Even after recent concerns over the proposed Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology Co plant have been voiced on numerous occasions by both the public and academics, the government seems to be plowing ahead with its plans.
Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-shiang (施顏祥), in an interview with the Chinese-language magazine Business Weekly, and then President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), articulated the government’s reasons for wanting to press on with the project.
First, they said, it is important for Taiwan to have its own petrochemical industry lest it find itself having to rely on imports for ethylene within the next 15 years, given the increasing demand for the chemical. The decline of the industry would also put hundreds of thousands of jobs in mid and downstream industries at risk. Then there is the risk of putting all our eggs in one basket: With Kuokuang gone, Formosa Plastics Corp would be the sole remaining player in Taiwan’s petrochemicals industry. Finally, they say, Kuokuang has made efforts to clean up its act, and the latest plant will have less impact on the environment than previous incarnations.
These arguments are full of holes. Firstly the government, as it is wont to do, has pulled out a raft of industry statistics and reports to address people’s concerns over the huge potential environmental impact of the development. These facts and figures show that, given the increasing demand for the chemical products it is to produce, they have no alternative but to allow for the plant to go ahead. Their hands are tied. It is a necessary evil.
The problem is, behind these so-called industry statistics lie independently unverifiable assumptions. It’s the old sausage of manipulating figures by using extrapolations based on hypothetical outcomes. One can say that demand will increase in the future if incomes continue to increase at a certain rate, but that is a big assumption. Things are rarely that simple.
I will restrict myself to a single example. Many years ago the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) recommended building more incinerators to deal with a potential problem based on the assumption that the amount of household garbage was getting out of hand.
That was just before people started having to recycle a significant proportion of household waste, which meant that the amount of general, non-recyclable garbage actually fell. Suddenly, there wasn’t enough trash to feed the incinerators. Basically, the incinerator policy was based on a flawed assumption. In other words, it is possible to achieve a sustainable future with the correct combination of national policy and hard work on the part of the public.
Unfortunately, it isn’t often that the government considers alternative, more sustainable options to established policies that were originally based on misguided ideas or, worse, commercial interests.
VIABLE ALTERNATIVES
As citizens of this country, we have the right to demand that the government does its best to come up with viable alternatives and to expose the available options to fair competition on a level playing field.
Let’s say, for example, that the government manages to develop a policy that makes industry greener without actually having any adverse effects on the economy. Say they come up with a way to reduce the amount of petrochemical products we need, negating the need for a new plant and thus being more environmentally friendly. This would be a great achievement for the government, but it would also be good for the public.
If the government is still unable to check the increase in demand for petrochemical products even after it has invested a large amount of time and effort — after exhausting all available options — and decides to carry on with the expansion of the petrochemical industry, one would have to admit that, for the petrochemical industry at least, the demands of industry and the needs of the environment were ultimately irreconcilable. If that were the case, I am afraid to say, it would be like the captain having the Titanic stay the course even though he knew icebergs laid directly ahead. The results of his action — or non-action — would be felt for many generations to come.
JOB CREATION
Then there is the question of jobs. Could it be that, with a similar level of investment and backed by government policy, we could create a commensurate level of jobs in green energy and its supply chain? In the past, the government managed to create an environment in which the electronics industry thrived. The governments of several European countries have successfully encouraged the development of the domestic green energy industry. These countries are now world leaders in this area.
Therefore, there is a real possibility that we can turn things around: It is not right that the government should try to intimidate us with scary unemployment forecasts when it has not explored the idea of creating a comparable number of jobs in more sustainable industries.
During the interview mentioned above, Shih said Formosa Plastics only had its own commercial interests at heart. If that is indeed the case, it is even more important that we question the government about why they are still promoting Formosa’s plan for the fifth-stage expansion of the sixth naphtha cracker and Kuokuang’s proposed plant. The reasonable thing to do would be to subject both projects to strict environmental and industry policy inspections and tests.
OVERSIMPLIFICATION
Kuokuang’s claims that updates to the plant will make it greener are an oversimplification. Again, I will offer just one example. By updating its old factory, Kuokuang will damage several thousand hectares of precious coastal wetlands and it will cause new damage to the environment. According to certain independent academics, the damage this new development will cause will be much more than the financial benefit Kuokuang stands to gain from updating its facilities.
Finally, we see heads of economic planning and development agencies frantically defending certain development projects all the time, but how often does the EPA come out in defense of the environment? Last year, when the government announced it was to levy energy taxes, people were up in arms throughout the country. This was an important step in the right direction. However, how many government ministers, from the president down, were willing to step up and defend this new policy? No wonder people find it difficult to trust Ma, despite all his talk about placing equal emphasis on the environment and the economy.
Tai Hsing-sheng is an associate professor in the department of natural resources and environment at National Dong Hwa University
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER AND DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has upheld the core goals of “making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” fully implementing an “America first” policy. Countries have responded cautiously to the fresh style and rapid pace of the new Trump administration. The US has prioritized reindustrialization, building a stronger US role in the Indo-Pacific, and countering China’s malicious influence. This has created a high degree of alignment between the interests of Taiwan and the US in security, economics, technology and other spheres. Taiwan must properly understand the Trump administration’s intentions and coordinate, connect and correspond with US strategic goals.
RSS