Last month, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) spoke of his “six discourses for the nation” (六國論) on his second anniversary in office. He envisioned Taiwan embarking on a “golden decade” focusing on innovation, culture, the environment, constitutional governance, social welfare and peace. But will his focus on environmental issues and the government’s perennial promises about energy conservation and carbon emission reductions actually steer Taiwan in a new direction?
This year’s presidential proclamation proudly states that carbon emissions will be reduced to 2000 levels by 2025. This, however, is less impressive than a resolution passed during the 1998 First National Energy Conference, which stated that carbon emissions were to be reduced to 2000 levels by 2020.
The presidential proclamation also said that Taiwan’s emissions in 2008 represented a 4.4 percent reduction from those in 2007 and that energy efficiency had risen by 3.6 percent, thanks to government policies. According to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook last year, the global economic downturn has led to a considerable decline in energy consumption, so much so that overall global carbon emissions fell in 2008 by 2 billion tonnes, or 6 to 7 percent, from the previous year. In other words, Taiwan’s 4 percent fall in emissions during that same period is much less than the global average. Also, the 2008 reduction derived predominantly from international factors. Not only should the government not be taking credit for the reduction, it should be investigating whether excessive energy consumption by industry accounts for the fact that emissions have been reduced less in Taiwan than in other countries.
Despite the current preoccupation with cutting emissions, the government is still pushing for the expansion of energy intensive industries. Take Formosa Plastics’ controversial expansion of its sixth naphtha cracker plant, phase five of which is currently under review, compared with the new Kuokuang Petrochemical plant. The latter is of comparable scale, but according to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report, its annual carbon emissions would be a quarter to a fifth that of the Formosa Plastics plant. These two plants alone could increase annual emissions by 40 or 50 million tonnes if approved, emissions equivalent to those created by 7 million or 8 million Taiwanese. It’s as if the government is asking the public to conserve energy just so they can offset the huge energy consumption of these industries.
In many recent cases the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) has ruled in favor of large corporations and against the public. The Supreme Administrative Court revoked EIA originally approved in 2006 for the Cising Plant in the Central Taiwan Science Park, causing the EPA to express bafflement and accuse the court of deliberately misinterpreting the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法).
Formosa Plastics’ Renwu Plant has recently been found guilty of seriously polluting the local soil and groundwater and in some cases these pollutants have been around 300,000 times official limits. The EPA, however, will not countenance the suspension of work. We hear nothing of the repeated protests of civil groups against the high levels of arsenic in the air around the Hsinchu and Central Science Parks and no company or individual has ever been punished.
President Ma seems to have forgotten what environmental protection means.
Gloria Hsu is a professor in National Taiwan University’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences and former chairwoman of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS