In late 2007 and early 2008, during my term as minister of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), two major development projects, heavily polluting and with high energy consumption, were planned at the sixth naphtha cracker in Mailiao Township (麥寮), Yunlin County. Based on Article 8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法), the EPA decided that the two projects — Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology Co’s proposed eighth naphtha cracker and Formosa Plastics Corp’s planned steel mill — both required a phase two environmental impact assessment (EIA).
The main reason for the decision was that if the development were approved, the resulting pollution would exceed the environmental carrying capacity, and the developers could not come up with ways of adjusting the environmental cost by reducing the pollution.
When reporting to then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), I said: “These two major development projects, heavily polluting and with a high energy consumption, will spew out black smoke together with the sixth naphtha cracker day in and day out. How can that be a good thing?”
When Chen asked: “So what should we do?” I had no choice but to frankly say that: “The best thing would be to re-evaluate the two projects; the best thing would be not to build them at all.”
All the members of the EIA committee felt that there was a risk that the projects would have a major impact on the environment and that we should go on with a phase-two EIA.
The result was that the Kuokuang plant could not be built in Mailiao, and the company instead proposed building it in Changhua County, at a 2,000 hectare wetland close to Dacheng Township (大城). Should we really allow that area, now almost free from pollution, to also be so polluted that it exceeds the environmental carrying capacity? And what does environmental carrying capacity mean? It is a so-called “environmental and health standard” setting a maximum pollution value that we are supposed to accept just because it has been arrived at by a lot of so-called “academics and experts” who consider themselves smart. The question is if we should all be forced to just accept this maximum value? Former associate administrator of the US’ Environmental Protection Agency Milton Russell often says that many people think pollution emissions are unethical, but that the question being asked is how much pollution is needed for it to be considered unethical: Talking about what levels of pollution are acceptable is a bit like talking about how many times a child can be sexually molested before it is seen as immoral.
There are not many people who think there is no risk that the Kuokuang project will have a major environmental impact. This is why there should only be two possible outcomes of the assessment of the environmental impact of building a plant at the Dacheng wetlands in Changhua: Moving on to a phase-two EIA in strict accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, or an all-out rejection and abandonment of the project. If the project is handled in the same way as the EIA for the Suhua Freeway project, where the authorities first set a timetable before “conditionally” accepting the EIA, that would smack of political considerations. In addition, supervising the project in accordance with the EIA after it has been approved would both increase the cost to society and waste national resources, not to mention raising concerns about violating the law. The academics and experts appointed by the EPA to sit on the EIA committee should give careful consideration to the issue and follow the law.
Winston Dang is a former Environmental Protection Administration minister.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS