Thai Students Win Gold But Can Innovation Avert Climate Catastrophe?
Two Thai students, Arin and Arisa Thongtang, won gold at the 20th Asian Chemical Congress for “Living Carbonomics.” A triumph, yes. But in a world hurtling toward climate catastrophe, is this a beacon of hope, or a beautifully crafted Potemkin village? We celebrate ingenuity while the ice caps melt. Is awarding gold to scientific prodigies simply a less messy way to absolve ourselves of collective responsibility?
This isn’t a story about individual brilliance; it’s about the yawning chasm between innovation and implementation. The Chemical Society of Thailand, hosting the congress under the banner of “Responsible Chemical Sciences for World Sustainability," speaks to the aspiration. But aspirations, as anyone who’s ever tried to keep a New Year’s resolution knows, are cheap.
'The 20th Asian Chemical Congress represents a significant platform for advancing chemical sciences and promoting international collaboration in addressing global sustainability challenges,” [Khaosod](https://www.khaosodenglish.com/sustain/2025/06/28/thai-students-win-gold-at-international-chemistry-congress-in-bangkok/) reports.
Now, zoom out. In 1988, James Hansen testified before Congress about the reality of climate change. That same year, governments created the IPCC. Decades later, after countless reports and agreements — Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris — atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than ever. What explains this colossal failure? How do we reconcile brilliant scientific work with a planet still on track for catastrophic warming?
The answer, I suspect, lies in understanding that innovation is embedded in a system of incentives, power dynamics, and political choices. Consider Mariana Mazzucato’s work on the entrepreneurial state. She compellingly argues that governments must actively shape markets, not just regulate them. But what happens when the entrepreneurial state is captured by short-term thinking and the entrenched power of the fossil fuel industry?
Consider the historical precedent of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Scientists discovered their ozone-depleting properties in the 1970s, leading to the Montreal Protocol, a seemingly successful international agreement. But the chemical industry initially resisted regulation, arguing for the safety and necessity of CFCs. It wasn’t scientific consensus alone that spurred change; it was a combination of scientific pressure, public outcry, and, crucially, the development of profitable alternatives. Today, the alternatives for fossil fuels exist but lack the entrenched infrastructure, subsidies, and political backing of their predecessors.
Arin and Arisa’s work, which tracks carbon footprints, holds real promise. But is the system designed to amplify that promise, or to neutralize it? Will their research inform meaningful policy changes, or will it become another data point cited in reports that gather dust on shelves? Will it empower communities, or will it be weaponized by corporations to greenwash their image? Until we confront the systemic forces that prioritize profit over planetary health, even the most brilliant innovations risk becoming footnotes in the story of our self-inflicted demise. We need more than sparks; we need a radically different fire.
