Lomborg wrong again
The perpetrator of endless streams on environmental nonsense has struck again. Bjorn Lomborg asserts that becoming more energy-efficient doesn’t matter because we then just use more energy (“No, you can’t,” Dec. 13, page 9). While this well-documented “rebound effect” is undoubtedly true, Lomborg’s conclusions are wrong.
First, if our appliances had not become more efficient, then we would undoubtedly use more energy and therefore pollute more. Second, if many people, including me, did not attempt to minimize their energy use, we would use even more energy and pollute even more. Third, such messages send out the wrong signal, basically discouraging people from action because “whatever I do will make no difference.”
As the global economy grows, it needs more energy, especially as developing countries are trying to achieve a similar lifestyle to that of developed countries. If all of us were still using appliances from the mid-20th century, God only knows what our environment would look like. Therefore, we need to attack the problem from both sides: encouraging energy efficiency, but also making energy production sustainable and safe.
As the perpetrator of endless streams of nonsense about the non-existence of global warming and other environmental crises, Lomborg is single-handedly responsible for holding such developments back for years, if not decades. For him to now recommend green energy sources is disingenuous, to say the least.
Unless he recants all those anti-environmental diatribes published in several books and countless articles, nailing his colors to the mast of renewable energy, although welcome, seems to be another episode of his convictions “presenting an ever-shifting target” (“Global economy must be rebuilt,” Dec. 21, 2009, page 8).
What we urgently need to embrace is a comprehensive, integrated and sustainable strategy of global governance that supports massive investments into renewable energies, which are mainly solar, tidal and geothermal energy, as well as massive investments into energy efficiency. This needs to be combined with a circular materials economy, also called cradle-to-cradle, thus ending resource extraction and pollution of our environment.
Finally, we have to treat all living things with much greater care and respect, giving them enough space to maintain healthy ecosystems. Solving just one environmental crisis while ignoring the others is short-sighted and ultimately futile; for example, cutting down all the remaining rainforests in the next two decades may put as much carbon into the atmosphere as increased use of renewable energy may save — so we must act on all problems at the same time.
How much will such a program of enlightened global sustainability cost us? In the long-term, probably less than it will cost us to clean up the resulting mess of not implementing such a program. However, costs shouldn’t matter, because the world we want to live in is a “value judgment about what society thinks is important” (http://tinyurl.com/econ-growth-int). This is about quality of life, about intergenerational justice and essentially about our legacy to the future: a vastly impoverished world or a world full of life, diversity and joy — it is our choice.
BRUNO WALTHER
Taipei
The image was oddly quiet. No speeches, no flags, no dramatic announcements — just a Chinese cargo ship cutting through arctic ice and arriving in Britain in October. The Istanbul Bridge completed a journey that once existed only in theory, shaving weeks off traditional shipping routes. On paper, it was a story about efficiency. In strategic terms, it was about timing. Much like politics, arriving early matters. Especially when the route, the rules and the traffic are still undefined. For years, global politics has trained us to watch the loud moments: warships in the Taiwan Strait, sanctions announced at news conferences, leaders trading
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
The Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office on Monday announced that they would not countersign or promulgate the amendments to the Act Governing the Allocation of Government Revenues and Expenditures (財政收支劃分法) passed by the Legislative Yuan — a first in the nation’s history and the ultimate measure the central government could take to counter what it called an unconstitutional legislation. Since taking office last year, the legislature — dominated by the opposition alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party — has passed or proposed a slew of legislation that has stirred controversy and debate, such as extending
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators have twice blocked President William Lai’s (賴清德) special defense budget bill in the Procedure Committee, preventing it from entering discussion or review. Meanwhile, KMT Legislator Chen Yu-jen (陳玉珍) proposed amendments that would enable lawmakers to use budgets for their assistants at their own discretion — with no requirement for receipts, staff registers, upper or lower headcount limits, or usage restrictions — prompting protest from legislative assistants. After the new legislature convened in February, the KMT joined forces with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and, leveraging their slim majority, introduced bills that undermine the Constitution, disrupt constitutional
RSS