Nuclear is no answer
Ever since the nuclear crisis began in Japan, I was just waiting for somebody to step forward with the argument that “given all the environmental problems caused by fossil fuels, isn’t nuclear energy the lesser of two evils?” The Taipei Times’ editorial indeed repeated this tired, old propaganda of the nuclear industry (“The irrational fear of invisible agents,” March 22, page 8).
What is wrong with these arguments is that they are based not on what kind of world we want to live in, but on purely economic cost--benefit arguments in favor of either fossil fuels or nuclear fission, with no regard for moral imperatives. Are we morally justified in creating dangerous global warming and acidic oceans, leading to collapsed ecosystems? Do we really want to burden the coming generations with thousands of tonnes of the most toxic and dangerous waste for hundreds of thousands of years?
The deep-lying fault in these arguments is what environmental economists call “externalities.”
Energy production via fossil fuels and nuclear fission produces lots of external effects, such as air pollution, global warming or cancer, some of which can be economically calculated, but some of which cannot (how do you value a lost human life?).
Therefore, the whole dreadfully simple-minded economic case which was put forward in a recent letter in favor of nuclear energy (Letters, March 25, page 8) falls apart if we simply incorporate the externality of having to safeguard nuclear waste for the next hundred thousand years. The neo-liberal school of economics is forever disregarding external costs as if they do not exist, which makes it highly cost-effective to trash the planet. Environmental economics tries to incorporate these costs. However, many decisions should not be based on such cost-benefit analyses alone, even if they incorporate environmental externalities, but on what kind of world we want to live in.
I want to live in a world in which we avert the threat of global warming and nuclear poisoning through a massive investment into truly renewable energy sources. I like to show my students a diagram that shows that we only need to capture less than one-thousandth of all the solar energy reaching the earth to provide for all of our energy needs.
We do not have a -shortage of renewable energy, but a shortage of political will. If we made a moral decision to do so, we could revamp the entire world economy in one or two decades to run on solar, geothermal and tidal energy — the three truly long-term sustainable energy sources.
Moreover, through economies of scale, renewable energies would soon become cheaper than fossil fuel or nuclear energy.
Truly renewable energies are the only solution that any responsible parent would wish for his or her child.
The only people who are despicable are those who are willing to trash the planet in the name of economic efficiency, which is just another way of saying “for the sake of economic greed.”
Bruno Walther
Taipei
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
RSS