Govt policies threatening to aggravate natural disasters
While efforts have been made to increase consumption, little is being done to invest in protecting the environment
Has the frequent recent flooding awakened the conscience of consumers, manufacturers and policy-makers of the need to protect nature?
The economic policies of the Yingluck Shinawatra administration will likely make things even worse in both the short and long term.
The prime minister said last week that she would boost the emergency fund to Bt100 million for each flood-affected province. Previously governors had the authority to spend up to Bt50 million to deal with a disaster.
She and her Cabinet members seem to care for flood victims, as each minister has been assigned to look after one province.
But if we look carefully at the government's economic policies, this would prove otherwise.
First, the rice-pledging scheme is not designed very well to help farmers who might lose their crop to mudslides or inundation. The scheme requires farmers to sell their rice to the government. But when a flash flood washes away their crop, they have no rice to exchange for cash.
This problem can be resolved easily if the current government continues to implement the income-guarantee scheme, which does not require actual delivery of rice. Unfortunately, the new government scrapped the income-guarantee scheme initiated by the Democrat-led government.
In the long run, the promise to buy rice from farmers at a price much higher than the market price would require a huge budget, estimated at about Bt400 billion.
More farming subsidies means the government has little money at its disposal for other important projects such as land reforestation or water management.
According to the National Economic and Social Development Board, the country should invest about Bt131.87 billion over five years in water management of 25 rivers, down from the proposal of state agencies for Bt493.73 billion. The Fiscal Policy Research Institute, a think tank under the Finance Ministry, proposed investment of Bt299.37 billion over the period, or about Bt60 billion each year.
State agencies have fought hard to get their projects into the draft budget.
One group wants to build dams, while another wants to build small water reservoirs along with conducting reforestation and to install spillways to delay run-offs from mountains or upper landmasses.
Investment in water management is long overdue, partly because of the debt overhang from the 1997 economic crisis and by the political instability. And populist policies or short-term measures have also drained funds away from productive investment. For example, the rice-pledging scheme implemented by the governments led by the Thai Rak Thai and People Power parties left a huge debt of about Bt100 billion on the books of the state-run Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives.
The low oil tax-rate policy of the new government also encourages consumers to use more fossil fuel, which is one of the causes of global warming and extreme weather conditions such as flash floods.
The government has extended the tax cut on diesel and cut the Oil Fund levies on petrol and diesel.
The tax incentive for first-car buyers will also lead to more consumption of fossil fuel and more gas emissions.
The government should instead keep the taxes for investment in the mass transit system or railroad network in order to save energy and reduce global warming.
It is ridiculous that the government is asking people for donations to help flood victims while its policies spoil consumers and add to global warming.
The government's stated objective to boost consumption via tax incentives and state bank loans would also come at the expense of the country's natural resources. Somehow policy-makers' get-rich-quick mentality would take its toll on nature, as we have already experienced degradation during five decades of modern economic development.
We also can say that people are poisoned by the consumption philosophy.
Sadly, policy-makers and most consumers have not yet woken up to the call of nature as manifested by the increasing frequency of natural disasters, as natural buffers such as forests have been cleared for cash crops.
Some consumers and company executives have started to change their behaviour, as we have seen them join in planting trees to create a sink for carbon gas. Some have campaigned for energy saving and green technology.
Extreme weather spills over |the border, so it requires inter-national cooperation. Do we |make enough effort in our own |homes and in the international community?
Can we really claim that our policy-makers, producers and consumers are taking the fast-changing face of nature seriously? Are we |running our economic activities accordingly? Are we awakening our conscience?
