There are two pictures Thai air pollution expert Supat Wangwongwatana likes to show whenever he talks about Bangkok’s transition — in a little more than a decade — from a city blanketed in smog to one boasting clear blue skies.
The first, taken in the mid-1990s, shows the skyline of downtown Bangkok. Most buildings are in silhouette, shrouded in a thick layer of haze. The Baiyoke Tower, the city’s tallest building then, was still under construction.
The second, taken a decade later from a similar angle, looks dramatically different. The sky is blue, the clouds are visible and the buildings bathed in sunlight.
“Sulfur in diesel fuel and gasoline back in the early 1990s was 10,000 parts per million [ppm]. Today, it is less than 50ppm,” Supat said, referring to a natural component of crude oil that contributes to air pollution.
“That early technology enabled us to reduce emissions,” he said, citing processes for producing cleaner fuel and catalytic converters that make exhaust pipe fumes less toxic.
The WHO calls air pollution “a public health emergency.”
An estimated 6.5 million deaths, nearly 12 percent of all global deaths, were associated with indoor and outdoor air pollution in 2012, the bulk in the Western Pacific and Southeast Asian regions, WHO data showed.
“If nothing was done at all during the last 20, 25 years, I cannot imagine what Bangkok would be like now. People would probably be sick from air pollution,” Supat said.
The former director general of the Pollution Control Department (PCD) at Thailand’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment was one of a number of technocrats who led efforts to rein in Bangkok’s rising air pollution levels in the 1990s.
They eliminated lead in fuel, imposed emissions controls based on European norms and regulated construction sites, despite stiff resistance from powerful oil refineries and the automobile industry.
Taxis now run on cleaner liquefied petroleum gas or compressed natural gas and motorcycles no longer spew black smoke from their tailpipes.
Experts say these efforts have helped Bangkok avoid the situation of other megacities, such as Beijing and New Delhi, where air pollution has reached such hazardous levels that even healthy people can fall ill simply from being outside.
However, they warn that Bangkok risks dangerous air pollution levels again due to residents’ insatiable appetite for vehicles.
Nearly 49,000 people died from air pollution in Thailand in 2013, a joint World Bank and University of Washington report said.
While most locations in central Bangkok are well within safe levels as defined by Thailand’s air quality index, it does not factor in PM2.5, fine particles that pose the greatest risks to human health.
Bangkok’s annual average of those particles is 2.4 times the WHO’s safety threshold, the UN agency said.
“PM2.5 can go into blood vessels and cause chronic health problems,” said Tara Buakamsri, Thailand country director for Greenpeace Southeast Asia.
If you do not include those particles in the air quality index, “you cannot see a comprehensive picture,” she added.
Bangkok, home to about 9 million people, remains relatively smog-free, even though vehicle numbers have been increasing every year, experts said.
In the first four months of this year, the city registered 300,000 new vehicles, including buses and motorcycles, bringing the total to nearly 9.5 million.
Despite having the second-worst traffic congestion in the world after Mexico City, according to a global traffic index compiled by navigation company TomTom, Bangkok topped a 2015 list ranking popular tourist destinations on their air quality, from UK-based firm Airport Parking and Hotels.
It might not stay there for long.
“Since the 1990s, the number of automobiles is increasing, so you have more congestion and more sources of emission. That’s a big challenge,” said Bhichit Rattakul, who founded the Anti-Air Pollution and Environmental Protection Foundation a decade before being elected governor of Bangkok in 1996.
To combat this, the PCD has reached preliminary agreements to impose the Euro 5 standard, which further limits pollutants in fuel, by 2023 for oil refineries and by 2024 for vehicles in Thailand.
“The important thing is that the Thai government implements these policies with Thai industry,” said Teera Prasongchan, chair of the Thai Automotive Industry Association’s committee on technical issues and deputy general manager of Toyota Motor Thailand.
“That means we have to sit down and talk, and compromise with each other,” he added.
Thailand has been using the Euro 4 standard since 2012, while the latest standard is Euro 6.
The upgrade in six to seven years might seem a long way off, but Supat, who has retired after working on air pollution issues for almost three decades, but still advises the PCD, said it pays to be patient.
The important thing is to “have a fixed and endorsed timeline,” he said.
Bangkok is an example of what other Southeast Asian cities can do to improve air quality, said Glynda Bathan-Baterina, deputy executive director of the Manila-based non-governmental organization Clean Air Asia.
Still, these “tailpipe solutions” only tackle emissions on a per unit, per vehicle basis, she added.
“The real solution is looking at a mass transport system that can bring massive numbers of people in and out of the city while encouraging them to leave their vehicles at home,” she said.
Bangkok is planning 12 more rapid transit train lines, but they will not be ready until 2029.
Other low-emission solutions, such as electric or hybrid cars, are still a rarity in Thailand. Teera said car manufacturers there are adopting a wait-and-see approach due to concerns over infrastructure and energy supply.
In the meantime, politicians and city leaders need to enforce higher air quality standards to keep residents safe and healthy, Bhichit said.
“The public can avoid the bad places, but ultimately, that’s not the direction the city should be moving in,” he said.
During Bhichit’s time in office, air pollution was so bad he put up signs urging people to avoid Silom Road in downtown Bangkok in the afternoon and cracked down on vehicles whose emissions exceeded standards.
“People were not happy with me. They drove to my house and blew their horns every morning. The automobile industry also made a big noise,” he said. “But I did not listen much.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers