Thailand’s Net-Zero Pledge and the Challenge of Fossil Fuel Dependence
Environment Minister Suchart Chomklin has made a bold promise to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a goal that is 15 years earlier than the previous target. This ambitious commitment reflects the growing global pressure on nations to combat climate change and transition toward sustainable energy sources. However, the question remains: can Thailand realistically meet this target?
Currently, at least half of the country’s energy comes from fossil fuels and natural gas, with less than 20% of the total energy consumption being renewable. This heavy reliance on non-renewable resources poses a significant challenge to achieving the net-zero goal. While the government promotes its green sustainability initiatives, the reality on the ground tells a different story.
The Struggle of Villagers in Khao Hin Son
In the Chachoengsao province’s Phanom Sarakham district, villagers from Khao Hin Son are taking a stand against the proposed Burapa gas-fired power plant project. These residents have been camping in front of Government House in Bangkok, part of the “Chachoengsao RE-Power” network. They embarked on a 120-kilometer march from their hometown on November 1, aiming to draw attention to the potential dangers of the project.
The villagers are particularly concerned about the recent approval of an electricity generation license for the Burapa project by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) on October 15. They had expected the ERC to conduct a site visit on October 22 to assess environmental and social conditions and engage in meaningful public consultations. However, this never happened.
Concerns Over the Approval Process
The Chachoengsao RE-Power network claims they submitted a written request to the ERC, questioning the “rushed action” taken on the project. They demand a transparent and fair process that respects the community’s right to participate in local development. To date, there has been no response from the ERC.
This rushed approval raises serious questions about whether the ERC aligns with the national government’s net-zero goals. It also highlights concerns about public participation, a constitutional right, and the potential environmental and health impacts of the project.
The Case Against Fossil Fuels
Fossil fuel projects are not ideal for a country battling toxic PM2.5 haze, let alone one striving for carbon neutrality. Moreover, Thailand currently has a power reserve surplus of over 40% of actual demand, meaning it does not urgently need new power plants. Yet, the ERC approved the Burapa project anyway—an economically irrational decision.
The implications of this decision extend beyond environmental concerns. Each power plant that sells electricity to the state grid receives an availability payment, which is ultimately passed on to consumers through monthly electricity bills. This means the power plant is contractually guaranteed income despite the existing surplus.
Economic Competitiveness and Green Supply Chains
From an economic perspective, the government’s slow progress in establishing a green supply chain is concerning. Most industrial production in the country still relies on fossil fuels. As global supply chains increasingly prioritize clean energy and low-emission products, Thailand risks falling behind.
Vietnam, for example, is leading in producing low-methane rice, a key step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This demonstrates the importance of transitioning to sustainable practices.
A Call for Reasonable Action
Prime Minister Anutin Charvirakul must listen to the voices of the villagers and act reasonably. If the government fails to address these concerns, it could undermine the credibility of its net-zero transition. Without genuine commitment and transparency, the net-zero pledge may remain nothing more than empty rhetoric.