A recent suggestion by Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) Minister Stephen Shen (沈世宏) to use Taiwan’s fallow land for photonic greenhouses to produce energy and crops (“Minister envisions 200,000 hectares of greenhouses,” Dec. 30, page 2) throws up a conundrum. While the production of renewable energy is good for the environment, converting fallow land might not be.
There is a general problem of perception: Living ecosystems, including those on fallow land, are still considered useless by most people, or at least expendable if a “greater” need arises, such as producing energy or food. I previously wrote about the biodiversity crisis (“One crisis that can’t be ignored any longer,” Nov. 29, page 8), and the main reason for this crisis is our increasing conversion of natural land for human land use.
However, with the world’s population standing at 6 billion, we are already running out of land and demands on ecological resources have already caused biodiversity to collapse.
Taiwan has one of the highest population densities in the world, meaning it has little available land for the basic land uses that shape the Earth’s surface: human settlements, agriculture, forestry and natural habitats which provide biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. Shen has now thrown renewable energy production into this mix.
Before large parts of Taiwan are converted to human use and thus lost to other uses like biodiversity conservation, I would suggest a pause for thought. Given the limited amount of usable land, I believe it is important to make a strategic plan on how these conflicting land uses can be reconciled without biodiversity suffering.
Tough questions should be asked. For example, given the impending water crisis, should not the protection of living ecosystems, which protect water resources and prevent erosion, be given higher priority? Should fallow lands perhaps be regenerated into forests or other natural habitats?
Might it be better to invest the money for the greenhouses in energy-saving measures? I pointed out possible energy savings for buildings (“Nature has answers to problems,” Dec. 13, page 8) but many other energy savings are also easily achievable, for example, through public transport. Therefore, saving energy is a much better option than producing more energy. The recent destruction of one of Taiwan’s last lowland rainforests for the hydroelectric dam in the Huben-Hushan area is a case in point. Surely the energy gained by the dam could have been saved through other measures.
The point is: How can we use land more effectively and not convert the last remaining ecosystems whenever human need arises? Well, photonic greenhouses could be placed on rooftops, over parking lots and in other unused urban spaces. In the long term, renewable energy plants should be placed where they do least harm, in deserts, oceans and outer space. Such developments are already taking place and deserve support. While they may sound futuristic, we do ourselves no favors by continuing to pursue short-term solutions.
Converting land into greenhouses may seem like a good idea, but in the long term, and looking at all land use, it doesn’t seem so smart, as it denies land for other needs such as water and biodiversity conservation. Taiwan could become a test case for reconciling conflicting land uses so as to increase human quality of life without sacrificing food security, energy production and ecosystem conservation. To become a shining example for the rest of the world is a splendid challenge for the EPA.
Bruno Walther is a visiting assistant professor of environmental science at Taipei Medical University.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS