On Oct. 22 the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament, finally ratified the Kyoto Protocol. With this action, the climate treaty, which has been delayed for seven years, can now come into force. In recent years, climate change has become a common topic of discussion every time we experience "unusual" weather. If it rains too much or too little, if it is too hot or too cold, if there are numerous typhoons, we immediately point to climate change as the culprit.
In fact, climate is the long-term average of various weather conditions, and scientists are not able to say with certainty whether the difference in the weather from one year to the next is due to climate change or whether it is a normal fluctuation in weather patterns. But most people do agree that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the climate will certainly change, possibly into something that is very different from what we know today.
As we haven't the means to predict the speed and scope of changes to the climate in 30 or 50 years, we are naturally conservative and hope that it will remain relatively unchanged from what we know. Scientists have estimated that we must reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by 60 percent of what is now normal if we are to keep the increase in the density of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 25 percent.
As early as the 1992 summit, nearly 200 national leaders met to agree on the reduction of greenhouse emissions to the same level as in 1990 by 2000. As this self-imposed reduction had no effect whatsoever, the international community formulated the legally enforceable Kyoto Protocol in 1997. At present, the protocol applies to just over 30 industrialized nations who aim to reduce emissions by an average of 5.2 percent by 2010.
Although this is a very small amount, it has taken seven years to put the treaty into effect. The main problem lies in the time lag for climate change and its uncertainty.
Scientific prediction as to climate change for 10 to 100 years in the future are extrapolated from what we know of past weather patterns. It is more than possible that what we know is incomplete, so there is a high degree of uncertainty in scientific predictions about the weather; predictions about social and economic consequences are even more uncertain.
Mankind's main sources of energy are coal, oil and gas. All activities, from the basic necessity to feed and clothe ourselves, to matters of national economy and defense, all require energy. The accumulation of greenhouse gases over the last 100 years has begun to affect us directly, and the continuance of such emissions is only making matters worse.
If we look at the situation for the new millennium, the benefits to the environment as well as social and economic life of reducing or stopping the emission of greenhouse gases will certainly be greater than the cost. This is why we should act early and reduce the burden on future generations. This is why conservationists are all demanding that we take action now.
Governments and business leaders do not all agree that it is necessary to take action at this point. They need to decide how much they will do, and whether to do it now or to wait a few years when more advanced technology is available.
Will the short term benefits be greater than the cost? Will it affect competitiveness? Because we are not in command of all the variables, the benefits of reducing greenhouse emissions may not become immediately evident. The many issues involved make the decision a difficult one, with the result that until now nothing has been done.
Even in a short term cost-benefit analysis, all governments need to do is make slight adjustments to their current policies to achieve commendable results. For example, requiring household appliances, cars and homes to display energy needs so that consumers can make informed choices; improving mass rapid transit systems; directing production of energy-saving products through government purchase of such products.
If reducing the dependency on imported energy is an important military and diplomatic consideration, then widely dispersed reusable energy from wind, sun or swamp gases should not be considered solely from a business perspective.
With the Kyoto Protocol officially taking effect, the reduction of greenhouse emissions has established itself as a trend. Currently, the level of the reduction and the number of countries required to make these reductions is limited, but when the majority of countries take part in the process of reducing these emissions, then individual countries will not feel that they are losing out, and nobody will be able to piggyback on the efforts of others.
Although Taiwan is not a signatory to the climate change pact, it cannot remain unaffected by it. US and European governments and businesses have used international environmental agreements to obstruct entry to imported products, encouraging consumers not to buy products that fail to meet their environmental standards. For an export-oriented country like Taiwan, this could be extremely damaging.
A crisis can be an opportunity. It is not just that the terms of international environmental treaties will become more stringent. We are consuming our reserves of fossil fuel at an increasingly rapid rate, with prices of crude oil climbing constantly.
On the other hand there are measures for reducing emissions of fossil fuel such as development of energy-efficient technology and making alternative sources of energy more competitive. The government should make use of this opportunity to make people understand the difficulties we will face if we continue to rely on fossil fuel, so that investors or businesses upgrading their facilities can make the right choices in relation to their energy needs.
The government could also encourage the development of new industries, not only to meet the demands of a rapidly changing world, but to take a lead in it.
If we do this, in the future when environmental conservation becomes an important component of economic development, Taiwan will have another achievement to be proud of in addition to its democracy.
Gloria Hsu is a professor in the department of atmospheric sciences at National Taiwan University and holds a Master in Public Administration from Harvard University.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath