Plodprasop Suraswadi, who once held the deputy prime minister position and now chairs Pheu Thai’s environment policy committee, supports the seawall’s potential to shield Bangkok and its surrounding Central Plains provinces from the ever-looming threat of rising sea levels. According to him, this project could serve as a vital lifeline, protecting the capital from devastating floods while simultaneously ushering in a new era of urban development.
Envisioned as islands powered by renewable energy sources such as wind turbines and solar panels, these green utopias would provide much-needed space for residents and businesses. Pheu Thai’s continuous efforts to explore varied flood prevention measures, including the seawall project, reflect a long-standing commitment to shielding Bangkok and its environs from natural calamities.
As Mr. Plodprasop elaborated, the plan, which was once a government priority under Yingluck Shinawatra’s administration, involves crafting islands approximately 50 square kilometers each. Positioned about a kilometer off the coast in the Gulf of Thailand, these islands would be interconnected by robust dikes and a bridge linking them to mainland Thailand. From an eagle’s eye view, the structure would resemble the Thai alphabet letter “Ko Khai.”
While private investors are expected to finance and develop these islands under a 99-year concession, the land would eventually revert to the state. Mr. Plodprasop optimistically highlighted the dual benefits of playing an instrumental role in flood prevention and stimulating the local economy, calling it a monumental endeavor that necessitates unwavering political commitment.
Despite the grand vision and once-in-a-generation scale of the project, estimates project a completion timeline extending beyond 20 years, making it Thailand’s costliest undertaking to date. However, Mr. Plodprasop emphasizes that similar land reclamation projects worldwide in the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, and Singapore could offer invaluable insights.
However, not all views echo enthusiasm. Petch Manopawitr, a notable member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), voices staunch opposition. Highlighting a shift towards nature-based solutions to combat climate change, Manopawitr argues that human engineering could never outmatch nature’s unyielding force. The focus, he explains, should be on enhancing local ecosystems and optimizing existing infrastructures to mitigate rising sea levels’ impacts.
Considering Bangkok’s geographic vulnerability — situated on a flood-prone low-lying plain — targeted improvements such as increased water retention zones in public parks and the deepening of city canals would be more prudent. Echoing sentiments of lost potential, Manopawitr regrets that numerous civil society proposals lack the political traction needed for real-world application, often overshadowed by less effective, more politicized initiatives.
The project further met skepticism from Thon Thamrongnawasawat, deputy dean at Kasetsart University’s Faculty of Fisheries. Thamrongnawasawat questions the project’s viability given the massive budgetary requirements. He equates it to earlier maritime link proposals across the Gulf of Thailand, which failed to materialize. Highlighting variances in geographical and societal contexts, he indicates that while such projects may work in the Netherlands or Singapore, they might struggle in Thailand’s unique landscape.
Additionally, Banjong Nasae, chairman of the Rak Thale Thai Association, underscores potential negative repercussions on the region’s biodiversity. With the environmental stakes so high, critics widely argue the necessity of rethinking the project’s scope and potentially harmful effects.
In sum, while the Pheu Thai Party’s imaginative proposal for a towering seawall of artificial islands aims to modernize infrastructure and provide a bulwark against climate challenges, its reception is anything but universally positive. Between ecological trepidations and feasibility questions, the future of this grand vision remains precariously perched on a knife’s edge of public opinion and political will.
This seawall project is a laughable disaster waiting to happen. Haven’t we learned already that you can’t just ‘engineer’ your way out of climate change? What about the tons of marine life this will disrupt?
Marine life should not be prioritized over human life. If this project can save thousands of lives from floods, it’s worth the trade-off.
John, you can’t seriously believe that! Destroying marine ecosystems will have ripple effects on our food supply and economy. Think bigger picture.
Exactly, EcoWarrior1980! Short-term gains will lead to long-term losses. The environment and human life are interconnected.
But aren’t there better ways to protect Bangkok than destroying our coastlines? Why not enhance existing infrastructures like waterways?
I think this is exactly the kind of ambitious project Thailand needs to make a statement on the world stage. Look at Dubai and their man-made islands!
Sure, but Dubai has a different financial and geographical context. Can Thailand really afford this massive project without sinking its economy?
Anna is right. Not everything that glitters is gold. Let’s not end up regretting this.
What concerns me most is the lack of public consultation. This project impacts everyone, yet it feels like decisions are being made behind closed doors.
Yes! More transparency is needed. If this is for the people, the people should have a say in it.
While I agree with more public input, let’s not stall progress with endless debates. Sometimes, decisive actions are necessary.
The project might be costly and take years, but it offers long-term benefits. Just look at the Netherlands and their successful flood defenses.
The Netherlands is not Thailand. We need to consider local environmental and economic factors. Blindly copying other countries could be disastrous.
Exactly, Jiraporn! Plus, nature-based solutions are more sustainable in the long run.
This project sounds like an unnecessary and expensive vanity project for the Pheu Thai Party. What about investing in more feasible, smaller-scale solutions?
Totally agree. Smaller, cost-effective measures can often prove to be more effective.
Sometimes you need a big vision to solve a big problem. Small measures won’t be enough against rising sea levels.
Big vision doesn’t always translate to effective execution, John. We need practical solutions.
Has anyone considered the long-term maintenance costs? These kinds of projects aren’t just a one-time expense.
Excellent point, YingJean. Maintenance could become a financial black hole.
True, but that’s the case with any major infrastructure project. The benefits often outweigh the costs.
Can we talk about the potential corruption? With such a massive budget, there’s bound to be a lot of money disappearing into politicians’ pockets.
This will devastate local fishermen. How will they survive if their fishing grounds are turned into concrete islands?
That’s a genuine concern. The livelihoods of many are at stake.
Perhaps alternative employment can be provided. Construction and tourism on these islands could create new job opportunities.
New jobs won’t replace the culture and generations of knowledge lost. Local communities should be prioritized.
Let’s not brush off traditional knowledge. Enhancing natural barriers like mangroves can be a less invasive solution.
The project’s feasibility is questionable. If similar projects haven’t worked in Thailand before, what makes this one different?
Suda, new technology and better project management could make a difference this time.
Or it could just be another costly failure. History tends to repeat itself.
One thing’s for sure: the politics behind this are as murky as Bangkok’s floodwaters. What’s the real agenda here?
Why isn’t there more coverage on alternative, less invasive flood prevention methods? Are they being deliberately ignored?
Good question, Tara. It often feels like environmental ways get overshadowed by grandiose engineering projects.
Probably because they lack the same ‘wow’ factor. Big projects get more attention and funding.
Time will tell if this project is visionary or just another white elephant. Until then, skepticism is understandable.
Isn’t this just another way of postponing the inevitable? Climate change is relentless and we need a multi-faceted approach.