As Taiwan is discussing the adoption of a greenhouse gas reduction act, I would like to share the EU’s experience in this field.
The EU considers the risks incurred by the whole world because of climate change to be extremely high. The rise of the Earth’s average temperature has wide-ranging consequences not only on ocean levels, but also ultimately on desertification, the availability of water resources, our ability to grow the food necessary for the world’s population and the occurrence of extreme weather phenomena such as typhoons. Limiting the overall rise in temperature to 2?C on average is a realistic yet difficult objective, which requires the world’s greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by at least 50 percent by 2050 compared with 1990 levels.
Europeans have decided to face up to their responsibility in this regard. With 500 million citizens, the EU is the largest economy in the world, accounting for about one-fourth of global GDP. It is also historically a region which has been emitting a relatively high quantity of greenhouse gases. However, EU populations are also increasingly aware of the immediate links between our wellbeing and the preservation of our environment. For this reason, the EU has been at the forefront of the international fight against global warming.
We have decided, unilaterally, to adopt very ambitious greenhouse-gas reduction targets and inscribed them into law. Based on 1990 levels, we aim to reduce our emissions by 20 percent by 2020. By 2050, our aim is to reach a reduction of more than 80 percent. To do this, the EU has developed a series of policies, ranging from research and innovation to a very stringent system of gradually diminishing maximum emissions limits, as well as a carbon emissions rights market called the EU Emissions Trading System.
This very ambitious goal will not harm the European economy or industry. On the contrary, it will not only contribute significantly to tackling the problem of climate change worldwide, but will also encourage our societies and businesses to find new ways of consuming and producing, to innovate and to bring even more scientific and technological progress into our lives. In the end, this goal will help us to not only maintain our wellbeing, but even improve our quality of life.
Is this realistic? Yes, it is. Our experience is telling: We have already reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent over the past two decades. At the same time, our economy has grown by 40 percent.
What conclusions could be drawn, for the benefit of Taiwan, out of the EU’s experience?
First, we must face up to a fact: Taiwan’s greenhouse gas emissions are significant on a global level. They account for about 1 percent of global emissions, whereas Taiwan’s population is less than 0.4 percent of the global total. Per capita, emissions in Taiwan are already higher than the EU average. This means that Taiwan, just like the EU, has a responsibility in facing our common challenge.
Second, the absence of more meaningful participation in international climate change forums, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — although it would be good if this could be improved — cannot be used as a pretext for doing nothing. In reality, we are in a phase of the global fight against climate change where major actions are decided voluntarily and unilaterally. Taiwan can do this, in the same way as the EU, and be part of the international endeavor against climate change through concrete action.
Third, and maybe more importantly from the point of view of Taiwan’s interests, it would be risky for the development of the economy to let things go on as usual, allowing old methods of production and energy-greedy modes of consumption to continue and expand, while other advanced economies move forward and innovate. On the contrary, adopting ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals and efficient policies to reach them would push the economy toward more competitiveness, better energy security, the development of new economic sectors and job opportunities in the “green economy,” and so on.
The EU came to the conclusion that doing nothing to combat climate change could seem good for the economy in the short term, but would be disastrous in the long run. Conversely, efforts to curb emissions today are bound to bring about great benefits tomorrow, even from the strict point of view of economics.
Lastly, the EU is ready to share its experience in fighting climate change with Taiwan. However, in the end, it depends on Taiwan to make the political decision and set the goal of a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the years to come and to define the binding tools to reach this goal. Starting now and taking concrete, decisive action without delay is the best way to succeed.
Frederic Laplanche is the head of the European Economic and Trade Office in Taipei.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath