Toxic air is killing in Thailand. Could this legislation save lives?

The Clean Air Act is proposed legislation that aims to push polluters – factories and power plants – into reducing their carbon emissions in order to improve air quality in Thailand. Photo: Luke Duggleby/Greenpeace/Redux

By
Rebecca. L. Root

Published 21 October 2025
6 min read

Thailand’s air contains much higher levels of PM2.5 than is safe, contributing to strokes, lung disease and cancer. Proposed legislation could force polluters to pay but opposition threatens its passage.

In a Facebook post dated 1 October, Witsarut Aunarom, a digital creator based in Bangkok, shared that his mother had been diagnosed with stage four lung cancer. Aged 82, she hadn’t been a smoker or had a bad diet, he wrote. But she had lived in Thailand, where the air contains a much higher amount of toxic particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) than the World Health Organization believes is safe. Permeating lungs, PM2.5 has been linked to strokes, lung disease, and cancer. It’s this that Witsarut squarely blames for his mother’s illness.

“No matter how you protect yourself, you still have to breathe. The only carcinogen that my mother cannot avoid is PM2.5,” wrote Witsarut.

He’s not alone in blaming Thailand’s toxic air for health conditions. Around the country, more and more people are grappling with lung diseases, strokes and cancers that doctors are linking to poor air quality. In 2023, ten million Thais are estimated to have visited a health facility because of a pollution-related illness. And in Bangkok, citizens are thought to lose two years of their life due to exposure to pollution, according to research. Industry fumes, vehicle emissions and the burning of crops are to blame for these high levels.

Spurred on by the unnecessary loss of life and illness, many Thais have taken up the cause and have been advocating for the government to take action. The culmination of those efforts is the draft Clean Air Act, which could come into effect next year.

What is the Clean Air Act?

“The bill aims to manage the clean air and not only for one point source, but every source, and try to set up mechanisms and… a new organisation to take charge of the clean air,” explained Natthapat Thawiwannabun, a member of the government subcommittee dedicated to the legislation and a former civil servant at the Ministry of Finance.

Modelled on similar legislation in the United States and Singapore, the bill was first introduced into parliament in 2021, but there were seven different versions, each submitted by a different group – five from political parties, one from civil society and another from the Cabinet – with different interests and ideas on what the legislation would encompass.

For example, the Thailand Clean Air Network, or Thai CAN, a group of active citizens who want to enforce citizens’ right to clean air, created a version that would see polluting companies paying fines and economic incentives put in place to encourage their greener operations. The version from the political party, People’s Party, incorporated a potential ban on all maize products that were created as a result of agricultural burning, whilst the Cabinet’s version suggested banning imports and exports derived from pollution-creating supply chains.

Time grows short for Thailand’s first air quality law

by Ken G Weber

•

When breathing became dangerous in Thailand, they rewrote the rules

by Rebecca. L. Root

To synthesise these different drafts into one, the House of Representatives created a committee – known as the Ad Hoc Committee to Draft the Act on Air Quality Management B.E – in 2023. Made up of 39 people – including politicians, medical experts, industry professionals, lawyers, activists, economists, and doctors – the committee meets weekly, sometimes twice weekly, to work debate and finalise the details of a bill.

With the current government’s term expected to end in less than four months, advocates hope the bill can complete the legislative process before late January.

What impact might it have?

The idea behind the bill is ultimately to save lives. By putting penalties in place, it should mean that the biggest polluters curb their emissions, lowering the levels of PM2.5 in the atmosphere. This should then reduce people’s exposure and prevent them from experiencing a pollution-related illness.

As well as saving lives, the bill should save the Thai economy money, said Dr Witsanu Attavanich, co-founder of Thai CAN, an environmental economist at Kasetsart University and committee member. Such illnesses cost the health system three billion baht in 2024, as well as money lost from days of missed work because of these debilitating health conditions. Not taking steps to address pollution will only lead to further costs, said Witsanu, explaining that right now the country has 13.4 million children. “If we have bad air pollution… the kids will get sick and when they grow up, they will have a lower capacity and we will have less quality of human capital,” he said.

So what’s the pushback?

Despite the benefits of the bill being clear, it has still been seen as a controversial topic and those advocating for the bill have had to do so with great effort. Inside the weekly committee meetings, advocates have described, at times, aggressive rebuttal of key parts of the bill. The committee has had to come up with a collective understanding of clean air, outline the duties individuals and companies have to reduce pollution, and suggest ways in which the current Pollution Control Department can better monitor and map PM2.5 levels – be it through fines, air pollution officers or responsibilities put on local groups.

One big point of contention has been around the idea of fiscal tools to encourage a cleaner environment. Thai CAN had suggested a polluters pay principle, which would see the main polluters pay for emitting PM2.5. That money, they suggest, could be funnelled into a Clean Air and Health Fund that could compensate those harmed by toxic air and be used to support behaviour change in reducing emissions, especially in the North of Thailand where farmers might need to change the crops they grow to prevent the need to burn their fields, subcommittee member Natthapat explained.

There’s also a sentiment that collecting fees would hurt the business environment, said Natthapat, who held a previous role with Tesla, and not just those working for large corporations. “For example, you might see some street vendors that often emit some smoke on the street and a fee could be collected,” she said.

Stay Informed!

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive our latest stories direct to your inbox.

Eager to avoid unnecessary costs, industry players have been lobbying other committee members to remove this from the bill. But advocates insisted it was essential. Without what Witsanu calls “weapons,” “the Clean Air Bill cannot work and [companies] still can pollute.” “Paper laws” won’t solve any problems,”wrote digital creator Witsarut, explaining that the Fund is key to implementation of any law. “As a child who is taking care of his mother with lung cancer, I would like to ask for help… please check the MPs you elected go to parliament to perform their duties. And in parliament, do those MPs seek to benefit the capitalist or see the need for a fund that would help solve the air pollution problem?”

On 9 October, the lower house voted to keep the Fund, with 224 lawmakers out of 258 present supporting its inclusion.

What will happen next?

On 21 October, Thailand’s lower house overwhelmingly approved the bill. The senate now has 60 days to review it before it moves to royal assent and publication in the Royal Gazette. The law would take effect 120 days after publication. However, any senate request for revisions could delay the process and make passage under the current government unlikely.

“If the new government comes [and it’s not been agreed on], then it’s going to take another year for the Clean Air Bill to be implemented,” said Witsanu. To avoid that from happening, he and other advocates are working to support the bill with academic knowledge and are raising awareness among the general public of the importance of the bill so that they can be active in helping encourage its passing.

“Let the government know, let the polluters know that this is the right of the Thai people,” he urged the public. “Don’t be quiet. Exercise your rights so that you can get good health. Do this thing for the country.”

Rebecca. L. Root is a multimedia journalist based in Bangkok but reporting globally. She covers humanitarian aid, human rights, global health, development and climate, among other things.