Climate change no myth
I feel I must respond to Charles Hong’s continued misunderstanding (Letters, Oct. 5, page 8).
I have no doubt that there is a controversy over climate change on the Internet. There is no question that media organizations will either reflect, or, in the case of Fox News, promote, alternative, skeptical views. Both are part of the wider political controversy I mentioned previously.
Equally, there is no question that it is usually a mistake to attribute any given local weather event to climate change, whatever your view on climate change may be, because the climate is a long-term trend over years; not what the weather is doing today or has done this month.
However, climate change — brought about by rising global temperatures to which greenhouse gases, including CO2, resulting from human activity play a not insignificant part — is neither a scientific controversy nor simply a “belief” that requires “respect” that happens to be held by some people. It is the scientific consensus subscribed to by a majority of experts in the field, built up over 35 years or more of scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Thousands of scientists have in recent years contributed to four major (some say conservative) assessments of this literature from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and national governmental reports based on the science, such as the UK’s 2006 700-page Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, are all very, very clear.
There is not anything like the equivalent weight of evidence on the side of skeptics and it is therefore a consensus that needs urgently to be acknowledged in some quarters before we can move on to thinking more seriously about tackling the possible consequences, in particular in the US, which continues to downplay the role of the UN in attempting to reach an -international agreement.
PAUL DEACON
Kaohsiung
Charles Hong states the obvious when he writes that the carbon footprint of electric cars is entirely dependent upon the way in which the electricity is generated.
However, a brief search on Google reveals a number of Web sites stating that cars running on coal-generated electricity have a carbon footprint of one-third of their gasoline equivalent. For example, one such site can be found at www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/actions/electriccars.shtml.
In stating that coal releases more carbon dioxide than oil, Hong misses the fact that comparing coal burned in a power station with oil in an internal combustion engine is not comparing like with like. The size of a power station lends efficiency. Another quick search reveals that coal-fired power stations can run at 60 percent efficiency whereas internal combustion engines run at 20 percent to 30 percent, giving the electric car a big head start.
He also states that there are 1,370,000 hits on Google relating to “global warming controversy 2010” (searched without quotes). This tells us that there are a lot of Web pages with these four words. There are 11 million hits for “intelligent design” and 591,000 hits for “Loch Ness Monster.” This tells us that there is a lot of information on the Web, some of it reliable, some of it not, and it tells us that people don’t always agree on issues. What this raw data doesn’t tell us anything about is the credibility of either side of the argument.
There are scientists who question all or part of the “climate change as a result of human activity” hypothesis and due to the nature of science, there probably always will be. It should be emphasized that they are a very small minority, even if an exact proportion is hard to reference.
TOBY WILSDON
Taipei
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS