Emissions target begs a clear explanation
Prime Minister Prayut Chano-cha pledged at the Paris Climate Conference to slash Thailand’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20-25% within 2030. Even though the pledge is relatively unambitious as some commentators have pointed out, experts and climate activists have expressed scepticism that the promise can be kept. There are a number of reasons why: 1. The general has never before demonstrated his understanding of the issue or its intricacies.
During a speech to the nation on Nov 27, he spoke about his impending trip to the Paris conference. He said: “Regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases, the world needs to reduce them. The world temperature needs to decrease by at least 2C.”
He might not have realised the subtle error he had made. We are not trying to reduce the world temperature but rather keep it from rising more than 2C.
It may seem like a minor mistake that anybody, let alone a fast-talking general, could have made and any criticism of it may sound like nit picking. But it actually illustrates a person’s understanding of the subject pretty well because this is at the heart of the discussions in Paris.
2. The Thai public has not been informed how the 20-25% target came about. What and who would be involved in trying to achieve the target? What would the impact be for the economy and the people? To put it simply, who will win and who will lose?
In short, the public has had no input at all in the matter. That leads to the question: how can the government expect cooperation from the public as public cooperation is a necessity for success?
3. Has the Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning (OEPP), the agency drafting the proposal, spoken to their colleagues across ministries to come up with the plan?
I doubt it. Yet, that is certainly needed. The Industry and Energy ministries need to design and propose their own plans to cut emissions. Finance and Commerce need to plan for necessary fiscal and trade measures. And so on.
Gen Prayut seems to have been concerned about this lack of cooperation across ministries enough to mention it in his speech. Lack of inter-agency communication is a common element in development stumbling blocks.
4. Scientists agree that healthy forests are the best capture-and-storage technology for CO2. Gen Prayuth has made impressive statements about reclaiming lost forests.
But you can be forgiven for having doubts when official vigilance has so far targeted small holders and encroachers, causing more grievances for the small people while leaving the big fish relatively untouched.
Admittedly, not all villagers are innocent bystanders. Many of them have indeed committed the crime of encroachment and deforestation, some out of necessity to stay above water and some serving as tools for people with power or money.
It is these people with power or money that the authorities have hardly touched. Officials can protest their crimes are hard to prove but people can see not enough efforts have been made to snare the big fish.
Just recently, photos of denuded mountains in Nan went viral on social media. Whole mountains have been turned into plantations for maize.
We have heard practically nothing from authorities concerned about their plan to reclaim the mountains that were once under thick verdant cover. Nan may have been the most visible but it is by no means the only province with such a problem.
5. Now we get down to the real business of talking the talk and walking the walk. How can the government convince the world it is serious about CO2 mitigation when it continues to push the construction of CO2-spilling technology like coal-fired power plants, at the same time maintaining over 30% power reserve against the world’s average of 15%?
There should be no doubt now that clean energy is the future.
If the government does not know how to go about this business of cutting down emissions, I suggest it look to Uruguay for inspiration.
The small South American country recently achieved an enviable milestone of producing 94.5% of power using a mixture of renewable energy.
The country managed to achieve this without nuclear power or adding new hydroelectric power. Oil used to be the main component of the mix but now solar and wind power and biomass have taken its place.
More amazingly, this has been done in less than 10 years and without state subsidies. According to the country’s climate change policy chief, Ramon Mendez, quoted by the Guardian, power prices are now lower than in the past relative to inflation.
The key to success is rather simple and replicable, Mr Mendez said: clear decision-making, a supportive regulatory environment and a strong partnership between the public and private sectors.
To that I would add a public participation process that allows the concerned public to play a meaningful role.
For sure, the road towards decarbonising the country is long. But everything begins with the first step.
For Thailand, that first step should be to appoint a competent, respectable and honest person with a clear mandate to take charge of steering the country towards a low-carbon society — a climate change czar, if you will — someone like Mr Mendez.
The first hurdle to cross is finding such a person.
What and who would be involved in trying to achieve the target? Who will win and who will lose?