Tue, Aug 28, 2012 page8

• LETTERS

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Hau needs more action

  I agree wholeheartedly with Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) (“Taipei mayor says he does not plan to visit Chen in prison,” Aug. 24, page 1), who said that granting former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) medical parole would “heal the wounds caused by social and political division” — a point I had also raised in an earlier letter (Letter, Aug. 3, page 8).

  Hau’s call — made amid a hostile political climate because of the pan-blue and pan-green division, both at the elite and grassroots levels — reflects the magnanimity and conduct we would expect of a politician who puts the welfare of the nation above his or his party’s interests.

  Hau has taken the first bold step to express his view on the issue and I urge him to further demonstrate his impartiality as a politician through concrete actions, including a visit to Chen in prison, as this will enable him to better gauge the former president’s health.

  At the end of the day, Hau must demonstrate, through actions, his independence from his party on issues that are non-political in nature, as is the case of granting medical parole for Chen on humanitarian grounds.

  Taiwan is facing many challenges and a humane arrangement with regards to Chen’s deteriorating health will pave the way for the ruling and opposition parties to work together to tackle the thorny issues, including economic growth, ahead.

  In conclusion, I humbly reiterate my plea to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to release Chen on medical parole. This is the first and necessary step Ma must take if he sincerely wishes to reunite the divided nation. Ma’s refusal to do so will only strengthen international perception that Chen is being persecuted for advocating Taiwanese independence during his eight-year term.

  Jason Lee

  Singapore

  Fig-leaf environmentalism

  And so the fig-leaf environmentalism of Taiwan’s government continues.

  This time, the transformation into a “low” carbon economy will apparently be achieved through encouraging four cities in Taiwan to reduce their carbon emissions through various energy saving measures (“EPA clarifies low-carbon cities plan,” Aug. 25, page 4). While every little bit helps, it helps only a little.

  Overall, these efforts are much too late, woefully inadequate and painfully unambitious.

  Notice, foremost, that they are not tied to any goals of actually reducing greenhouse emissions, as suggested by my earlier letter (“Letters,” June 11, page 8). While the proposed efforts will reduce carbon emissions for those sectors where the money is spent (eg, energy-saving lights), carbon emissions may well go up everywhere else. After all, it is national policy to grow the economy (“Ma speech focuses on economic growth,” May 21, page 1), in itself a dubious goal, benefitting mostly the rich (“Sharing the benefits of economic development,” Sept. 10, 2010, page 8).

  Because economic growth is still tied to energy usage, emissions will go up. So why does the government not announce that with every 1 percentage point growth of the economy, total energy consumption must decrease by 1 percentage point? By making this a national requirement, the true decoupling of economic growth and greenhouse emissions would take place (see Cents and Sustainability: Securing Our Common Future by Decoupling Economic Growth from Environmental Pressure).

  Furthermore, why on earth is this program not rolled out on a national scale making all cities eligible? For lack of money? Given that one global-warming strengthened typhoon after another is wrecking people’s lives and harming Taiwan’s economy, most likely every US$1 spent on reducing carbon emissions now will actually be US$10 saved in the future (see Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change). It is simply the short-sightedness of our decision-makers and the inadequacy of our economic systems that allow carbon-based economies to still be considered economically viable.

  Not only is the scientific case for human-caused climate change now overwhelming, but also the economic case for doing something about it. Given that all the various positive climate feedbacks will probably accelerate climate change past everybody’s expectations in the next few decades, a sea-level rise of about 1m by the end of the century is quite likely (www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/read/default.html).

  Add to that ever-strengthening typhoons and you can probably kiss Taiwan’s coastal areas bye-bye, unless literally billions are invested into sea defenses and other mitigating measures. So why not spend the billions now?

  In the process, Taiwan would turn into an industrial leader in low-carbon technology, create many highly qualified professionals and dramatically reduce air pollution. Is it not worth the money to reduce rates of asthma, premature births and lung cancer (“Doctors warn on pollution risks,” Feb. 18, page 2)?

  I suggest asking your children. And by the way, Ma, just because children don’t vote does not mean they do not have rights.

  Flora Faun

  Taipei
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Philippine banana sauce stopped at border: FDA

  • 2

    Chinese landing ships vulnerable, military expert says

  • 3

    Olympic medalist Lin pulled from world championships

  • 4

    Australian, Canadian ships transit Strait

  • 5

    US senator urges deeper US-Taiwan ties