Just days before the upcoming transfer of power, the Council of Agriculture suddenly announced its "Green Sea Project." With a budget of NT$7.18 billion (US$233 million), the five-year proposal would plant 20,000 hectares of forest on the plains, which would supposedly be able to absorb 740,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.
The announcement was met with an enthusiastic response from many well-known corporations, and forestation has suddenly become a fashionable and socially responsible thing to do. However, if this sham is implemented, it may well turn into the next Taiwan Goal disaster.
Any forestation policy would have to be carried out by the incoming administration. Why does the departing council minister need to push this effort now? Also, how did the council arrive at its claim that the 20,000 hectares of forest would absorb 740,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide yearly, and which organizations have verified these numbers?
The Kyoto Protocol guidelines for "fforestation and reforestation methodologies" include a very strict system for calculation and enforcement. Afforestation refers to planting in areas that have not contained forest for at least 50 years. Reforestation refers to planting in areas that were forested before Dec. 31, 1989, but have been deforested since 1990.
With regard to tree species, forest land management and implementation, the guidelines provide a complex methodological approach. The council's Green Sea Project completely ignores this methodology and is more reminiscent of the "backyard steel furnaces" during China's Cultural Revolution. No greenhouse gas verification groups would support the council's claims about how many tonnes of carbon dioxide might be absorbed. No matter how loudly the project is trumpeted, if it is not carried out according to international guidelines, it would be impossible to obtain international certification. In the end it would be a waste of time and effort.
Worse, there are signs of global food shortages. Not only has Taiwan failed to change its policy of encouraging farmers to let land lie fallow, it may even turn agricultural land over for forestation. If food shortage trends remain unchanged while these trees sink their roots into former agricultural land, how can the land be restored if the need for planting food crops arises?
Long-time forestation researcher Chen Yu-feng (陳玉峰) criticized the Forestry Bureau in an article titled "Forestation: Taiwanese Mountain Forests' Biggest Lie." From the time the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) took control of Taiwan to the present, almost NT$100 billion has been spent on forestation efforts, with a failure rate of 90 percent -- and this was for mountain forestation. How much more disastrous would it be if these efforts were moved to the plains?
In another article, Liu Chiung-hsi (劉炯錫), a graduate of National Taiwan University's forestry department, attacked his colleagues in the forestry bureaucracy as a "scam group." However, even though these two were willing to risk offense by speaking out, it seems no one has listened to them.
Of all the fake forestation corruption scandals over the years, one of the largest was discovered by the Ministry of Justice. In 2005, an investigation involving nine cities and counties and 17 townships found that officials fabricated forestation reports to swindle the council out of more than NT$240 billion in forestation reward money.
Now these scammers are licking their chops because they see a golden opportunity in the battle against global warming. After the change of political power, will these people be able to hide behind the five-year Green Sea Project and continue their crimes with impunity?
Ho Chin-shan is the secretary-general of the Green Consumers' Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY JAMES CHEN
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS