The first National Conference on an Environmental Action Plan Toward Sustainability was held last Friday and Saturday. As expected, no binding conclusions were reached, nor was the event considered important by the media or the public. Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) even said in his opening speech that he supported the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and keeping the first three plants open.
Given that Lee's views were contrary to those of most of the attendees, it was clear the conference would fail to reach a consensus on how to achieve sustainable development.
The key question is whether the government has set goals for the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and clearly set restrictions on energy-intensive industries. Given that Taiwan is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, there is no pressure from the international community to abide by it. Why, then, should Taiwan actively display its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Since CO2 does not cause air pollution and the Cabinet is emphasizing "voluntary" rather than "regulated" reductions in its discussions on greenhouse gases, people may wonder why regulations are necessary.
If the government plans to regulate CO2 emissions and if renewable resources are not able to provide enough energy to meet the demands of economic development, then why not opt for nuclear power?
If Taiwan is to be built as a "nuclear-free homeland," then in the current situation with high gasoline prices, would building thermal power plants be the only solution? And if so, wouldn't that in fact emit more air pollutants?
From the point of view of sustainable development, the hope of future generations lies in creating a balance between economic development, environmental protection and social justice. Is the reduction of CO2 emissions really key to fulfilling this hope? A less controversial option than nuclear power would be gasified coal, increasing the energy efficiency of coal and capturing CO2 and injecting it into the earth crust, as currently promoted by the US.
The key problem, however, is energy consumption, and whichever method is used will not be able to curb its growth.
In recent years, Taiwan's economic transformation has slowed, and as a result, energy consumption is growing faster than the economy. If energy-intensive industries continue to expand, soaring energy prices mean that regardless of whether we turn to nuclear power or gasified coal, we still cannot expect satisfactory economic growth. The main result will be the emergence of more social alienation, deteriorating social order and growing number of suicidal people.
Obviously, in order to reach the goal of sustainable development for Taiwan, we should make it our priority to slow energy consumption to avert the current energy crisis and resolve the problem with increasing CO2 emissions. Only in this way can we control energy consumption and promote development.
When discussing sustainable development at a conference, a consensus should be built on the limits of Taiwan's capacity, rather than nit-picking specific cases. It is a pity that the conference did not meet the expectations of environmental activists or promote the idea that environmental protection can help the economy.
An "economic sustainability conference" is scheduled for June, and it will likely be driven by political rather than sustainable development concerns. Given the fact that priority is given to economic development over environmental protection, the development of high energy-consuming industries is an inescapable reality.
Liu Chung-ming is director of the Global Change Research Center at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers