When US President George W. Bush’s administration declined yet again last week to take action to regulate carbon emissions, its excuse was farcical. The US Environmental Protection Agency cited the “great complexity, controversy and active legislative debate” as reasons for postponing measures that the US Supreme Court ordered implemented last year.The news broke just days after G8 leaders — including Bush — agreed in Japan to a “vision” of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, and one day before Bush repeated his call to open protected areas of Alaska to oil drilling. Bush will be remembered as the US president who did nothing when the urgency of global warming was crystal clear.
But the US is hardly alone in dodging its environmental responsibilities. Earlier this month, Minister of Economic Affairs Yiin Chii-ming (尹啟銘) said the government would put off regulatory action on emissions and rely instead on encouraging voluntary reductions.
While South Korea has “implemented coercive measures” to cut carbon emissions, Yiin said, “Our government believes that saving energy is a universal value and will gain public support.”
Yiin’s optimism sounded like a bad joke given the nation’s track record, with emissions that continue to grow at an embarrassing rate.
The question is how long it will take for the public and companies to set the nation on the right track without government regulation and whether we — and the world — can afford to wait that long. Initiatives such as the Industrial Technology Research Institute’s implementation of energy-saving measures and a green pact among 53 hospitals, hotels and department stores are encouraging, but no more than a drop in the bucket.
Hoping that a solution to environmental concerns will materialize without government action is unwise and ludicrous. It would also seem to contradict Yiin’s statement the same day about the administration’s vision for the environment — reining in greenhouse-gas emissions and lowering them to their 2000 level by 2025.
And just two days after Yiin’s remarks, Council for Economic Planning and Development Chairman Chen Tain-jy (陳添枝) called for legislation to regulate emissions cuts, saying the nation could “wait no longer.”
Chen emphasized the economic benefits of going green, noting that it would spur growth in eco-friendly technology and products. Indeed, the energy-saving campaign at the 53 hospitals, hotels and stores is expected to pour NT$1.04 billion (US$33 million) into the green-product industry within three years, while reducing the participants’ combined emissions by 83,000 tonnes.
If President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wants to succeed where his predecessor achieved little, his voice is needed in this debate. Ma should make clear his administration’s goals for the environment and how it intends to meet them.
If ambitious emissions reductions are to be realized over the next few decades, the government must recognize its role in bringing about change by seeking legally binding environmental targets.
At a time when it is scrambling to deliver on its promises of a stronger economy, working for environmental conservation is not out of synch with these goals. As Chen said, the switch to a green economy and infrastructure holds its own promise.
There is money to be made by cleaning up our act, but more importantly, the price of not doing so may be too dear.
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