Truth and trolls
With the publication of the new, fifth report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the climate change denial trolls are predictably crawling out of their hiding places for one last round of regurgitated lies (“International climate change report says human cause ‘likely’, ” Oct. 1, page 9; “Climate change report is devastating, but skeptics see a conspiracy,” Oct. 1, page 9).
Scientific evidence is now so overwhelming and unequivocal that every scientific academy in the world and more than 95 percent of climate scientists agree with the conclusions of the IPCC that, without meaningful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures will rise by 2°C to 5°C by the end of the century, freak weather events will increase and the oceans will become more acidic.
Laudably, the Taipei Times which used to print articles and letters by climate change deniers like Bjorn Lomborg, Jason Lamantia or Taiwan’s very own denialist supremo, Michael Fagan, has stopped printing such flat-earth
nonsense for the last couple of years. Nevertheless, the usual denialist claptrap has been pushed around the globe, produced by the right-wing media and the other usual neoliberal, free-market suspects.
Their logic is easy to understand: Every year which passes by without meaningful global legislation on curbing greenhouse emissions is a few more trillion dollars in the bank accounts of the fossil fuel companies. Now, wouldn’t you lie for a few cool trillion in the bank?
Owners of fossil fuel companies like the Koch brothers and Gina Rinehart certainly think so.
Soon, humanity will reach a breaking point. Will it make lying about and inaction on climate change a crime (http://tinyurl.com/2cu4pza, http://eradicatingecocide.com)? Or will humanity continue to look the other way and let future generations pick up our bill?
Let’s hope humanity will embrace a healthy, low-carbon future for its own sake and the sake of all the other species it shares the planet with.
Flora Faun
Taipei
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS