Foreign Driver Crashes Car into Motorbike and Minivan in Patong

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Maewong and the damming of democracy

Piyaporn Wongruang
The Nation 

 

 

BANGKOK: -- Like a ghost, the controversial Meawong Dam project has resurfaced to haunt environmentalists. Agricultural and Cooperatives Minister General Chatchai Sarikulya suggested resurrecting the idea after taking a trip to inspect the Bhumibol Dam in Tak province on Saturday.

 

The spectre is more scary still, since the minister 

proposed using the coup leader's absolute power under Article 44 to shorten otherwise lengthy environmental and health assessment processes that have been an obstacle to the project's progress.

The Maewong Dam has been on and off the table for nearly 30 years since it was first proposed in the early 1990s by the Irrigation Department. Preventing implementation are serious concerns over potentially serious environmental impacts on Maewong National Park in Nakhon Sawan.

Those concerns grew recently when scientists found evidence that endangered species like tigers have spread into Maewong from the adjacent Huai Kha Khaeng, a world heritage wildlife sanctuary.

Besides the ecological argument, environmentalists have also challenged official claims about economic benefits the dam would bring. Environmentalists say that alternative water management provisions in the target areas downstream could match the storage capacity of a dam - 200-250 million cubic metres - and slash state spending from Bt15 billion to about Bt2 billion. 

Critically, the state has failed to justify its own claim for the need to build a dam in the national park, which is located outside the country's main water regulation system of the Chao Phraya basin.

Given its relatively remote location, the proposed barrier would have only localised benefits for certain rice-growing, drought-plagued districts of the province, a fact which contradicts the state's claim of wider benefits.

Apparently stymied by the stronger arguments offered by opponents of the dam, the state has now decided to resort to the absolute power of Article 44.

But this has broader and more dangerous implications than impacts from building the dam.

By overriding checks and balances on development through the use of Article 44, the state is now implicitly eroding the spirit of democracy it aims to revive following the August 7 referendum.

Public participation is fundamental to the health of a democracy, of which development projects and public policy are core ingredients.

By using Article 44, the state is itself undermining the democracy it wishes to cultivate.

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha began this illogical process a few months by invoking Article 44 to pave the way for mega-development projects to run in parallel with environmental and health impact assessments, rather than waiting for the green light. That act was seen as overruling the rule of law under the prime environmental law.

So far, no one knows which projects have gone ahead under this order, escaping thorough public scrutiny.

The use of Article 44 to force through development projects and public policy must stop. If the government wants to prove it is sincere about returning democracy to the country, the Maewong Dam project would be a good place to start. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Maewong-and-the-damming-of-democracy-30294590.html

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2016-09-06

[kannot]

you got the govt u deserved

[Kasset Tak]

Environmentalists...

NO damms

NO nuclear power

NO fossil fuels

NO garbage fueled power plants

NO mines

NO factories

And still they want power for their AC units and money for food and healthcare!?

I think it's time to put the environmentalists to the test and see if they can survive on what they can find naturally without using fossil fuels for their cars, no potash for their farms, no modern healthcare and no iPhones or computers (electronics are really bad for the environment!!!)!

 

[waldroj]

Junta...

NO EA's!

 

You don't even need to be an Environmentalist to question this logic.

 

[halloween]

The proposal is to flood 2% of a national park, at the same time supplying a reliable source of water. With that in mind, just how concerned should we be about the effect on tigers and other endangered species? Always take the claims of anti-progress movements with a large pinch of salt and a hard look at facts.

 

" only localised benefits for certain rice-growing, drought-plagued districts of the province"  They also have floods, but let's not take the edge off an agenda.

 

The democracy angle is new. Direct democracy, where every citizen gets to vote on every issue doesn't work, that's why we have representative democracy where the people elect those they trust to do the best for the nation. The representative MPs look at the EAs, consider the cost/benefit, and decide whether a project should proceed. Mae Wong was approved by the last elected government, but delayed through the actions of a vocal minority. Is over-riding their tactics anti-democratic?

[heybruce]

" Environmentalists say that alternative water management provisions in the target areas downstream could match the storage capacity of a dam - 200-250 million cubic metres - and slash state spending from Bt15 billion to about Bt2 billion."

 

Less state spending means less skimming by officials.  That's why expensive projects are preferred.

[Johpa]

Mega projects like dams, with the vast amounts of money involved, have long thwarted democracy at a global level.  Below is a link to an interesting article about one of the underlying reasons that Thailand is funding dams in Laos that are equally questionable when environmental impact is taken into consideration.  If the link is removed as being inadmissible then Google "megawatts for gigaspenders".

 

https://www.mekongeye.com/2016/09/05/gigawatts-for-gigaspenders-infographic-shows-bangkoks-luxury-malls-use-more-energy-than-some-provinces/

[ddavidovsky]

As I understand it, this is not a hydroelectric project but simply a flood-management reservoir.

 

They're up in arms over a patch of dusty clifftop near Preah Vihear, but they'll happily destroy forever 200 square miles of irreplaceable natural environment that has been there for aeons and contains some of the country's most precious and vulnerable wildlife. "Oh it's just a bit more forest," they say.

 

It's not just a bit more forest. It's an important part of the little that is left. International observers agree that the reservoir is not needed, and environmental impact will be severe.

 

Of course, some people in the power network will get rich from the 200 square mile logging concession that will be opened up - we need look no further for the reason they have been constantly pushing for this. Now they have absolute power, they are aiming simply to do it by decree. Absolutely staggering and scandalous.

[halloween]

9 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

As I understand it, this is not a hydroelectric project but simply a flood-management reservoir.

 

They're up in arms over a patch of dusty clifftop near Preah Vihear, but they'll happily destroy forever 200 square miles of irreplaceable natural environment that has been there for aeons and contains some of the country's most precious and vulnerable wildlife. "Oh it's just a bit more forest," they say.

 

It's not just a bit more forest. It's an important part of the little that is left. International observers agree that the reservoir is not needed, and environmental impact will be severe.

 

Of course, some people in the power network will get rich from the 200 square mile logging concession that will be opened up - we need look no further for the reason they have been constantly pushing for this. Now they have absolute power, they are aiming simply to do it by decree. Absolutely staggering and scandalous.

Could you supply a link to your unsupported claim " destroy forever 200 square miles of irreplaceable natural environment that has been there for aeons and contains some of the country's most precious and vulnerable wildlife."

On second thought, forget the hyperbole BS and just justify the 200 sq.km.

"Opponents of the project state that it will eliminate around 1,760 hectares (17.6 km2) of low-lying forest..."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_Wong_Dam  

[mtls2005]

This must be that 1% in action?

 

"Thailand is 99 % 'Democratic'."

[halloween]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

" Environmentalists say that alternative water management provisions in the target areas downstream could match the storage capacity of a dam - 200-250 million cubic metres - and slash state spending from Bt15 billion to about Bt2 billion."

 

Less state spending means less skimming by officials.  That's why expensive projects are preferred.

 

Environmentalists say many things, most of which are not true. Yet you prefer to believe them rather than the professional engineers and other officers of the Irrigation Dept. Why is that?

[ddavidovsky]

28 minutes ago, halloween said:

Could you supply a link to your unsupported claim " destroy forever 200 square miles of irreplaceable natural environment that has been there for aeons and contains some of the country's most precious and vulnerable wildlife."

On second thought, forget the hyperbole BS and just justify the 200 sq.km.

"Opponents of the project state that it will eliminate around 1,760 hectares (17.6 km2) of low-lying forest..."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mae_Wong_Dam  

 

Data came from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature report, page 3:

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/a_review_of_thailand_s_proposed_mae_wong_dam.pdf

Quote:

"In April 2012, the Cabinet approved the Mae Wong Dam as a flagship project for flood prevention, despite the fact that the  EHIA  was  not  completed  until  later  in  2012.  The  dam  was  to  be  constructed  within  MWNP,  creating  a  reservoir measuring  291,000  rai  (46,560  ha)  in  the  rainy  season,  and  10,000  rai  (1,600  ha)  in  the  dry  season,  holding  200 million m3 of water - 30-40% of the input to the Sakae Krang River basin."

 

46,560 hectares of water = 179 square miles. I rounded it up because there will additionally be surrounding development - works, parkland and resorts such as at Srinakarin and Kaeng Krachan reservoirs, even if just as an excuse for more logging.

 

I don't know why there is such a huge difference between the rainy season and dry season areas, but let's face it, a reservoir in such a place is not going to be just 6 square miles. Wikipedia obviously used the dry season figure, and I wouldn't trust the government to give the true figure either.

 

 

[The Old Bull]

The real question is with billions up for grabs ,who is going to dip their beak? That's the real story.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, halloween said:

 

Environmentalists say many things, most of which are not true. Yet you prefer to believe them rather than the professional engineers and other officers of the Irrigation Dept. Why is that?

From the OP:

 

" The Maewong Dam has been on and off the table for nearly 30 years since it was first proposed in the early 1990s by the Irrigation Department. Preventing implementation are serious concerns over potentially serious environmental impacts on Maewong National Park in Nakhon Sawan."

"Critically, the state has failed to justify its own claim for the need to build a dam in the national park, which is located outside the country's main water regulation system of the Chao Phraya basin."

 

The OP doesn't say where this information came from, it may be from the same Irrigation Department you hold in high regard.  I don't hold them in high regard, I consider Thailand's civil service to be corrupt.  Not as corrupt as the military, but still a system where promotions are awarded based on bribes and connections, not competence.  Since a 13 billion baht project would allow much more opportunity for corruption, I'm not surprised it is preferred over a 2 billion baht project that would accomplish the same results with less environmental damage.

 

By the way, the modern environmental movement in the US began with the publication in 1962 of "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, in which she claimed that DDT was contaminating the food chain and endangering the American eagle.  Turns out that was true.  So have a lot of other claims made by environmentalists.

[billd766]

12 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

As I understand it, this is not a hydroelectric project but simply a flood-management reservoir.

 

They're up in arms over a patch of dusty clifftop near Preah Vihear, but they'll happily destroy forever 200 square miles of irreplaceable natural environment that has been there for aeons and contains some of the country's most precious and vulnerable wildlife. "Oh it's just a bit more forest," they say.

 

It's not just a bit more forest. It's an important part of the little that is left. International observers agree that the reservoir is not needed, and environmental impact will be severe.

 

Of course, some people in the power network will get rich from the 200 square mile logging concession that will be opened up - we need look no further for the reason they have been constantly pushing for this. Now they have absolute power, they are aiming simply to do it by decree. Absolutely staggering and scandalous.

 

Sorry to disappoint you but is actually 20 sq/km and not 200 sq/miles. That equals 518 sq/km or more than half ot the Mae Wong national park.

 

Never mind you were only out by a factor of 25.9 and what does accuracy matter in a post.

 

I love the way that you drop into the post that international observers, who seem to be nameless and don't actually live in Thailand, seem to know more than the people who actually live in the area.

[halloween]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Data came from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature report, page 3:

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/a_review_of_thailand_s_proposed_mae_wong_dam.pdf

Quote:

"In April 2012, the Cabinet approved the Mae Wong Dam as a flagship project for flood prevention, despite the fact that the  EHIA  was  not  completed  until  later  in  2012.  The  dam  was  to  be  constructed  within  MWNP,  creating  a  reservoir measuring  291,000  rai  (46,560  ha)  in  the  rainy  season,  and  10,000  rai  (1,600  ha)  in  the  dry  season,  holding  200 million m3 of water - 30-40% of the input to the Sakae Krang River basin."

 

46,560 hectares of water = 179 square miles. I rounded it up because there will additionally be surrounding development - works, parkland and resorts such as at Srinakarin and Kaeng Krachan reservoirs, even if just as an excuse for more logging.

 

I don't know why there is such a huge difference between the rainy season and dry season areas, but let's face it, a reservoir in such a place is not going to be just 6 square miles. Wikipedia obviously used the dry season figure, and I wouldn't trust the government to give the true figure either.

 

 

 

Are you mathematically challenged? The difference in areas ~45,000 ha or 450 million sqm, in a dam that will hold 200 million cubic metres, so the height differential would be less than half a metre from dry season to wet.

Does that sound logical to you?

[halloween]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

From the OP:

 

" The Maewong Dam has been on and off the table for nearly 30 years since it was first proposed in the early 1990s by the Irrigation Department. Preventing implementation are serious concerns over potentially serious environmental impacts on Maewong National Park in Nakhon Sawan."

"Critically, the state has failed to justify its own claim for the need to build a dam in the national park, which is located outside the country's main water regulation system of the Chao Phraya basin."

 

The OP doesn't say where this information came from, it may be from the same Irrigation Department you hold in high regard.  I don't hold them in high regard, I consider Thailand's civil service to be corrupt.  Not as corrupt as the military, but still a system where promotions are awarded based on bribes and connections, not competence.  Since a 13 billion baht project would allow much more opportunity for corruption, I'm not surprised it is preferred over a 2 billion baht project that would accomplish the same results with less environmental damage.

 

By the way, the modern environmental movement in the US began with the publication in 1962 of "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson, in which she claimed that DDT was contaminating the food chain and endangering the American eagle.  Turns out that was true.  So have a lot of other claims made by environmentalists.

 

Uh huh. And in this instance they are quoting concerns over the danger to tigers and other endangered species due to a 2% reduction in a 900 sq km park adjacent to a 57000 sq km nature reserve.

Do you think those concerns are justifiable, or a rubbish claim to evoke response in the ignorant?

Do you think that those affected by both drought and flood have more or less valid concerns?

[billd766]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Data came from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature report, page 3:

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/a_review_of_thailand_s_proposed_mae_wong_dam.pdf

Quote:

"In April 2012, the Cabinet approved the Mae Wong Dam as a flagship project for flood prevention, despite the fact that the  EHIA  was  not  completed  until  later  in  2012.  The  dam  was  to  be  constructed  within  MWNP,  creating  a  reservoir measuring  291,000  rai  (46,560  ha)  in  the  rainy  season,  and  10,000  rai  (1,600  ha)  in  the  dry  season,  holding  200 million m3 of water - 30-40% of the input to the Sakae Krang River basin."

 

46,560 hectares of water = 179 square miles. I rounded it up because there will additionally be surrounding development - works, parkland and resorts such as at Srinakarin and Kaeng Krachan reservoirs, even if just as an excuse for more logging.

 

I don't know why there is such a huge difference between the rainy season and dry season areas, but let's face it, a reservoir in such a place is not going to be just 6 square miles. Wikipedia obviously used the dry season figure, and I wouldn't trust the government to give the true figure either.

 

 

 

I am a little confused by your figures. Using your figure of 179 sq/mi comes to 463 sq/km. I then did a quick search for the Bhumibol dam which I believe is the largest dam in Thailand and that only has a surface area of some 300 sq/km and is situated in relatively low lying land. You claim that the Mae Wong Dam will be about 1.5 times the size of the Bhumibol dam which is something I find a little hard to believe somehow.

 

Obviously you know far more about the dam than I do so just for my peace of mind could you please come up with some links and facts that prove what you say.

[ddavidovsky]

Try entering "46560 hectares convert square miles" into Google and see what it says. If that is wrong, Google had better apologise to all of us. But what are you saying is the actual square milage?

 

What is clear is that you really want to see those trees cut down. You really want to see that environment under water - no matter how big an area it will be. Why? Are you robotically programmed to support everything this regime tries to do?

 

 

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Uh huh. And in this instance they are quoting concerns over the danger to tigers and other endangered species due to a 2% reduction in a 900 sq km park adjacent to a 57000 sq km nature reserve.

Do you think those concerns are justifiable, or a rubbish claim to evoke response in the ignorant?

Do you think that those affected by both drought and flood have more or less valid concerns?

Uh huh.  You ignore the fact that the unreferenced arguments against the damn seem more convincing than the unreferenced arguments for it.  And that the same objectives may be achieved for a small fraction of the cost of the damn and without destroying 2% of the park.  And the fact that the article argues against the use of Article 44 as a convenient way to avoid checks and balances.

 

You seem to be arguing with the idea that development is always good, environmentalists are always wrong, and autocratic rule by decree is always the best way.

[halloween]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Uh huh.  You ignore the fact that the unreferenced arguments against the damn seem more convincing than the unreferenced arguments for it.  And that the same objectives may be achieved for a small fraction of the cost of the damn and without destroying 2% of the park.  And the fact that the article argues against the use of Article 44 as a convenient way to avoid checks and balances.

 

You seem to be arguing with the idea that development is always good, environmentalists are always wrong, and autocratic rule by decree is always the best way.

 

No I am not. What I am arguing is environmentalists will lie and utter half-truths to further their cause. If you wish to believe unqualified people making unsupported claims, that is your choice. I do not. I much prefer to believe those with qualification paid to do a job based on those qualifications.

Dams are an easy target for a lot of uninformed people, some of whom are making considerable income from that opposition. This dam has been proposed for over 30 years, cost benefit analysis done many times, and it has never been ruled out as undesirable by those employed to make such decisions. Which you put down to corruption.

 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

Try entering "46560 hectares convert square miles" into Google and see what it says. If that is wrong, Google had better apologise to all of us. But what are you saying is the actual square milage?

 

What is clear is that you really want to see those trees cut down. You really want to see that environment under water - no matter how big an area it will be. Why? Are you robotically programmed to support everything this regime tries to do?

 

 

 

I am simply using the figures that YOU and not mine or something made up. If they are correct that is fine by me however as I live next door to the Mae Wong national park and have quite a few Thai friends that actually work there I feel that they have a better idea than I do and seemingly more than you do.

 

You have no idea about me at all. but for the dam to be the size that you say it will be will include most of the hills in the park and they are quite high up, Chong Yen which is roughly halfway between where the dam may be sited and where I live is over 1,000 metres above sea level.

 

I actually care about the environment where I live which is literally next to the Mae Wong national park. How about where you live?

 

quote  "Are you robotically programmed to support everything that the regime tries to do?"

 

No. But are you robotically programmed to oppose everything the regime tries to do? It seems so from your posts.

[heybruce]

 

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

Uh huh.  You ignore the fact that the unreferenced arguments against the damn seem more convincing than the unreferenced arguments for it.  And that the same objectives may be achieved for a small fraction of the cost of the damn and without destroying 2% of the park.  And the fact that the article argues against the use of Article 44 as a convenient way to avoid checks and balances.

 

You seem to be arguing with the idea that development is always good, environmentalists are always wrong, and autocratic rule by decree is always the best way.

 

5 hours ago, halloween said:

 

No I am not. What I am arguing is environmentalists will lie and utter half-truths to further their cause. If you wish to believe unqualified people making unsupported claims, that is your choice. I do not. I much prefer to believe those with qualification paid to do a job based on those qualifications.

Dams are an easy target for a lot of uninformed people, some of whom are making considerable income from that opposition. This dam has been proposed for over 30 years, cost benefit analysis done many times, and it has never been ruled out as undesirable by those employed to make such decisions. Which you put down to corruption.

 

So you do maintain that environmentalists are always wrong, that those advocating the damn are all competent professionals, corruption has nothing to do with that decision and it is appropriate to use Article 44 to by-pass the standard environmental reviews. 

 

Read the final sentence in my post.  You seem to be confirming it.

 

Edit:  "Dams are an easy target for a lot of uninformed people, some of whom are making considerable income from that opposition."

 

Informed people have been rejecting this damn for 30 years.  Also, since you consider yourself informed, please explain how people profit from not building this damn.

Edited September 7, 2016 by heybruce

[halloween]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

 

So you do maintain that environmentalists are always wrong, that those advocating the damn are all competent professionals, corruption has nothing to do with that decision and it is appropriate to use Article 44 to by-pass the standard environmental reviews. 

 

Read the final sentence in my post.  You seem to be confirming it.

 

Edit:  "Dams are an easy target for a lot of uninformed people, some of whom are making considerable income from that opposition."

 

Informed people have been rejecting this damn for 30 years.  Also, since you consider yourself informed, please explain how people profit from not building this damn.

 

Oh please! I have never said that environmentalists are ALWAYS  wrong, or that all professionals are competent. But I did give you 2 very pertinent questions as illustration of them misrepresenting the truth, which you ignored. Again:

'And in this instance they are quoting concerns over the danger to tigers and other endangered species due to a 2% reduction in a 900 sq km park adjacent to a 57000 sq km nature reserve.

Do you think those concerns are justifiable, or a rubbish claim to evoke response in the ignorant?

Do you think that those affected by both drought and flood have more or less valid concerns?'

 

What level of "informed" do these environmentalists have, what qualifications to make forecasts of doom, and equivalence of efficiency?

 

If you didn't already know it, environmentalism has become big business (Greenpeace et al) largely funded by small donations, often without receipts. The money donated has little oversight, and even the larger groups have appalling accounting. You claim the irrigation dept is corrupt, but how corrupt are those protesting?

[heybruce]

52 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

Oh please! I have never said that environmentalists are ALWAYS  wrong, or that all professionals are competent. But I did give you 2 very pertinent questions as illustration of them misrepresenting the truth, which you ignored. Again:

'And in this instance they are quoting concerns over the danger to tigers and other endangered species due to a 2% reduction in a 900 sq km park adjacent to a 57000 sq km nature reserve.

Do you think those concerns are justifiable, or a rubbish claim to evoke response in the ignorant?

Do you think that those affected by both drought and flood have more or less valid concerns?'

 

What level of "informed" do these environmentalists have, what qualifications to make forecasts of doom, and equivalence of efficiency?

 

If you didn't already know it, environmentalism has become big business (Greenpeace et al) largely funded by small donations, often without receipts. The money donated has little oversight, and even the larger groups have appalling accounting. You claim the irrigation dept is corrupt, but how corrupt are those protesting?

"Oh please! I have never said that environmentalists are ALWAYS  wrong...."

 

No, you posted:  " What I am arguing is environmentalists will lie and utter half-truths to further their cause."

 

"... or that all professionals are competent."

 

You posted:  " I much prefer to believe those with qualification paid to do a job based on those qualifications. "

 

You certainly do seem to have a strong anti-environmentalists, pro-government ministry bias.

 

Actually the OP doesn't state what "those with qualification paid to do a job based on those qualifications" think about the damn.  All the OP says is " Agricultural and Cooperatives Minister General Chatchai Sarikulya suggested resurrecting the idea after taking a trip to inspect the Bhumibol Dam in Tak province on Saturday."  What level of "informed" does this general have, what qualifications to make forecasts of...whatever it is he thinks requires a 13 billion baht damn?   Why do you think 30 years of rejection should be overturned, using Article 44?  Is the General's expertise that infallible?

 

Regarding you questions, I don't know what impact the damn will be.  However, it will cover 2% of the park, require roads for access, facilities for maintenance, alter the downstream flow of the river, and have other impacts on the area.  It's reasonable to assume that the impact will extend beyond the loss of 2% of the park.

 

Regarding those affected by drought and flood, from the OP:

 

" Environmentalists say that alternative water management provisions in the target areas downstream could match the storage capacity of a dam - 200-250 million cubic metres - and slash state spending from Bt15 billion to about Bt2 billion." 

 

Of course you've already rejected that since it comes from environmentalists, who you now claim aren't always wrong but aren't as knowledgeable about these things as General Chatchai.

[halloween]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Oh please! I have never said that environmentalists are ALWAYS  wrong...."

 

No, you posted:  " What I am arguing is environmentalists will lie and utter half-truths to further their cause."

 

"... or that all professionals are competent."

 

You posted:  " I much prefer to believe those with qualification paid to do a job based on those qualifications. "

 

You certainly do seem to have a strong anti-environmentalists, pro-government ministry bias.

 

Actually the OP doesn't state what "those with qualification paid to do a job based on those qualifications" think about the damn.  All the OP says is " Agricultural and Cooperatives Minister General Chatchai Sarikulya suggested resurrecting the idea after taking a trip to inspect the Bhumibol Dam in Tak province on Saturday."  What level of "informed" does this general have, what qualifications to make forecasts of...whatever it is he thinks requires a 13 billion baht damn?   Why do you think 30 years of rejection should be overturned, using Article 44?  Is the General's expertise that infallible?

 

Regarding you questions, I don't know what impact the damn will be.  However, it will cover 2% of the park, require roads for access, facilities for maintenance, alter the downstream flow of the river, and have other impacts on the area.  It's reasonable to assume that the impact will extend beyond the loss of 2% of the park.

 

Regarding those affected by drought and flood, from the OP:

 

" Environmentalists say that alternative water management provisions in the target areas downstream could match the storage capacity of a dam - 200-250 million cubic metres - and slash state spending from Bt15 billion to about Bt2 billion." 

 

Of course you've already rejected that since it comes from environmentalists, who you now claim aren't always wrong but aren't as knowledgeable about these things as General Chatchai.

 

You don't know? Even if associated infrastructure doubles the dam area (which it won't) it would be ~0.4% of the total combined area. The claim that we should be concerned about the risk to endangered species is typical green rubbish to fool those who, like you, DON'T KNOW,  but accept it as fact and take that as cause enough to impede a major project. Would you call that a lie or a half truth? The figures for the area of the dam presented (by another poster) were obviously inflated - was that a lie or a half truth?

 

Are their other claims equally as fatuous? You don't know, but accept them despite the credibility deficit from their other lies, because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy "saving the planet."

 

Chatchai presents the views of the dept he heads, which also haven't changed for 30 years. It is not a personal view, and one shared by the prior elected government. Their attempts to help the people of the area were stymied by a vocal minority. The junta has the tool to over-ride that impediment.

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by halloween

[jayboy]

22 hours ago, halloween said:

 

Environmentalists say many things, most of which are not true. Yet you prefer to believe them rather than the professional engineers and other officers of the Irrigation Dept. Why is that?

 

The funniest comment I have seen on Thai Visa for months.

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

The funniest comment I have seen on Thai Visa for months.

I gave 2 examples. What do you have to offer the thread apart from a snipe?

[ddavidovsky]

17 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I am simply using the figures that YOU and not mine or something made up. If they are correct that is fine by me however as I live next door to the Mae Wong national park and have quite a few Thai friends that actually work there I feel that they have a better idea than I do and seemingly more than you do.

 

You have no idea about me at all. but for the dam to be the size that you say it will be will include most of the hills in the park and they are quite high up, Chong Yen which is roughly halfway between where the dam may be sited and where I live is over 1,000 metres above sea level.

 

I actually care about the environment where I live which is literally next to the Mae Wong national park. How about where you live?

 

quote  "Are you robotically programmed to support everything that the regime tries to do?"

 

No. But are you robotically programmed to oppose everything the regime tries to do? It seems so from your posts.

 

Sorry, my previous post was directed at halloween - I posted in haste yesterday.

 

Glad to hear you are actually familiar with the place. You should be aware of its environmental value then. Maybe you know that it's the best (and possibly last?) place in Thailand to see Rufous-Necked Hornbill? I have been there to see it - it's a great place. And it was always pretty much the best place in Thailand to see the equally sensational Crested Kingfisher, though I have never managed to see it there.

[ddavidovsky]

19 hours ago, halloween said:

 

Are you mathematically challenged? The difference in areas ~45,000 ha or 450 million sqm, in a dam that will hold 200 million cubic metres, so the height differential would be less than half a metre from dry season to wet.

Does that sound logical to you?

 

So you are disputing the IUCN figure. Take it up with them. Or try getting some unequivocal information from the government, because there is none available. They dare not even put out a map showing the precise area of inundation.

 

Fact is, it's a national park. Leave it alone. It's part of a dwindling ecosystem of global importance as all sensible people understand. Not a single tree should be cut down and not a square-whatever should be flooded. It's not a resource for economic rapine. Politicians are like kids who can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar. Just exercise a little self control.