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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath