Every year on Earth Day politicians make pledges to protect the environment. Much talk focuses on what individuals can or should do to conserve energy or recycle, instead of what governments or the private sector can or should do. Even when government action is promised, such vows are aimed at gaining headlines and TV time, not making a dent in worldwide pollution, despite the growing evidence of the damage human-driven climate change is having and will continue to have on this planet.
Taiwan is no different. Like many developing nations, it is often worse, as in the rush to development preference was given to the manufacturing, petrochemical and nuclear energy industries at the expense of the environment. Over the past decade or so, the tourism industry has become more prominent, necessitating the construction of hotels and other infrastructure, often in mountainous or coastal areas, putting pressure on land that cannot sustain such building without massive amounts of concrete, thus negating much of the beauty of the landscape that attracted visitors in the first place.
National development plans have paid lip service to environmental issues while focusing on expropriating land to build more industrial and science parks, regardless of local water resources.
While this nation has many laws to regulate development and protect flora, fauna, forests, farmland and water catchment areas, they have often been ignored, curtailed or lack the teeth to back up administrative policy with strict enforcement. Punishments for breaking laws are a slap on the wrist compared to the potential profits. Requirements that projects produce acceptable environmental impact assessments were for a long time too easy to circumvent through exemptions, grandfathering in or simply ignoring. Industrial waste treatment regulations have been met with illegal dumping of toxic waste and wastewater. Treatment facilities cannot handle all the waste being produced, while the “temporary containment” policy for nuclear waste is a prime example of abysmal mismanagement.
A growing divide has developed between policy set in Taipei and local governments, which are always seeking new sources of revenue. That divide has been echoed in the widening gap between policy and what the public demand for a sustainable living environment.
While there have been some victories for environmentalists, such as the effort to prevent the construction of a naphtha cracker, to save the pink dolphin and protect crucial wetlands from new industrial development, they have been few and far between. Moreover, new battlegrounds emerge every year.
Calls to make Taipei, other cities and industrial areas “greener” are like slapping a bandage on a broken leg.
Efforts to protect Taiwan’s ecology and environment received a boost in November last year with the release of the documentary Beyond Beauty: Taiwan From Above (看見台灣), which drove home the cost of a “development first” mind-set. The number of denuded and eroded mountainsides, polluted rivers and the amount of land subsidence was blindingly clear from the film’s aerial viewpoint, an aspect rarely seen by urbanites and policymakers ensconced in air-conditioned offices.
Soon after the film’s premiere, Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) told his Cabinet that they had to “take an iron fist” to environmental problems. Cabinet members were divided into five teams to draw up reports on “16 crucial” problems highlighted by the film. Yet after these teams presented initial reports, little more has been heard from the Executive Yuan about what actions it will take.
On Tuesday, more promises will be made, slogans uttered and photo ops embraced. As the Sunflower movement showed, there is a groundswell of support for something other than just blue-green politics as usual, and Taiwanese must make their collective voice heard for tough environmental protection measures before the image of “Ilha Formosa” becomes just a ghost of the past.
This article has been corrected since it was first published.
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