Thailand aims to cut down greenhouse gas emissions by 7-20%

[webfact]

Thailand aims to cut down greenhouse gas emissions by 7-20%

BANGKOK, 11 December 2014 (NNT) - Thailand has declared its intention to reduce greenhouse gases by 7-20% on a voluntary basis in the energy and transport sectors by the year 2020 during the 20th session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Gen. Daophong Rattanasuwan who represents Thailand and his entourage attend the UNFCCC session and the 10th Kyoto protocol conference from 1-12 December 2014 in Peru.

The minister delivered a statement during the event, saying Thailand will decrease greenhouse gases by 7-20% by 2020 in the energy and transport sectors and called the developed countries to lead a campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The minister stressed that His Majesty the King’s Sufficiency Economy philosophy played a pivotal role in the country’s master plan to create a balance between economic development and environmental conservation. The philosophy also provided guidelines for communities in utilizing natural resources wisely, he added.


-- NNT 2014-12-11

[Fiddlesticks]

Thailand has declared its intention

This says it all! Another declared intention. If intentions were worth one baht, Thailand would be one of the richest countries in the world.

[Robby nz]

As long as they don't plan to do it by building nuclear power plants.

[ratcatcher]

Thailand has declared its intention

This says it all! Another declared intention. If intentions were worth one baht, Thailand would be one of the richest countries in the world.

[Thailand]

And the burning is already starting in the north to compensate for the reduction in greenhouse gases emissions.

"Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Gen. Daophong Rattanasuwan who represents Thailand and his entourage attend the UNFCCC session and the 10th Kyoto protocol conference from 1-12 December 2014 in Peru."

And a 12 day junket in South America for how many?

Edited December 11, 2014 by Thailand

[MESmith]

Just stop the burning & get rid of dump trucks & buses that literally pump out black smoke

Don't worry about the rest.....

[Costas2008]

Are they going to stop eating Som Tam?

That will definitely reduce gas emissions.

[rakman]

Cut down on the number of beer drinking tourists. You reduce CO2 with less people and less beer being produced.

[ChrisY1]

As long as they don't plan to do it by building nuclear power plants.

They've been done that road.......untill they realised that they couldn't get fuel......thankfully, the IAEA aren't that dopey!

[Christie Paul]

I think the current economic management will result in massive declines in everything, including CO2 emissions.

[Ulic]

There is the goal, then there is the road map to achieve the goal, then there is the following of the road map.

The first is easy and cost nothing, the second costs a little to put together and shows if you have any credibility,

the third is where the rubber hits the road. That is where the cost and sacrifice is. For now, words are cheap.

We shall see what comes to pass.

[AleG]

Well, they are not going to have an easy time achieving that since the plan is to build more coal plants in the country.

And the burning is already starting in the north to compensate for the reduction in greenhouse gases emissions.

"Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Gen. Daophong Rattanasuwan who represents Thailand and his entourage attend the UNFCCC session and the 10th Kyoto protocol conference from 1-12 December 2014 in Peru."

And a 12 day junket in South America for how many?

Actually, burning fields is carbon neutral, since it releases the CO2 accumulated by the plants that will then be reabsorbed in the next crop. Not that it doesn't produce pollution and should be stopped, but it's not a factor on the matter.

As long as they don't plan to do it by building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is the most straightforward solution to reducing greenhouse emissions today, unfortunately fear mongering campaigns based on bad science, misinformation and outdated prejudices has stopped that solution from being implemented. That more nuclear power is not used today, and more research into it's development doesn't happen is one of the great tragedies of these days, like a sick person dying because their faith prevents them from using that "medicine", "scientists" peddle.

Edited December 12, 2014 by AleG

[Robby nz]

Well, they are not going to have an easy time achieving that since the plan is to build more coal plants in the country.

And the burning is already starting in the north to compensate for the reduction in greenhouse gases emissions.

"Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Gen. Daophong Rattanasuwan who represents Thailand and his entourage attend the UNFCCC session and the 10th Kyoto protocol conference from 1-12 December 2014 in Peru."

And a 12 day junket in South America for how many?

Actually, burning fields is carbon neutral, since it releases the CO2 accumulated by the plants that will then be reabsorbed in the next crop. Not that it doesn't produce pollution and should be stopped, but it's not a factor on the matter.

As long as they don't plan to do it by building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is the most straightforward solution to reducing greenhouse emissions today, unfortunately fear mongering campaigns based on bad science, misinformation and outdated prejudices has stopped that solution from being implemented. That more nuclear power is not used today, and more research into it's development doesn't happen is one of the great tragedies of these days, like a sick person dying because their faith prevents them from using that "medicine", "scientists" peddle.

Tell that to the people of Chernobyl and Fukushima, the ones that survived that is.

Tell us about the ongoing prognosis for both of these places.

Then tell us all about what is done with the spent fuel rods from the present reactors around the world.

When you have done with that tell us about the decommissioning of nuclear plants that is going on around the world.

[HeijoshinCool]

Greenhouse gasses?

This from people who think ozone is healthy to breathe.

[lil fluffy clouds]

Well, they are not going to have an easy time achieving that since the plan is to build more coal plants in the country.

And the burning is already starting in the north to compensate for the reduction in greenhouse gases emissions.

"Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Gen. Daophong Rattanasuwan who represents Thailand and his entourage attend the UNFCCC session and the 10th Kyoto protocol conference from 1-12 December 2014 in Peru."

And a 12 day junket in South America for how many?

Actually, burning fields is carbon neutral, since it releases the CO2 accumulated by the plants that will then be reabsorbed in the next crop. Not that it doesn't produce pollution and should be stopped, but it's not a factor on the matter.

As long as they don't plan to do it by building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is the most straightforward solution to reducing greenhouse emissions today, unfortunately fear mongering campaigns based on bad science, misinformation and outdated prejudices has stopped that solution from being implemented. That more nuclear power is not used today, and more research into it's development doesn't happen is one of the great tragedies of these days, like a sick person dying because their faith prevents them from using that "medicine", "scientists" peddle.

"Burning rice fields is carbon neutral"

So your telling me that if you were a serious chain smoker you would be the picture of perfect health because the next tobacco crop will reabsorb your carbon levels?

Maybe you would like to demonstrate!

"Nuclear power fear mongering campaigns" are not based on speculative science but rather actual events, also just because you cannot see the smoke does not mean it is not 20 times more lethal...

[AleG]

"Burning rice fields is carbon neutral"

So your telling me that if you were a serious chain smoker you would be the picture of perfect health because the next tobacco crop will reabsorb your carbon levels?

Maybe you would like to demonstrate!

"Nuclear power fear mongering campaigns" are not based on speculative science but rather actual events, also just because you cannot see the smoke does not mean it is not 20 times more lethal...

"Burning rice fields is carbon neutral"

Yes, it is, rice plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere during the growth process, burning the plants after harvest releases that CO2 that in turn will be reabsorbed by the next crop. It's a cycle, it is in fact called the Carbon Cycle.

Smoking has nothing to do with it, you are conflating matters, smoking is not harmful because of the CO2 that smokers (and bystanders) inhale, it's harmful because of the other compounds present in the smoke.

"Nuclear power fear mongering campaigns" are not based on speculative science but rather actual events, also just because you cannot see the smoke does not mean it is not 20 times more lethal...

Here you exemplify what I said, that opposition to nuclear power is based on non factual fear mongering. In particular with the last statement, how many people do you think have died as a consequence of nuclear power? If you look at credible sources, like the World Health Organization, you will find out that not only it's not 20 times more than the deaths that can be attributed to the use of fossil fuels for power production, it's not even about the same amount, it's order of magnitudes less, and the absolute majority of such deaths stem from a single accident.

5 September 2005 | Geneva - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

The other nuclear disaster, the one Robbie NZ mentions, Fukuyima has caused a total of zero deaths due to radiation and all estimates indicate only an extremely low expected increase of cancer cases over the lifetime of people affected.

Against that you have thousands of deaths per year. due to the use of fossil fuels, from direct causes like deaths at coal mines to less direct causes, like respiratory illnesses and effects produced by the climate change driven by the rice in CO2 levels:

According to the reports issued by the World Health Organization in 2008 and by environmental groups in 2004, coal particulates pollution are estimated to shorten approximately 1,000,000 lives annually worldwide

1.000.000 annually versus 4000 deaths from a single event 20 years ago, now tell me again, what is more deadly?

Why would you, rationally, prefer to have one million people die every single year instead of... well, zero since Chernobyl?

Then of course is the issue that the Chernobyl Disaster happened on a reactor built on 50's technology, of unsafe design being used in an unsafe manner to perform an experiment were they deliberately disabled the safewards built into the system; what happened then and there can not happen in a modern reactor used according to safe procedures; newer designs are safer and newer technologies, like Thorium reactors not only are safer still, they generate almost no long term waste.

[elgordo38]

As long as they don't plan to do it by building nuclear power plants.

No they are going to build more coal fired plants. Solar and wind are tooo expensive. I would presume that nuclear is to.

[Ebenezer]

I agree with AleG, nuclear energy would be the most efficient and cost effective way to address the challenge of supplying more electricity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are 1.5 billion people in the world without access to electricity, mostly in Asia and Africa. China has a program to build 363 coal plants to meet additional electricity needs, and India has plans to build 455 coal plants. The WHO says that there are 7 million deaths a year due to pollution so without the extra CO2 we still have the biggest global threat to human health. Drastic action is needed if we are to avoid major climate problems in the future.

Well, they are not going to have an easy time achieving that since the plan is to build more coal plants in the country.

And the burning is already starting in the north to compensate for the reduction in greenhouse gases emissions.

"Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment Gen. Daophong Rattanasuwan who represents Thailand and his entourage attend the UNFCCC session and the 10th Kyoto protocol conference from 1-12 December 2014 in Peru."

And a 12 day junket in South America for how many?

Actually, burning fields is carbon neutral, since it releases the CO2 accumulated by the plants that will then be reabsorbed in the next crop. Not that it doesn't produce pollution and should be stopped, but it's not a factor on the matter.

As long as they don't plan to do it by building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is the most straightforward solution to reducing greenhouse emissions today, unfortunately fear mongering campaigns based on bad science, misinformation and outdated prejudices has stopped that solution from being implemented. That more nuclear power is not used today, and more research into it's development doesn't happen is one of the great tragedies of these days, like a sick person dying because their faith prevents them from using that "medicine", "scientists" peddle.

[rickirs]

Gen. Rattanasuwan needs to coordinate with Energy Minister Akrasanee who on October 28th announced an increase in the proportion of coal-fired generation to 30%, plans to build another coal-fired plant in Cambodia for Thailand's energy needs, and buy electricity from a coal-fired power plant in Laos for Thailand's energy needs.

So doing the math:

Cutting emissions 7-20% plus new emissions 30-35% equals emissions surplus 15-25% !!

Isn't Gen. Prayuth supposed to be the Head of Government whose responsibility is to assure the issuance of reasonable and consistent government policies towards a unified goal? Maybe he needs to put less time in explaining Thailand's political conflicts to foreign nations and more time reigning his cabinet actions. If Gen. Prayuth fails to reconcile these obvious conflicting minister policies (one of many cabinet conflicts) he needs to consider retirement.