The government continues to spout slogans about global warming, the impending energy crisis, energy savings and how to cut carbon emissions. However, ask what President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) energy policy is and government officials are unlikely to have an answer.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs’ Bureau of Energy recently proposed instructions for a revaluation of energy development guidelines as required by the Energy Management Law (能源管理法), with the objective of drafting a coherent energy policy for the next decade. These instructions suggested two solutions: decommissioning nuclear power reactors and increasing the number of coal-fired power plants to meet basic needs or the continued use of nuclear reactors, in conjunction with the expansion of coal-fired power plants. The bureau recommended the second solution.
This has drawn criticism from environmental protection groups. Limited storage of fossil fuels in recent years has set prices skyrocketing, causing many countries to look for ways to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy sources such as wind, water and solar power.
In light of this, environment protection groups have criticized the government, saying its energy policies are too conservative and designed to protect the interests of the nuclear and coal-fired power industries.
Not long ago, the solar power sector protested against a sudden reversal in government procurement policy for solar-generated electricity, a decision that could spell serious trouble for private sector investment.
Having concluded that the prices offered by privately operated power plants are much higher than for power generated at Taipower’s coal-fired and nuclear power plants, the government said it would stop buying their energy in order to cut costs.
However, the cost of solar and wind-generated electricity is high worldwide, making them not commercially viable at the moment. Governments are willing to pay a premium because they want to encourage the use of non-fossil fuels and prop up those industries until they become commercially viable. Taipei’s sudden decision is short-sighted and did nothing but protect traditional energy interests.
More importantly, the Ma administration’s energy policy is not a stand-alone policy, it is closely interwoven with the national industrial development strategy. If the government continues to promote high-pollution, high-energy consumption industries, such as the petrochemical and steel industries, then energy demand will continue to grow, the life of the third nuclear power plant will be extended, the fourth nuclear power plant will be built and coal-fired power plants will be expanded.
If, however, the government reviews industrial transformation and groups together high tech and high value-added industries with the cultural, creative and service industries as the businesses of the future, then it could be possible to limit the increase in energy demand or even possibly reduce it.
If the bureau fails to consider the nation’s industrial future, the likely outcome is increased energy consumption.
Ma often repeats a slogan on saving energy and cutting carbon emissions, and has promised that Taiwan will respect the Kyoto Protocol and any emission reduction agreements agreed at future international environmental conferences.
Despite this, the current report contains no commitments to live up to the Kyoto Protocol. If Ma really does think the environment, energy saving and carbon emission cuts are important, he should call a national energy conference so that concerned organizations can draw up action plans that promote sustainable environmental protection.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS