The clear role of carbon
Charles Hong asserts that “the environmental impact of carbon dioxide on global warming is still controversial.” He could not be more wrong (Letters, Sept. 29, page 8).
There is no scientific controversy over the contribution of carbon emissions to global warming, only a political one that mainly occurs in the US.
Further, his examples of Typhoon Fanapi and Typhoon Morakot serve to underline his apparent confusion of local weather events with the global climate — a common misunderstanding.
The science, built up over the last 35 years or so, is very clear. Global warming is largely the result of increased carbon dioxide, a key factor of which has been human activity.
National political -discourse in the US in particular, from where Hong writes, has struggled to come to terms with this in the last decade or so, but has arrived late to an argument that has long since moved on to what we can do about global change — not whether or not it is happening or what is causing it.
Appealing to electric cars as a solution will not really help, because it is not a carbon neutral option.
The US at the moment is struggling to meet its current energy demands at peak times in a system largely built in the 1930s; and most of the power stations burn fossil fuels. Electric cars will inevitably increase demand for power — and increase carbon emissions.
Paul Deacon
Kaohsiung
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,
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS