An idle mind is a dirty mind
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to enforce an edict banning motor vehicles from idling for more than three minutes (“Legal limit on vehicles idling set to be enforced,” Aug. 10, page 2). After reading the story in the Taipei Times, I couldn’t help but notice the many absurdities surrounding this new mandate.
The agency openly admits that “Emissions from motor vehicles are the main source of air contaminants in urban areas ... and have a severe impact on air quality and public health.” Yet, at the same time, the agency is condoning three full minutes of engine idling (unless it’s 30°C during the hot summer, during which time vehicles may idle for as long as they want to allow for air-conditioning).
Idling any longer than 15 seconds is excessive and unnecessary. Sadly, the EPA’s new mandate could be -interpreted as saying that two minutes and forty-five seconds of idling is totally acceptable. To me, this is the same as saying that it’s permissible to litter, as long as you don’t dump a whole bucket of trash on the sidewalk.
Another problem I have with the three-minute rule, which I doubt the agency has the money or manpower to enforce, is that it is aimed at the wrong target. The problem in Taipei is not vehicles that idle for three minutes or more in front of places such as convenience stores, but rather the massive hordes of scooters that idle for more than 90 seconds, multiple times, during their daily commute.
There are intersections in Taipei where, at a two-minute red light, the cumulative idling time of the waiting scooters and motorcycles is more than 150 minutes (50 times the legal limit for a single vehicle). In my own round-trip commute, I spend on average 15 minutes (five times the legal limit for a single vehicle) at red lights.
It is time the EPA made a widespread public service announcement. Rather than impose a NT$1,500 to NT$60,000 fine for these minuscule violators, why not do more to tell commuters how it is actually in their best interests to stop idling? Wouldn’t it clean Taipei’s street-corner air much faster if people were educated about idling and how this is related to their health and wallets, instead of threatening them with fines?
Apparently, the agency seems unwilling to take this path, which is why Taipei has volunteer groups, including Idle-Free Taipei. This populist anti-pollution cause even has its own civilian superhero, Captain Air. With or without the help of the EPA or some “higher power,” these groups are committed to sending a message to motorists that idling is an unacceptable, dirty and extremely unhealthy habit that needs to stop immediately.
John Fleckenstein
Taipei
Tit-for-tat death
Regarding the recent controversies in Taiwan and abroad over the death penalty, let me propose something: If a person who is executed is eventually found innocent, then the prosecutors who successfully got that person executed should also be sentenced to death.
An execution is irreversible: If prosecutors think they are better than God in determining who should live or die, then they need to be held accountable for their decisions.
If such an accountability system is established, then naturally no more executions will ever occur.
Allen Timothy Chang
Hsinchu
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS