OPINION

Nuclear warning

Re: "New plan prepares for nuclear power", (Business, Jan 14).

While Thailand prides itself on modernising its energy policy, the plan to introduce two small modular reactors (SMRs) is questionable. The reality is these nuclear plans are anything but economical, safe, and necessary.

Let's start with the costs: The estimated levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for SMRs ranges between $213 and $581 per MWh (DIW Berlin).

Converted to baht, this means the electricity costs would range between 7.4 and 20.2 baht per kWh -- a significant increase compared to the current electricity price of 4.15 baht per kWh.

These high costs would ultimately burden consumers and impair Thailand's competitiveness, especially compared to neighbouring countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, where electricity prices are much lower.

The safety risks of nuclear power plants cannot be overlooked. SMRs may be smaller than conventional reactors, but the risk of accidents or leaks remains.

Additionally, there is the risk of theft or misuse of nuclear fuel, which raises security concerns. The disposal of radioactive waste remains an unsolved problem with potentially devastating ecological consequences.

Thailand has missed significant progress in CO2 reduction over the past decades. Instead of investing in costly and risky nuclear energy, the country should focus more on renewable energies.

In 2022 and 2023, only about 11% of Thailand's electricity generation came from sustainable sources such as solar, wind, and biomass, according to the Energy Policy and Planning Office Thailand (EPPO). This is far behind the goals and progress of other Asean nations.

Furthermore, the energy monopoly held by the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) is a hindrance to a competitive and innovative energy market. A liberalised electricity market system would pave the way for more investments in renewable energies and offer consumers more flexibility in choosing their electricity provider.

It is time for the government to stop pushing risky and expensive nuclear projects and instead take bold steps to make Thailand a leader in sustainable energy. The future lies in renewable energies that are safe, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly.

Meat-eaters' ethics

Re: "Mealy-mouthed" (PostBag, Jan 12).

A few misunderstandings that Eric Bahrt raises in his response to my recent comments on the morality of eating meat deserve responses.

No, I do not think the lack of a right to life means "it's okay to eat animals". There can be other reasons we might hold it wrong to eat an animal or plant other than the fact that it lacks a right to life.

We think it wrong, for example, to eat black leopards and eagle eggs because those animals are in danger of extinction, not because eating them violates any rights those living things have.

If a human being is in a persistent vegetative state from which they will not recover, they no longer have a right to life, which is why just law will allow their family or courts to instruct doctors to stop keeping the heart beating, or to actively stop it beating.

However, most severely retarded humans have some self-awareness, can make plans, and have basic moral intuitions.

Peter Singer, as quoted by Mr Bahrt, is right that the higher cost of producing meat ethically should be passed on to consumers.

Just because a majority might be happy to pay the likes of factory-farming corporate executives and employees to torture on command does not make that abuse morally right.

The law should require decent standards for animal production, and consumers should pay the resulting higher prices.

Mr Bahrt's concluding question raises a more disturbing point. The evidence from sales statistics suggests most humans are perfectly happy to pay unknowns to inflict suffering on command. Is this simply because of ignorance? Or is it more willful selfishness?

If we want to enjoy tasty chicken, pork, or whatever at the lowest price, we should at least have the honesty to admit that buying it is, in fact, ordering others to inflict needless suffering on sentient animals; we should stop kidding ourselves that we are caring people who would never do such brutish things as we tuck into a deliciously cheap pig-out.

Moral meat eaters will support laws that mandate decent conditions for producing meat.

Science of laughter

Re: "Good for a laugh", (PostBag, Jan 12).

I had to chuckle at Mr Setter's pronouncement that atmospheric CO2 levels reached "4,000 parts per million".

He is, of course, correct, although he neglects to mention that this occurred some 500 million years ago when, as a result, the only life forms Earth could support were insects.

The current level is the highest for 14 million years, which predates the first known genus of the human form by some five million years.

But I honestly still haven't stopped laughing at the fact that Mr Setter thinks he's a scientist.

Selective reading

Re: "Good for a laugh", (PostBag, Jan 12).

Having just read a letter from a person purporting to be a scientist and which suggests he is speaking for all his type, I went to my laptop and asked if the majority of scientists believe in human-caused climate change.

Nasa, which I believe is a little scientific, told me "Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists -- 97% -- agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change".

Another source reported that "A 2021 study found that 99% of peer-reviewed scientific literature concluded that climate change is human-caused".

I feel the writer is trying to omit a few of the details about just who thinks we humans are destroying our planet.

'Trumpism' dangers

Re: "2025: Year of uncertainties and risks", (Opinion, Jan 15) & "Pundit highlights key economic risks in 2025", (Business, Jan 2).

It's already started, even before he officially takes power. I am, of course, talking about Trumpism.

In case you think I'm making up English words, the Cambridge Dictionary defines Trumpism as: "a) the policies and political ideas of the US President Donald Trump; b) a comment made by the US President Donald Trump, or a word or expression often used by him."

Since his election, President Trump has already supplied enough comedic material for a year of Saturday Night Live shows. Take your pick: Canada as the 51st state? Taking control of Greenland? Gulf of America? Seizing the Panama Canal by force? Raising US import duties amounts to a tax on China?

You may perceive Trumpism as a series of jokes, but joking aside, behind those words lie some very dangerous ideas -- dangerous to the rest of the world and to Thailand. Mr Trump may vocalise them, but these ideas are now woven into US foreign policy, designed to maintain its hegemony or, at least, to extend it for as long as possible.

The policies that are especially dangerous to us are these.

Will Thailand host American missiles or a military base?

In case you think I'm making this up, you can read this article from the webpage of Rand, a US military think tank, titled "Ground-Based Intermediate-Range Missiles in the Indo-Pacific -- Assessing the Positions of US Allies," published on April 28, 2022.

And lest you think no country is foolish enough to take up this suicidal Trojan horse programme, the Philippines has already allowed more military bases to be built on its soil, sacrificing major export deals with China and the welfare of its own citizens.

Australia has converted its near-shore patrol submarine acquisition programme to nuclear submarines, sidelining America's ally, France, in the process, demonstrating that one is considered a US ally only if one complies with its demands.

These nuclear-powered submarines designed for long missions will shift the objectives of patrolling the areas near Australian shores to near Chinese shores, which will serve US military objectives rather than Australia's. When these submarines are delivered in the next 10 years, nuclear warheads will likely be "allowed" as part of their armaments.

The USA will demand that Thailand make concessions to keep its trade surplus with the USA, ie, no new or increased import duties.

Mr Trump has stated many times that the USA is subsidising Canada to the tune of $100 billion a year.

This statement rings as true as claims of Chinese EV overcapacity. By the way, economists say, "It's not overcapacity to the world if the majority of the items are sold domestically."

Only 15% of Chinese EVs are exported. What President Trump means by subsidising Canada is that the US runs a large trade deficit with it. Most of that comes from oil imports from Canada, which the USA seems unable to recognise can be reduced with EVs.

Under Trumpism, Thailand, like Canada, is being subsidised by the USA. Thailand ran a trade surplus against the USA of approximately $41 billion in 2024, which clearly puts us in President Trump's crosshairs.

To put it in perspective regarding the US economy and budget, $41 billion amounts to less than a single military support package to Ukraine and is minuscule relative to the US GDP.

Thailand's trade surplus against the USA is largely based on the fact that the USA is no longer a relevant manufacturing power supplying consumer goods to the world. Its major exports today are fossil fuel derivative products, high-tech services, US-brand democratic idealism, and the sale of weapons to its "allies".

The weapons are ostensibly to defend this idealism against authoritarianism -- translation: China.

The US high-tech services come with a major caveat: the loss of control over domestic social media and internet space. US social media platforms have been known to be used as tools by the CIA to topple governments around the world over the last decade.

Given that under Trumpism, Thailand is being "subsidised by the USA", the Thai government should prepare for the likelihood that the USA will demand some quid pro quo for maintaining this trade balance status, which may involve military-related commitments that dangerously position Thailand as the Ukraine of Southeast Asia.

We should be very careful about what we agree to with the USA. We should keep the following in mind.

If the USA produces goods that meet our needs at a world-competitive price, Thai companies will buy them.

Thailand is already a country with our brand of democracy with plenty of weapons relative to our neighbours. And Asean is the most peaceful region in the world.

CONTACT: