing bodies , give it a few years and there wont be a climate.

Years back when the IN Channel actually covered news etc. one of the directors, a US educated Thai lady, said she was terrified of the thought of nuclear power here until corruption was sorted out as bribes, cutting corners, cheap materials, poor workmanship etc all in the name of making money would make every plant a disaster waiting to happen.

the world is constantly changing, it has for billions of years, global warming histeria is only for the un educated and an excuse for governments to increase taxs, human beings are only another species passing through, the world will be a better place when we are gone

Oh No, it is gonna be a few degrees warmer in Thailand. Pretty soon we are going to have to believe that it is usually HOT in Thailand.

the world is constantly changing, it has for billions of years, global warming histeria is only for the un educated and an excuse for governments to increase taxs, human beings are only another species passing through, the world will be a better place when we are gone

not for me, it won't.

Chance to be a hub for climate change.

Thai's are not interested....there's no money in it !

I think America should lead by example here, and take climate threat seriously before Thailand does. How many people in America are convinced that burning coal is NOT what's causing global warming ? And how many people are convinced that global warming is not happening at all ?

And Australia, tell your coal companies to stop exporting the stuff, coal is slowly killing everybody. Australia, you export more coal than any other nation on planet earth.

its called "WEATHER"............so your gonna blame burning coal on the last ICE AGE.

What does Thailand take seriously????????? EDUCATION!!!!!!!!

The climatologists warned us that rising atmospheric CO2 levels would result in global warming? Global warming! Remember the days of their innocence when they called it that?

Well of course we now have the data. Yes, CO2 levels are rising and rapidly; they just breached 400 parts per million. Yet average atmospheric temperatures globally have, if anything, cooled in these last 20 years.

So how have the climatologists reacted? By changing the name of their movement for one, to "climate change." That alone should give us pause. But it gets better.

Now they claim that the earth has been getting warmer, not in the air but in the deepest oceans, and there is some evidence of this. What they wont tell you is that there is still no proven anthropomorphic link, no proof that man made CO2 is the culprit of any deep ocean warming.

Moreover, they miss the point that if the deepest oceans are indeed a natural heat sink, absorbing heat from the atmosphere and thus keeping the latter's temperature stable that otherwise would be rising in the face of rising atmospheric CO2, that itself is an arrow pointed directly at the hearts of the climatologists.

For at the heart of their argument was--as with all left wing argument--victimology. The Earth was as much a victim of homo economicus, on their insistence, as any noble savage. Yet it now turns out, on the climatologists own arguments, the earth is very much capable of defending itself.

Yes, changing sea temperatures could indeed be contributing to climate change. But climate change is not global warming. One area becomes cooler, another warmer; that is very different from a relentless progression to a scorched earth and waves lapping at what are now mountaintops.

So what if we have climate change; it would be far more shocking if we did not have climate change. Climate change has occured always and everywhere throughout all known time. It is part and parcel of the earth itself.

Seven years ago Al Gore predicted that by this summer Arctic ice would all have melted. Instead, it is rebuilding.

Seven years from now Al Gore and his merry band of climatologists will themselves have melted away.

If the pollution attributed to Global Warming were an elephant, Thailand would be the equivalent of a few nostril hairs. China, alone, will add the equivalent of one new 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next ten years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Thailand is not the problem.

BTW, we are all doomed already, by overpopulation.

Of course when you look at the whole global warming church's policies on energy production it's quite racist.

It's fine for people in developed countries to have clean water and constant electricity - but we'll stop the world bank from extending loans to poorer countries to build coal stations like Germany does.

"No, no, those poor brown people must have limited, intermittant power so they can live close to nature in their unpowered grass huts" - that seems to be the motto.

Why don't they lead by example?

start by telling 711 employees that u dont need to bag the small package of gum i just bought, nor do you need to put my change in a bag to give it back to me...

If the pollution attributed to Global Warming were an elephant, Thailand would be the equivalent of a few nostril hairs. China, alone, will add the equivalent of one new 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next ten years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Thailand is not the problem.

BTW, we are all doomed already, by overpopulation.

rametindallas, you've got to bear in mind that a fair amount of the coal being burnt in China is exported their by Australia and America. Basically, America tries to look good by saying it is burning less coal (well, less of the most polluting types of coal), but it is actually exporting a lot to China.

Also, trees in Russia are being chopped down to sell as timber to China, but Chinese factories are exporting the finished wood product (chairs, tables, beds, other furniture) to America. Basically, Walmart is probably just as responsible for the number of trees chopped as the whole of Thailand !

And all those coal fired power stations in China, I think the Chinese are using the electricity to power the factories that produce cheap goods for America and Europe. Whether coal is burnt in America, Europe, or China, it's the same thing.

I think America should lead by example here, and take climate threat seriously before Thailand does. How many people in America are convinced that burning coal is NOT what's causing global warming ? And how many people are convinced that global warming is not happening at all ?

And Australia, tell your coal companies to stop exporting the stuff, coal is slowly killing everybody. Australia, you export more coal than any other nation on planet earth.

its called "WEATHER"............so your gonna blame burning coal on the last ICE AGE.

No I am not.

I'm gonna blame burning coal for PREVENTING the next ICE AGE.

If the pollution attributed to Global Warming were an elephant, Thailand would be the equivalent of a few nostril hairs. China, alone, will add the equivalent of one new 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next ten years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Thailand is not the problem.

BTW, we are all doomed already, by overpopulation.

rametindallas, you've got to bear in mind that a fair amount of the coal being burnt in China is exported their by Australia and America. Basically, America tries to look good by saying it is burning less coal (well, less of the most polluting types of coal), but it is actually exporting a lot to China.

Also, trees in Russia are being chopped down to sell as timber to China, but Chinese factories are exporting the finished wood product (chairs, tables, beds, other furniture) to America. Basically, Walmart is probably just as responsible for the number of trees chopped as the whole of Thailand !

And all those coal fired power stations in China, I think the Chinese are using the electricity to power the factories that produce cheap goods for America and Europe. Whether coal is burnt in America, Europe, or China, it's the same thing.

If the Global Warmist have their way, all these economies will be shut down and people will die anyway. There are too many people on the Earth; it's not the type of fuel they use. Even if every human used only enough energy for basic sustenance, the World cannot support them. There will not be enough food for future populations. It is too late! We are all doomed. What's the point of assigning blame when nothing will change because people refuse to change. All efforts to save civilization is futile. Enjoy your cheap fuel while you can.

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by rametindallas

If the pollution attributed to Global Warming were an elephant, Thailand would be the equivalent of a few nostril hairs. China, alone, will add the equivalent of one new 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next ten years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Thailand is not the problem.

BTW, we are all doomed already, by overpopulation.

rametindallas, you've got to bear in mind that a fair amount of the coal being burnt in China is exported their by Australia and America. Basically, America tries to look good by saying it is burning less coal (well, less of the most polluting types of coal), but it is actually exporting a lot to China.

Also, trees in Russia are being chopped down to sell as timber to China, but Chinese factories are exporting the finished wood product (chairs, tables, beds, other furniture) to America. Basically, Walmart is probably just as responsible for the number of trees chopped as the whole of Thailand !

And all those coal fired power stations in China, I think the Chinese are using the electricity to power the factories that produce cheap goods for America and Europe. Whether coal is burnt in America, Europe, or China, it's the same thing.

If the Global Warmist have their way, all these economies will be shut down and people will die anyway. There are too many people on the Earth; it's not the type of fuel they use. Even if every human used only enough energy for basic sustenance, the World cannot support them. There will not be enough food for future populations. It is too late! We are all doomed. What's the point of assigning blame when nothing will change because people refuse to change. All efforts to save civilization is futile. Enjoy your cheap fuel while you can.

Malthus? Is that you? Most people thought you died in 1834???

Here's a tip - Walter Greiling predicted in the 1950's that population growth would peak globally at about 9 billion in 2050 - and then decline and stabilise.

So far by UN figures he appears to be pretty bang-on - although the peak might be delayed until 2070 now.

"The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs report (2004) projects the world population to peak at 9.22 billion in 2075. After reaching this maximum the world population is projected to decline slightly and then resume increasing slowly, to reach a level of 8.97 billion by 2300, about the same as the projected 2050 figure.^[12] An alternative scenario is given by Jorgen Randers, who argues that traditional projections insufficiently take into account the downward impact of global urbanization on fertility. Randers' "most likely scenario" reveals a peak in the world population in the early 2040s at about 8.1 billion people, followed by decline.^[13]"

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#World_population_in_2050}

If the pollution attributed to Global Warming were an elephant, Thailand would be the equivalent of a few nostril hairs. China, alone, will add the equivalent of one new 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant every 10 days for the next ten years.

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

Thailand is not the problem.

BTW, we are all doomed already, by overpopulation.

rametindallas, you've got to bear in mind that a fair amount of the coal being burnt in China is exported their by Australia and America. Basically, America tries to look good by saying it is burning less coal (well, less of the most polluting types of coal), but it is actually exporting a lot to China.

Also, trees in Russia are being chopped down to sell as timber to China, but Chinese factories are exporting the finished wood product (chairs, tables, beds, other furniture) to America. Basically, Walmart is probably just as responsible for the number of trees chopped as the whole of Thailand !

And all those coal fired power stations in China, I think the Chinese are using the electricity to power the factories that produce cheap goods for America and Europe. Whether coal is burnt in America, Europe, or China, it's the same thing.

If the Global Warmist have their way, all these economies will be shut down and people will die anyway. There are too many people on the Earth; it's not the type of fuel they use. Even if every human used only enough energy for basic sustenance, the World cannot support them. There will not be enough food for future populations. It is too late! We are all doomed. What's the point of assigning blame when nothing will change because people refuse to change. All efforts to save civilization is futile. Enjoy your cheap fuel while you can.

Malthus? Is that you? Most people thought you died in 1834???

Here's a tip - Walter Greiling predicted in the 1950's that population growth would peak globally at about 9 billion in 2050 - and then decline and stabilise.

So far by UN figures he appears to be pretty bang-on - although the peak might be delayed until 2070 now.

"The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs report (2004) projects the world population to peak at 9.22 billion in 2075. After reaching this maximum the world population is projected to decline slightly and then resume increasing slowly, to reach a level of 8.97 billion by 2300, about the same as the projected 2050 figure.^[12] An alternative scenario is given by Jorgen Randers, who argues that traditional projections insufficiently take into account the downward impact of global urbanization on fertility. Randers' "most likely scenario" reveals a peak in the world population in the early 2040s at about 8.1 billion people, followed by decline.^[13]"

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#World_population_in_2050}

Hold on to that optimism; It's a good thing to have. There are an awful lot of assumptions that have to be made to create a model that will predict future population. With the, now ongoing, nineteen year stall in Global Warming it is shown that it is difficult to predict the future; even with sophisticated computer modeling. There are quite a few unpredictable values that can't be taken into consideration unless one is a soothsayer. The energy usage and water usage to feed the current World's population is not sustainable; much less into the future (2070 when the population is expected to stabilize and diminish). The amount of greenhouse gases, already in the atmosphere, have set up a reaction in nature that is irreversible. I consider human greed to be the biggest danger to the World's future and that is not likely to change. In any case, something like Ebola or H5N1 could make all these arguments irrelevant. The Black Plague reduced Europe's population by 50%.

A Genius Investor Thinks Billions Of People Are Going To Starve To Death — Here's Why

http://www.businessinsider.com/peak-phosphorus-and-food-production-2012-12?op=1

Dramatic decline in industrial agriculture could herald 'peak food' Most conventional yield projection models are oblivious to the real world say US researchers

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/19/industrial-agriculture-limits-peak-food

'Peak soil' threatens future global food security

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-peaksoil-agriculture-idUSKBN0FM1HC20140717

Why Our Food is So Dependent on Oil

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-04-01/why-our-food-so-dependent-oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg

Edited September 10, 201411 yr by rametindallas

If the Global Warmist have their way, all these economies will be shut down and people will die anyway. There are too many people on the Earth; it's not the type of fuel they use. Even if every human used only enough energy for basic sustenance, the World cannot support them. There will not be enough food for future populations. It is too late! We are all doomed. What's the point of assigning blame when nothing will change because people refuse to change. All efforts to save civilization is futile. Enjoy your cheap fuel while you can.

Malthus? Is that you? Most people thought you died in 1834???

Here's a tip - Walter Greiling predicted in the 1950's that population growth would peak globally at about 9 billion in 2050 - and then decline and stabilise.

So far by UN figures he appears to be pretty bang-on - although the peak might be delayed until 2070 now.

"The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs report (2004) projects the world population to peak at 9.22 billion in 2075. After reaching this maximum the world population is projected to decline slightly and then resume increasing slowly, to reach a level of 8.97 billion by 2300, about the same as the projected 2050 figure.^[12] An alternative scenario is given by Jorgen Randers, who argues that traditional projections insufficiently take into account the downward impact of global urbanization on fertility. Randers' "most likely scenario" reveals a peak in the world population in the early 2040s at about 8.1 billion people, followed by decline.^[13]"

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#World_population_in_2050}

Hold on to that optimism; It's a good thing to have. There are quite a few unpredictable values that can't be taken into consideration unless you are a soothsayer. The energy usage and water usage to feed the current World's population is not sustainable much less into the future. The amount of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere have set up a reaction in nature that is irreversible. I consider human greed to be the biggest danger to the World's future and that is not likely to change.

A Genius Investor Thinks Billions Of People Are Going To Starve To Death — Here's Why

http://www.businessinsider.com/peak-phosphorus-and-food-production-2012-12?op=1

Dramatic decline in industrial agriculture could herald 'peak food' Most conventional yield projection models are oblivious to the real world say US researchers

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/19/industrial-agriculture-limits-peak-food

'Peak soil' threatens future global food security

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-peaksoil-agriculture-idUSKBN0FM1HC20140717

Why Our Food is So Dependent on Oil

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-04-01/why-our-food-so-dependent-oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg

Thanks - you are Malthus - he used the same conceptions as some of those articles.

Why don't you try a guy who works in the minerals industry for a different view?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/07/the_club_of_romes_limits_to_growth_was_right_you_know/

Despite the url name - the title of the article is - "Limits to Growth is a pile of steaming doggy-doo based on total cobblers"

What it talks about is what is really meant in the industry about "reserves"

If the Global Warmist have their way, all these economies will be shut down and people will die anyway. There are too many people on the Earth; it's not the type of fuel they use. Even if every human used only enough energy for basic sustenance, the World cannot support them. There will not be enough food for future populations. It is too late! We are all doomed. What's the point of assigning blame when nothing will change because people refuse to change. All efforts to save civilization is futile. Enjoy your cheap fuel while you can.

Malthus? Is that you? Most people thought you died in 1834???

Here's a tip - Walter Greiling predicted in the 1950's that population growth would peak globally at about 9 billion in 2050 - and then decline and stabilise.

So far by UN figures he appears to be pretty bang-on - although the peak might be delayed until 2070 now.

"The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs report (2004) projects the world population to peak at 9.22 billion in 2075. After reaching this maximum the world population is projected to decline slightly and then resume increasing slowly, to reach a level of 8.97 billion by 2300, about the same as the projected 2050 figure.^[12] An alternative scenario is given by Jorgen Randers, who argues that traditional projections insufficiently take into account the downward impact of global urbanization on fertility. Randers' "most likely scenario" reveals a peak in the world population in the early 2040s at about 8.1 billion people, followed by decline.^[13]"

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#World_population_in_2050}

Hold on to that optimism; It's a good thing to have. There are quite a few unpredictable values that can't be taken into consideration unless you are a soothsayer. The energy usage and water usage to feed the current World's population is not sustainable much less into the future. The amount of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere have set up a reaction in nature that is irreversible. I consider human greed to be the biggest danger to the World's future and that is not likely to change.

A Genius Investor Thinks Billions Of People Are Going To Starve To Death — Here's Why

http://www.businessinsider.com/peak-phosphorus-and-food-production-2012-12?op=1

Dramatic decline in industrial agriculture could herald 'peak food' Most conventional yield projection models are oblivious to the real world say US researchers

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/19/industrial-agriculture-limits-peak-food

'Peak soil' threatens future global food security

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-peaksoil-agriculture-idUSKBN0FM1HC20140717

Why Our Food is So Dependent on Oil

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2005-04-01/why-our-food-so-dependent-oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg

Thanks - you are Malthus - he used the same conceptions as some of those articles.

Why don't you try a guy who works in the minerals industry for a different view?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/09/07/the_club_of_romes_limits_to_growth_was_right_you_know/

Despite the url name - the title of the article is - "Limits to Growth is a pile of steaming doggy-doo based on total cobblers"

What it talks about is what is really meant in the industry about "reserves"

At my age, I won't live long enough to be proven wrong. I wish you the best.

I think America should lead by example here, and take climate threat seriously before Thailand does. How many people in America are convinced that burning coal is NOT what's causing global warming ? And how many people are convinced that global warming is not happening at all ?

And Australia, tell your coal companies to stop exporting the stuff, coal is slowly killing everybody. Australia, you export more coal than any other nation on planet earth.

I guess the fact that Australia has more cal than most nations does not come as a good reason

Climate change is now being moved to be the hoax of the century

But there are still many who think that at the end of the day the sun sets

It's good to hear that Thailand Govt will be tasked with preparing policies which will need to be sufficient to meet their international obligations for the 'Road to Paris' convention in 2015, for international agreement by 2020.

This article explains that as a result, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Environment Department (BMA) suggests one way forward is better education to raise public awareness. But with education you need to start young, so it's not surprising there are many critical on in this forum.

Education is important but what Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management committee is calling for is a credible strategy aimed at reducing the country's principal green house gas emissions and likewise, reducing commensurate energy consumption.

If it drives forward schemes at saving money from less and more efficient use of energy this must be a good thing. A safer and more efficient public transport system should surely be high on the agenda.