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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS