Residents wading through thigh-deep water in downtown Chiang Mai as the Ping River breached its banks and inundated wide swaths of the city serve as a stark reminder of how climate-related events disrupt commerce and daily life. Against this vivid backdrop, a longer-running policy debate unfolds: how should governments respond to climate change in ways that are economically sound, socially fair, and practically implementable? This article presents a structured, in-depth view rooted in the belief that climate change is a human-made challenge, but one that calls for policy choices anchored in economic realism, innovation, and deliberate adaptation rather than alarmist narratives or indiscriminate austerity. It argues that Thailand can and should avoid the costly missteps seen in parts of the Western world by pursuing a balanced, evidence-based path that prioritizes practical adaptation, targeted innovation, and poverty reduction as central pillars of resilience.
Reframing the climate challenge: science, risk, and the costs of action vs inaction
The core premise is straightforward: climate change is driven by human activity, and the science underpinning this view is robust in its basic direction. Yet, the public discourse around climate risk has, in some quarters, been distorted by campaigners and opportunistic politicians who present it as an existential threat that could wipe out humanity. In truth, while the climate issue is serious and requires prudent management, the most credible economic analyses show that the cost of doing nothing—continuing with high-carbon energy and weak adaptation—translates into measurable, persistent GDP losses over the coming decades. The weight of this argument rests on credible projections that place the economic cost of inaction at a meaningful but not civilization-ending level, roughly in the range of a few percentage points of global output by late this century, not a doomsday scenario. A widely cited line within the climate-economics discourse is that neglecting climate action could depress long-run GDP by approximately 2–3% by the century’s end. This framing is important because it reframes climate policy from a do-or-die moral crusade to a cost-benefit question about prosperity, risk management, and sustainable growth.
In this section, the broader policy literature is acknowledged as complex and varied, but the essential takeaway remains: it is unwise to exaggerate the science or to assume that action carries no costs. The aim is to distinguish between legitimate concerns about climate risk and exaggerated narratives that may provoke policy choices more politically appealing than economically justified. The world’s leading climate economists, including those who have won the Nobel Prize, have emphasized that there is no scientific justification for presenting climate change as an imminent, total catastrophe. Rather, the credible worst-case and central scenarios suggest a trajectory of increased risk and higher costs if action is delayed or misdirected, balanced against the enormous potential gains from effective, innovative, and well-targeted responses.
Within this framework, one must consider how national economies allocate scarce resources. The climate policy debate inevitably intersects with other pressing priorities—income and wealth inequality, healthcare, education, infrastructure, defense, and social protection. In a policy environment with finite budget room, choices must be made about how much to spend on mitigation, adaptation, and resilience, and where to deploy those resources for the maximum benefit. The argument here is not to minimize the reality of climate risk but to advocate for policies that deliver the greatest social welfare with the least distortion of long-run growth prospects. A credible strategy emphasizes that climate action should be designed to support innovation, create green jobs, and reduce vulnerability to climate shocks without triggering unnecessary inflationary pressures or compromising competitiveness.
This balanced view also involves recognizing that the cost of inaction is not merely a single figure but a spectrum of potential outcomes shaped by exposure, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity. Countries differ in their endowments, development stages, and institutional capabilities, which means a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to yield optimal results. For Thailand, and for many developing and middle-income economies, the prudent path is to pursue a mix of policy instruments that bolster innovation and productivity, expand adaptive capacity, and reduce poverty-driven vulnerability, all while avoiding the trap of pursuing climate goals that are detached from economic viability.
Informed by these principles, the argument proceeds to examine how Western policy trajectories have played out in practice, and what lessons Thailand might draw to preserve its own economic dynamism while addressing climate resilience in a way that aligns with national realities and development ambitions.
The Western policy trajectory: costs, trade-offs, and the price of aggressive climate agendas
Across several advanced economies, climate policy has grown into a dominant political project, with measurable impacts on electricity prices, consumer budgets, and industrial competitiveness. A thorough look at recent decades reveals that some advanced economies have implemented climate programs that, while well-intentioned, have been associated with rising energy costs for households and industry. For instance, in the United Kingdom, climate-related policy initiatives over the past two decades have contributed to a pronounced rise in electricity prices when adjusted for inflation. By contrast, the United States has seen electricity prices that, in the same period, have remained relatively flat. Those divergent outcomes illustrate how different policy choices—ranging from carbon pricing to subsidies, to the structure of energy markets, to regulatory regimes—can produce markedly different price dynamics even among countries that share similar climate ambitions.
The inflation-adjusted electricity cost trend in the UK—where households and industry experienced electricity price increases that roughly tripled from 2003 to 2023—contrasts with the American experience of comparatively stable electricity prices over the same horizon. The key takeaway is not that electricity must become cheaper everywhere, but that energy policy choices profoundly shape price trajectories, market competitiveness, and household living standards. When policies raise energy costs significantly, they interact with other macroeconomic challenges, including inflationary pressures, wage dynamics, and industrial competitiveness. The broader implication for Thailand is to study these Western trajectories with care: to understand which policy levers delivered meaningful decarbonization without imposing unmanageable costs on households and firms, and which policies may have contributed to higher living costs without delivering proportionate climate—or broader—benefits.
Beyond energy price effects, Western economies have faced a suite of expensive, often intertwined challenges. Population aging is elevating pension obligations and healthcare costs, infrastructure is aging and deteriorating, educational outcomes vary and require targeted reforms, and defense expenditures are re-prioritized in light of evolving geopolitical risk. In the European Union, policy commitments to net-zero emissions by 2050 are projected to entail significant macroeconomic expenditure. Proponents estimate the net-zero pathway for Europe could require more than 10% of GDP in ongoing annual outlays—an amount that dwarfs many current core public spending categories across health, education, law enforcement, and the environment. The political economy of such commitments is complex: the costs are not only fiscal but also distributive, with implications for competitiveness, energy security, regional disparities, and social consent. Critics argue that while decarbonization is a desirable goal, the scale and pace of Europe’s net-zero ambition—when measured against competing social demands—could risk hindering growth, raising consumer costs, and eroding global influence if not matched by credible, technology-driven solutions.
In this context, the policy path chosen by different Western nations has shown a broad spectrum of outcomes. Some countries have managed to decarbonize specific sectors while maintaining economic momentum, investing heavily in research and development, grid modernization, and domestically scaled low-carbon energy technologies. Others have endured higher energy costs and political pushback from industries and households that feel left behind by rapid policy shifts or that perceive the costs of decarbonization as outweighing the marginal climate benefits. The essential insight for Thailand is not to mimic any single Western model wholesale but to extract the lessons about policy design. What works is a combination of credible governance, transparent price signals, targeted subsidies that do not distort markets beyond recognition, and a heavy emphasis on innovation and adaptation that can deliver the decarbonization objective without sacrificing economic growth or social stability.
Another crucial dimension is the realization that richer economies are facing a broader set of structural concerns that complicate simple policy rigidity. An aging population increases the fiscal burden of pensions and healthcare and heightens the need for productivity-enhancing investment in automation, digital infrastructure, and skills training. Crumbling or underinvested infrastructure raises costs for businesses and reduces resilience to climate shocks. Weak educational outcomes hamper the capacity to adopt and adapt new technologies. Defense spending, too, remains an important national priority for many countries, particularly in a world where security threats evolve rapidly. As Western governments wrestle with these trade-offs, the wider international community, including developing economies, can observe and adapt these public-choice dynamics to their own contexts.
From Thailand’s vantage point, the Western experience offers a cautionary tale and a reservoir of practical lessons. It underscores the importance of calibrating climate action to national capability, economic structure, and development priorities. It also emphasizes the risks of policy design that pushes expensive climate agendas without demonstrating commensurate benefits in terms of resilience, job creation, or improved living standards. Thailand’s policy response should aim to avoid these pitfalls by focusing on pragmatic, cost-conscious strategies that harmonize climate resilience with growth, competitiveness, and social protection. The next sections expand on how Thailand can translate these insights into concrete, implementable policies that strengthen the country’s climate resilience while safeguarding economic prosperity.
Thailand’s path forward: balanced, innovation-led climate resilience and development
Thailand does not need to imitate Western approaches wholesale to address climate change effectively. Instead, it has a track record of significant achievements, abundant potential across sectors, and a complex, multi-faceted array of challenges that require nuanced policy design. A central argument here is that Thailand should pursue a balanced response that combines realistic deployment of renewable energy where it makes sense, with a strategic emphasis on long-term innovation as the real engine of decarbonization. This balanced approach involves recognizing that adaptation and resilience can yield immediate benefits, while innovation in energy and agriculture can deliver sustainable, long-run gains.
One core element is deploying solar and wind where they are sensible and economically viable, paired with careful assessment of regional resource endowments, grid capacity, and storage technologies. Such a deployment plan should be informed by rigorous economic analysis that weighs levelized costs, reliability, and the social opportunity costs of forgoing alternative investments. In addition, the longer-term climate solution—innovation—must be the central pillar of policy. The argument is not to abandon decarbonization goals, but to prioritize the development and deployment of next-generation, low-carbon energy technologies that can out-compete fossil fuels on price, reliability, and environmental impact. Only through true technological advancement can clean energy achieve a cost parity that makes every household and business choice a climate-smart choice without sacrificing development goals.
An important nuance is the historical lesson from agricultural development: the Green Revolution of the 20th century increased yields dramatically through innovation in seeds, fertilizers, irrigation, and farming practices. That period demonstrated that technology-driven productivity increases could lift millions out of hunger and poverty without requiring global austerity or a collapse in living standards. The analogous path for climate action is to accelerate innovation in low-carbon energy, energy storage, grid modernization, and industrial decarbonization. When advanced economies realize cleaner energy technologies that are cheaper than fossil fuels, mass adoption becomes economically inevitable. This vision hinges on sustained investment, robust intellectual property regimes, favorable regulatory environments, and international cooperation that accelerates the diffusion of technology to regions where it is most needed.
Adaptation is not an afterthought but a core component of climate resilience. Thailand’s farmers already demonstrate adaptive practices in response to climate variability. The urban sector can learn from these agricultural strategies as well. Cities can implement green spaces that provide cooling effects, more reflective surfaces to reduce heat absorption, and water features that moderate urban microclimates. These adaptive infrastructure measures can yield immediate quality-of-life improvements, reduce energy demand for cooling, and create more resilient communities. Consideration of climate adaptation should be integrated into land-use planning, building codes, and municipal budgeting with explicit goals, performance metrics, and accountability mechanisms. A climate-resilient city is not only more comfortable and healthier but also better positioned economically to withstand shocks and invest in growth.
Alongside adaptation and innovation, poverty alleviation remains a fundamental objective of any credible climate strategy. Reducing poverty directly lowers vulnerability to climate shocks—such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and hurricanes—and expands the range of protective measures that households can access, including nutrition, health services, and social protection. Wealthier populations have more resources to invest in protective technologies and to participate in resilient economic activity even under adverse conditions. A robust poverty-reduction approach, therefore, is intrinsically linked to climate resilience: it lowers risk exposure, promotes mobility, and enhances the capacity to respond to climate-related emergencies. This is not a sentimental or political claim but a pragmatic recognition that resilience and growth are inseparable from inclusive development.
To achieve these outcomes, governments also need to mobilize a broad and efficient investment program, including targeted research and development (R&D) in agriculture and related sectors. A striking, policy-relevant proposal is to increase agricultural R&D investment as a global priority to foster productivity gains, reduce hunger, and advance climate resilience. A widely cited figure suggests that a modest global investment of around $5.5 billion annually in agricultural R&D could unlock substantial social and economic gains, lifting hundreds of millions from hunger, and driving improvements in productivity and livelihoods. When translated into macroeconomic terms, such investments have the potential to raise agricultural output by a significant margin by mid-century, lower food prices, and increase per capita incomes. The anticipated effects extend beyond agriculture: more efficient farming systems can lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit of output, contributing to climate objectives in a cost-effective manner.
Projected impacts of this investment scenario include a 10% increase in agricultural output by 2050, a 16% reduction in global food prices, and a 4% rise in per capita incomes, reflecting broader productivity benefits that ripple through the economy. The broader climate implication is a reduction in emissions intensity from agriculture by more than 1%, with the bevy of associated social benefits quantified at roughly 33 social benefits for every 1 unit of currency spent. While the exact magnitudes of these figures depend on implementation specifics, the overarching message is clear: strategic, well-targeted investment in agricultural innovation can yield substantial returns in food security, affordability, economic development, and climate outcomes. Thailand, with its strong agricultural base and capacity for innovation, stands to gain significantly from aligning domestic R&D priorities with this global strategy.
This approach also requires a shift in policy focus away from a singular, potentially narrow climate objective toward a broader set of investments that deliver multiple, tangible benefits. It means recognizing that climate policy should be integrated with other development priorities—rural development, education, health, infrastructure, trade competitiveness, and social protection—so that climate action does not crowd out these essential needs but instead reinforces them through synergy. When policymakers design climate programs with clear, measurable outcomes across multiple domains, they improve the legitimacy, resilience, and sustainability of the policy, while also ensuring that people’s daily lives feel the gains of climate-smart decisions.
In sum, Thailand’s path forward depends on a balanced, pragmatic approach that uses a mix of renewable deployment where cost-effective, a strong commitment to long-run energy innovation, and robust adaptation and poverty-reduction measures. This is a strategy that aligns climate resilience with development objectives, not one that pits climate action against growth. It also requires disciplined budgeting, transparent policy design, and a willingness to learn from global experience while customizing solutions to national realities. The goal is not to impose drastic reductions in living standards but to unlock higher, more sustainable growth through smarter technology, better adaptation, and more inclusive development. This is the core message for policymakers, businesses, researchers, and communities across Thailand as they navigate the road to a climate-resilient and prosperous future.
Bjorn Lomborg, a central figure in this discourse, serves as President of the Copenhagen Consensus and a Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is the author of major works including False Alarm and Best Things First, and his perspectives shape much of the argument here: that climate policy must be grounded in rigorous economic analysis, emphasize innovation, and prioritize interventions that deliver the greatest social good per unit of investment.
Adaptation, infrastructure, and the practicalities of climate resilience
Adaptation is not merely a theoretical add-on to climate policy; it is a practical, indispensable component of reducing vulnerability and safeguarding livelihoods in the near term. For farmers in Thailand, adaptation already operates as a daily necessity, shaping crop choices, planting calendars, irrigation practices, and risk management strategies that respond to shifting rainfall patterns and temperature regimes. The adaptation framework extends beyond rural areas into urban environments, where heat stress, flood risk, and water scarcity pose immediate challenges to residents, businesses, and public services. The urban planning approach to adaptation includes the deployment of green spaces, which can reduce urban heat island effects, as well as the integration of more reflective surfaces and water features to moderate microclimates and enhance resilience to heat waves. These measures can yield a suite of co-benefits: improved air quality, enhanced biodiversity, recreational spaces that promote well-being, and a more attractive urban environment that supports economic activity.
The broader adaptation strategy should be integrated into city-level planning and national resilience programs. This entails not only architectural and infrastructure changes but also the development of early warning systems, emergency response readiness, and diversified energy and water supply chains that can withstand climate shocks. In practice, this means investing in resilient grids, storage capacity, and decentralized energy systems that reduce the risk of power outages during extreme weather events. It also means developing water management strategies that minimize flood damage while ensuring sufficient supply during droughts. The cost-benefit calculus of adaptation tends to favor measures with immediate risk-reduction payoffs and multiple co-benefits, such as disaster risk reduction, public health improvements, and sustained productivity. When properly designed, adaptation investments become an essential component of long-term economic planning rather than a reactive expense.
Thailand’s climate resilience is anchored in the recognition that adaptation is a business and governance priority as much as it is an environmental concern. The overarching objective is to minimize the disruption caused by climate variability so that households can maintain living standards, businesses can protect supply chains, and public services can operate reliably in the face of shocks. Achieving this requires clear governance frameworks, transparent resource allocation, and robust accountability for climate resilience outcomes. It also requires the alignment of adaptation with other strategic priorities—rural development, agricultural modernization, and urban planning—to ensure that resilience investments are not isolated but are integrated into the broader development trajectory.
From a policy perspective, the emphasis on adaptation should be complemented by a forward-looking commitment to research and development in adaptation technologies and practices. This includes innovations in crop genetics and agronomic practices to improve drought and flood tolerance, as well as advances in climate-resilient infrastructure, building materials, and water engineering. The adaptation agenda benefits from cross-sector collaboration—between public agencies, private sector actors, research institutions, and civil society—to co-create solutions that reflect local realities while incorporating international best practices. In this sense, adaptation becomes a shared responsibility that requires sustained political will, technical expertise, and inclusive participation across communities, industries, and regions.
In addition to adaptation, there is a critical need to understand and address the distributional consequences of climate policies. To maintain social cohesion and political legitimacy, climate resilience strategies must include protections for vulnerable groups and explicit mechanisms for social support where needed. A fair climate policy recognizes that not all households or regions bear climate costs equally, and it curates targeted interventions—such as subsidies for energy efficiency in low-income households, investment in public health to mitigate climate-related vulnerabilities, and retraining programs to help workers transition in a decarbonizing economy. The goal is to ensure that climate resilience does not disproportionately burden those with the least capacity to adapt, while maximizing the broader social and economic benefits of reduced climate risk.
The poverty-climate resilience nexus: lifting people out of vulnerability to strengthen resilience
Poverty alleviation is deeply connected to climate resilience. When people have higher incomes and improved living standards, they are better able to adapt to climate shocks and to invest in protective measures, such as resilient housing, diversified income streams, and preventive health care. Wealthier societies can allocate more resources toward environmental protection, sustainable infrastructure, and social safety nets, thereby creating a virtuous cycle: economic development reduces vulnerability, which reduces the social and economic costs of climate impacts, which in turn supports further development.
The argument for prioritizing poverty reduction within climate policy is not a mere moral stance but a practical, evidence-based strategy. Poverty limits access to resources that enable adaptation—credit, information, insurance, and technology among them. By lifting people out of poverty, governments expand the set of options available to households when climate risks materialize, reducing the probability of catastrophic outcomes and enabling faster recovery after climate-related events. This approach also aligns with broader development objectives: education, health, nutrition, and social protection improve resilience not only to climate change but to a wide range of economic and social risks.
In addition to direct income improvements, targeted social protection can act as a cushion that prevents climate shocks from translating into long-term impoverishment. That protection can take the form of cash transfers, price stabilization programs for essential goods, subsidized insurance products, and access to emergency health and housing services. By combining poverty reduction with climate resilience investments, governments can create a more resilient social contract that supports inclusive growth and reduces the vulnerability of marginalized populations to climate risks. Such an approach helps ensure that climate policy is not perceived as a distant environmental project but as a concrete, people-centered strategy to improve daily life and long-term prospects.
The broader implication is that climate policy cannot be divorced from economic inclusion and social protection. Ongoing efforts to invest in climate resilience should be designed with explicit attention to the most vulnerable communities, ensuring that the benefits of adaptation, renewable energy deployment, and efficiency improvements accrue across society. This perspective is consistent with a holistic development framework: climate resilience is an integral component of economic policy, social policy, and public investment planning.
The agricultural R&D case: a globally scaled investment with local returns
A pivotal part of the argument rests on the potential of agricultural research and development to deliver both climate resilience and broad-based economic benefits. Global agricultural R&D investment, if channeled effectively, could dramatically reduce hunger, improve yields, and stabilize prices, while also contributing to environmental sustainability and climate resilience. The projection that a modest annual global investment of $5.5 billion in agricultural R&D could lift 133 million people out of hunger highlights the scope of potential impact. While this figure is framed in global terms, the underlying logic translates to national contexts, including Thailand’s, where agriculture plays a central role in livelihoods, rural development, and export earnings.
The anticipated outcomes of sustained R&D investment include a 10% increase in global agricultural output by 2050, a 16% reduction in food prices, and a 4% improvement in per capita incomes. These outcomes reflect productivity gains, improved efficiency, and the diffusion of innovative farming practices and technologies. Their relevance for climate policy lies in the fact that higher productivity with lower input intensity can reduce emissions per unit of output, contributing to climate goals while maintaining or increasing farmer incomes. An effective R&D investment can thus generate a triple dividend: higher agricultural productivity, lower food insecurity, and reduced environmental impact, all of which bolster resilience and long-run growth.
In the Thai context, agricultural innovation has the potential to transform both rural livelihoods and national competitiveness. By investing smartly in research areas that enhance crop resilience, water-use efficiency, soil health, pest management, and climate-smart farming practices, the country can reduce vulnerability to climate shocks and create new avenues for export-oriented growth in value-added agricultural products. The policy design should prioritize scalable innovations with clear commercialization pathways, accessible financing for farmers, extension services to disseminate knowledge, and robust data systems to monitor outcomes and iterate on strategies. Importantly, the economic logic of such investments emphasizes not just farm-level productivity but the downstream effects on rural economies, supply chains, and urban-rural linkages.
The social benefits of such investments extend beyond direct income gains. Savings from reduced hunger and improved nutrition translate into better health outcomes, higher school attendance, and greater productivity across the economy. The broader climate-related benefits include reduced pressure on natural resources and enhanced resilience against climate variability in farming systems. When properly implemented, agricultural R&D investments become a strategic instrument for sustainable development, climate resilience, and inclusive growth—an instrument that aligns with Thailand’s development priorities and international commitments.
To maximize impact, investment in agricultural R&D should be complemented by other supportive measures: strengthening property rights and access to credit for farmers, building robust extension networks to disseminate innovations, and ensuring that research outputs are translated into practical, locally adapted solutions. Coordinated policy efforts that align research, finance, markets, and extension services create a fertile environment for innovations to take root and scale, ultimately delivering the long-run benefits described above. Importantly, the estimated social return on investment—expressed in terms of social benefits per unit of currency—should be a key consideration in policy prioritization, guiding resource allocation toward the interventions with the greatest net positive impact on welfare and resilience.
In this way, the agricultural R&D strategy serves as a practical engine of climate adaptation and economic development. It provides a concrete, measurable pathway toward achieving multiple objectives—hunger reduction, price stabilization, productivity gains, and emission reductions—while supporting broader efforts to modernize agriculture and strengthen rural livelihoods. This approach is consistent with the overarching theme of this article: climate policy should be designed to deliver broad, constructive outcomes that align with development goals, rather than pursuing climate action at the expense of growth, jobs, and social protection.
The Thailand-specific call to action: invest wisely, innovate aggressively, and govern prudently
Thailand stands at a crossroads where the right mix of policy instruments can unlock a more resilient, prosperous future without succumbing to excessive austerity or misaligned priorities. The central recommendation is to integrate climate resilience with development goals through a disciplined, evidence-based policy framework. This framework should emphasize three interlinked pillars: innovative energy and industrial transitions, robust adaptation and infrastructure modernization, and poverty alleviation as a core resilience strategy.
First, energy and industrial transition priorities should be guided by a cost-benefit calculus that rewards technologies capable of delivering decarbonization at the lowest total cost to society. This means prioritizing investments in solar and wind where they are most cost-effective while simultaneously pursuing long-term research and development that can produce next-generation low-carbon energy technologies. The aim is to achieve a future where clean energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels through continuous innovation, scale, and policy stability that reduces investor risk. By gradually shifting the energy mix toward increasingly affordable, reliable, and clean options, Thailand can reduce exposure to fossil fuel price volatility and improve household budgets.
Second, adaptation and infrastructure modernization must be embedded in medium- and long-term planning. This involves upgrading drainage systems, water storage facilities, and flood control measures; expanding green infrastructure in urban areas; and building climate-resilient public facilities and housing. It also means designing urban and rural areas with climate risk in mind, incorporating heat mitigation measures, and ensuring water security through integrated water-resource management. The goal is to reduce the cost of climate shocks on households, firms, and public budgets, thereby preserving social welfare and productivity even under adverse climate conditions.
Third, poverty alleviation remains at the heart of resilience strategy. Policies should be crafted to raise living standards, expand access to education and health care, and increase social protection coverage. By lifting people out of poverty, the country expands its resilience toolkit, ensuring that more households have the means to adapt, mitigate risks, and recover quickly from climate-related events. The dynamic interplay between poverty reduction and climate resilience means that investments in human capital—education, nutrition, health—are not separate from climate policy but essential components of it. This approach recognizes that resilient economies are not built solely on physical assets but also on the capabilities and safety nets that empower people to adapt and thrive.
To ensure accountability and effectiveness, the Thailand policy framework should adopt clear metrics, independent evaluation, and transparent reporting. This includes tracking progress on renewable energy deployment, efficiency improvements, adaptation outcomes, reductions in climate vulnerability, and gains in poverty reduction indicators. A robust governance mechanism will help align the incentives of public agencies, private sector participants, and civil society actors, ensuring coherence across ministries and with subnational authorities. This is essential for maintaining public trust and for delivering the tangible benefits that climate resilience promises.
The broader strategic narrative should emphasize the potential for economic transformation through green growth, not merely the pursuit of emissions reductions for their own sake. When climate action is aligned with economic opportunity—such as job creation in new energy sectors, improved agricultural productivity through R&D, and more resilient urban systems—the policy becomes more socially and politically sustainable. This perspective is crucial for maintaining social cohesion and political legitimacy as the country pursues ambitious climate and development objectives. Thailand’s path should be guided by a pragmatic, science-based approach that remains responsive to new evidence and adaptable to changing circumstances, ensuring long-term prosperity while strengthening resilience to climate risks.
In shaping this policy direction, the influence of global thinkers and researchers is instructive. Bjorn Lomborg’s work, which emphasizes that climate policy should be grounded in rigorous economic analysis and focused on high-impact interventions, provides a useful framework for evaluating Thailand’s options. With Lomborg’s background as President of the Copenhagen Consensus and his role as a Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, his perspectives underscore the importance of prioritizing investments that yield the greatest social benefits, particularly in the areas of innovation and adaptation, rather than pursuing broad, costly programs that may deliver uncertain climate dividends. His writings, includingFalse Alarm and Best Things First, advocate for a balanced, evidence-based approach to climate policy—an approach that aligns with Thailand’s development priorities and the imperative to maximize social welfare while building resilience.
The long horizon: innovation, possibility, and the promise of a smarter climate strategy
In the long term, a climate strategy anchored in innovation offers the most credible path to decarbonization without compromising growth. The Green Revolution analogy—the pivotal moment when agricultural science, improved seeds, irrigation, and fertilizers dramatically increased yields—illustrates how innovation can deliver enormous social benefits without asking the global population to accept lower living standards. The moment we recognize is that climate action will not be solved by reducing living standards or by shifting to poorer, colder energy futures; rather, it will be achieved when industrial nations develop clean energy technologies that can outcompete fossil fuels in price, reliability, and sustainability. Innovation, not restriction, is the path to a future in which both the climate and the economy thrive.
This perspective on climate strategy also implies that adaptation, infrastructure, and poverty reduction are not temporary sideshows but essential, enduring components of policy design. When adaptation investments are well targeted and integrated with social protection and economic development, they deliver rapid dividends in the form of fewer climate-driven disruptions and a more stable, predictable environment for businesses and households. The synergy between innovation and adaptation creates a robust platform for sustainable growth, enabling a resilient economy that can absorb shocks and continue to advance.
Returns to such an integrated approach are not merely theoretical. They are grounded in concrete projections about livelihoods, productivity, and price stability. As agricultural R&D demonstrates, strategic investment can yield tangible improvements in outputs, prices, and incomes, with accompanying reductions in emissions intensity. When these benefits are realized, the public’s confidence in climate policy grows, reducing political resistance and enabling further progress in decarbonization and resilience-building.
Conclusion
The recent flood events in Chiang Mai, the broader climate discourse in Western economies, and Thailand’s unique development context converge on a shared truth: climate resilience must be built on a foundation of economic realism, innovation, and inclusive development. The most credible path forward is not one of alarmist rhetoric or reckless austerity but a pragmatic blend of targeted renewable deployment, long-run energy innovation, adaptive infrastructure, and poverty reduction. This approach aligns climate action with growth, jobs, and social protection, ensuring that Thailand can navigate climate risks while sustaining and expanding its economic prospects.
Ultimately, the climate policy framework advocated here emphasizes three core pillars: practical innovation to drive clean energy down to affordable levels, adaptive infrastructure and urban planning that reduce vulnerability and raise quality of life, and strong poverty alleviation measures that empower households to participate in a climate-resilient economy. The objective is to achieve a resilient, prosperous, and equitable Thailand that can withstand climate shocks and continue to progress in a rapidly changing global environment. The broader global lesson is that climate action should be pursued with careful attention to economic science and social welfare, prioritizing interventions with the greatest net benefits for people and communities.
Bjorn Lomborg’s perspective crystallizes this approach: climate policy should be guided by rigorous economic analysis and focused on high-impact interventions. By prioritizing innovation, adaptation, and poverty reduction, rather than sweeping, costly, and potentially ineffective measures, Thailand can pursue a smarter, more resilient climate strategy that delivers tangible improvements in living standards while contributing to global climate objectives. In the end, the climate challenge is not a zero-sum proposition; it is an opportunity to reimagine growth, renew infrastructure, and invest in human capital so that the country—and the world—can prosper in a changing climate. The years ahead will determine whether policy choices translate into durable resilience and shared prosperity or into unintended trade-offs that undermine development. The path chosen will reflect not only science and economics but the collective wisdom of policymakers, communities, and businesses working together toward a sustainable future.
