Fig leaf environmentalism
The ongoing charade that is Taiwan’s environmental policy is there for all to see. This time, the much mooted anti-idling law is supposed to be the thing that will turn the tide and make Taiwan “green”: I am not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The government has finally outlawed drivers from allowing their vehicles to idle for more than three minutes (“Government idle in face of pollution”, June 4, page 8). Sure, every little bit helps — but only a little bit. I want to dispute the claim made in the editorial that “the new regulation is a positive step aimed at reducing carbon emissions.”
Anybody armed with basic high school physics understands that most energy is used to accelerate bodies. Less energy, but still a lot, is used to keep them moving at a constant speed. In comparison, idling uses up very little energy. Torch Pratt’s claim that “non-idling scooter commuters can cut their gas bills by 60 percent” is wishful thinking and most certainly not based on science (“Future bright for solar power,” Apr 20, page 8).
During a normal journey, killing your engine at every opportunity may shave a few percent off your fuel consumption, which is good, but it will not make much difference to air pollution. For example, the document Idling Gets You Nowhere by the Environmental Defense Fund estimates the savings to be 1 percent or less, which is supported by other Web sites (eg, http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/idling/10617), although in cities, savings may increase to a few percent (www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml). I challenge the government or Idle-Free Taipei to come up with a scientific study which shows significantly higher numbers.
The reason why the government is pursuing such laws and is handing “wads of cash” to projects like Idle-Free Taipei is that it is easy and painless. It is, in short, fig leaf environmentalism.
As the editorial correctly points out, a government which is really serious about environmental pollution would not dilly-dally with unenforceable laws which, even if actually enforced, would hardly make a difference.
Rather, such a government would tackle the major polluters and invest in measures which would really decarbonize Taiwan’s economy: massive investment in public transport; public transport subsidies; taxing fossil fuel consumption; investing heavily in energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal; using that energy to promote electric vehicles; refurbishing all houses in Taiwan with double-glazed windows and all the other energy-saving technologies which are available (see Taipei 101’s efforts); adopt strict building codes which ensure the highest energy efficiency for every new building; subsidize the decarbonizing of Taiwan’s high-energy industries and promote even more recycling.
This should all be backed up with measurable numbers instead of wishful thinking: At the moment, every Taiwanese emits an average of 7 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. Make the goal 3.5 tonnes by 2020 and then actually do it.
With this risible anti-idling law, all the government has achieved is that it has finally lost its fig leaf and there is nothing behind the fig leaf but hot air.
Flora Faun
Taipei
The burden of proof
Penghu District Prosecutor Wu Hsun-Lung (吳巡龍) made a revealing remark during his protest in front of the Supreme Court (“Prosecutor begins one-man protest,” June 5). Protesting a Supreme Court resolution requiring prosecutors to shoulder 100 percent of the burden of proof, Wu says that he has not seen such a criminal procedure law anywhere else. Evidently, he slept through or skipped the class at Stanford Law School where it would have been explained that in the US, prosecutors bear 100 percent of the burden of proof.
Robert Pennington
Las Cruces, New Mexico
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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