There were two new initiatives in the US fight against global warming this week that offer some important policy lessons for the nation and a timely reminder of how much more needs to be done in the area of environmental protection.
The first one was California State's decision on Wednesday to sue the world's six largest automobile manufacturers -- General Motors, Ford, Toyota, DaimlerChrysler, Honda and Nissan -- over their contribution to greenhouse gas production. This is the first legal case of its kind in the US.
The second initiative was British billionaire Richard Branson's pledge on Thursday at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York to spend US$3 billion over the next 10 years on developing renewable energy and tackling greenhouse gas emissions. This is the largest private commitment of money to protect the environment ever made.
It is hard to imagine that the national government would ever hold our leading manufacturers completely responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions. It is also difficult to think of a time when any of Taiwan's business moguls would reach into their pockets and fund a major environmental project.
This said, there are a few examples that the nation is starting to wake up. Environmental policy got a shot in the arm on Wednesday when the Cabinet passed a draft greenhouse bill.
The bill, which requires approval by the legislature, mandates a cut in carbon dioxide emissions and five other greenhouse gases. It makes clear that the need for such a law has arisen due to possible retaliatory actions from countries that have signed the Kyoto Accord. If the bill receives the legislative green light, heavy industry, electrical utilities, transport companies and oil refineries will be forced to reduce or offset their dependence on fossil fuels to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
It is heartening to see the government make an effort to keep up with the global standard on these matters, even though the nation is not a UN member and did not have the option of signing the Kyoto Accord. People should be reminded that this country, with just 0.3 percent of the world's population, is the world's 22nd-largest carbon dioxide producer and emits around 1 percent of all greenhouse gases. Taiwan is a disproportionately large part of the greenhouse problem.
But in its current form, the greenhouse bill lacks effective measures and tools to carry out the goal of emissions reduction. There is no specific timeframe given for greenhouse gas reduction, and the bill does not stipulate quotas for local industry -- key features of greenhouse legislation elsewhere.
Further, the bill does not establish a reliable auditing or reporting system to monitor emissions compliance -- let alone put in place a gas trading platform where companies could buy and sell rights to emit greenhouse gases like any other commodity.
These deficiencies appear to reflect the government's overall ambivalence toward the project. It is torn between economic interests and environmental considerations, even though the bill does outline measures to promote the development of renewable and alternative energy technologies and to encourage energy efficiency and conservation.
As the Cabinet has included the draft among 78 priority bills for rapid approval by the Legislative Yuan this legislative session, both governing and opposition parties should act responsibly to amend the bill's deficiencies and push it through posthaste.
The time is nigh to stop making excuses, and make Taiwan a model nation in combating global warming. The bill must be passed as soon as possible.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS