It is difficult to know whether the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) announcement last week that Taiwan plans to present a "green" initiative during next month's APEC forum was some kind of joke.
After all, Taiwan has doubled its carbon dioxide emissions since 1990, the baseline year of the Kyoto Protocol, while the government -- if we are to believe environmental groups -- recently reshuffled its environmental review commission in order to rid it of anyone opposed to development on environmental grounds. This came soon after the president told an association of industrialists that "the government should not make environmental protection policy so stringent as to force out enterprises."
If the nation were really serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, tackling climate change and reducing its dependence on energy imports, then it would have already begun to make better use of emission-free power sources, including the vast amounts of untapped potential it possesses in solar, hydroelectric and geothermal power generation.
It would also be trying to reduce the amount of power it generates using fossil fuels, which the Bureau of Energy (BOE) puts at 68 percent.
Taiwan has more than 100 geothermal sites but so far only small-scale experimental geothermal power generation. In contrast, Iceland uses its geothermal resources to great effect, heating around 90 percent of all homes and also generating electricity.
Taiwan receives a lot of sunlight and is a big producer of solar panels, but we do not have any large-scale solar power plants.
We could also better utilize hydroelectric power; currently just 15 percent of national power is generated in this way. In contrast, Norway, a country with similar terrain, generates 99 percent of its needs through hydroelectricity.
Wind-generated energy, although on the increase, does not yet make up a single percentage point.
Another emission-free option is nuclear power, which despite its controversial nature, should not be ruled out as it may be the best choice if Taiwan is really serious about reducing emission levels quickly.
But instead of concentrating on domestic issues and tackling the causes of climate change, officials like EPA Minister Winston Dang (
While this is undoubtedly true, whining about it will not solve anything.
If Taiwan were to forge ahead with its own investment in renewables and become a world leader in certain fields, then other countries would come knocking at our door, regardless of what China says.
Not being a member of international bodies means there are no restrictions on what we can do. Taiwan should put its engineers to work and use their skills in innovation in the renewable energy sector, while setting itself ambitious targets for renewable energy.
Instead, the BOE has set itself a target to double the percentage of electricity generated by renewable energy sources to a measly 10 percent by 2010.
While it is okay to promote green initiatives at APEC if you are serious about environmental issues, it is not okay if back home you are on the verge of allowing Formosa Plastics and CPC Corp, Taiwan to open new plants that environmentalists claim will raise Taiwan's emissions by a further 40 percent.
If the government wants to preach to other nations, then it should stop bowing to the demands of industrialists and curtail its Jekyll and Hyde attitude toward the environment, otherwise no one will ever be able to take it seriously.
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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS