The recent film An Inconvenient Truth caused quite a splash at its world premier. The movie is a recording of a 100-minute lecture given by former US vice president Al Gore on climate change and his personal feelings about it. It's not surprising that the film tries to convince viewers of the reality of climate change and its consequences. What is shocking is that a politician has finally become a true believer. Gore traveled the world getting first-hand proof from scientists and has made it his life's work to spread the message.
Gore explains the scientific evidence to a broad audience through impressive visual displays and concise narration. His audience includes students at Beijing University, business tycoons in Chicago, stock traders in New York and famous academics in London. But his appeal is still mainly to US citizens.
What this film seeks to show is that scientific research has discovered that human activities have a definite impact on the global climate, and that politicians and film makers can use their influence to change people's thinking and prevent this truth from being buried.
The most shocking part of the film comes when Gore proposes that Greenland's glaciers could melt within the current century. This could mean that in addition to many island and coastal countries, most of the US state of Florida and major cities like New York and Shanghai could all be submerged by the rising tide of flood water.
At the same time, vast quantities of fresh water would flow into the North Atlantic, interfering with the thermohaline circulation -- the global circulation of the oceans which is driven by the ocean water's density, which in turn is determined by temperature and salinity.
After a period of rapidly rising temperatures, the world could therefore be plunged into a minor ice age. The content of Gore's lecture is drawn from various influential scientific publications from around the world published in recent years. It is also the conclusion of the fourth report on climate change to be released by the United Nations Climate Change Task Force next year, and the most troubling prediction about the consequences of continued global warming.
For example, the task force's third report in 2001 estimated that the sea level will rise 0.18m to 0.66m by the end of the 21st century, leading to land subsidence among poorer communities in Taiwan's costal areas. However, those predictions have already been revised to at least a 6m rise in sea level by the end of the century, which could possibly even reach as high as 35m. If the sea rises by 6m, the Taipei basin would be half-submerged, and the Chianan plain and Ilan county's Lotung plain would be totally under water.
If the sea level rises by 35m in combination with powerful winds, frequent flooding from storms and landslides would drastically shrink Taiwan's inhabitable areas. Food shortages and unstable agricultural production would rise as arable land dwindled. Taiwan could be forced to buy all its food on the world market, and many Taiwanese could be forced to seek aid from China after being forced into exile as environmental refugees.
Perhaps we are entertaining groundless fears, but Gore believes that if our generation isn't willing to face this reality, future generations will have to pay for our failure. In the film, Gore accuses those who ignore the truth of being immoral. This is very unusual. When considered from an Eastern perspective, Gore is talking about the "hidden moral conduct" that has so much emphasis placed on it.
Many in Asia believe that the will of heaven works imperceptibly, but is nevertheless active, and that a lack of moral behavior will have repercussions. This emphasizes God as the ultimate arbitrator. Furthermore, those repercussions may not occur in the present, but could be brought upon one's children and descendants.
This thinking could clearly be used as a criticism of the harm modern people have caused by creating climate change, for which future generations must pay the price.
Gore emphasizes during the film that increasing energy efficiency and actively working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only won't hurt economic development, but will in fact help boost a country's competitiveness.
Taiwan's Cabinet recently proposed a law to reduce greenhouse gases by establishing a system to supervise greenhouse gas emissions. It also proposed imposing an energy tax to increase the costs to energy consumers. However, this plan does not clearly specify when the law will go into effect or give a timetable for emission reductions.
The whole world is racing ahead to improve energy efficiency and usher in a new age of improved energy productivity and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but the Cabinet's proposed policy is incapable of shaking up the current structure of production in Taiwan. It also limits the potential benefits of taking action by failing to set goals for the future.
It is clear that the longer Taiwan waits to face this problem, the more its competitiveness will suffer. If we are unable to see that global warming is a threat to our national security, future generations may lose their chance to continue living here.
Liu Chung-ming is director of the Global Change Research Center at National Taiwan University and Liu Ming-lung is chairman of the Environmental Quality Protection Foundation.
Translated by Marc Langer
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