On Dec. 1, signatory nations to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change embarked upon what is to be a two-week round of intensive discussions at the Conference of the Parties meeting in Lima to lay the foundation for a new, universal climate change agreement in Paris next year. The aim is to keep the average global temperature increase below 2?C.
The continuous expansion of human activity, with the high levels of consumption of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation to make way for land for cultivating crops and grazing cattle, is having an impact on the climate. According to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if the target is to limit the global temperature increase below 2?C, cumulative anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cannot exceed 3.2 trillion tonnes.
Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have already been responsible for the release of about 2 trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide. How long will it be before we use up the remaining just more than 1 trillion tonnes?
In 2010, global emissions amounted to 49 billion tonnes and if this number does not stop increasing year-on-year, we have less than 30 years. By 2040, we will have reached the limit. What happens after that?
Climate change has been caused by the use of the Earth’s resources by humans, but these resources are indispensable for all political, economic and social activity.
If we are not to use coal, oil or natural gas, then what can we use? Nuclear power advocates say they have the answer, but will nuclear power fit the bill? Setting aside for the time being that nuclear power is unsafe and the problem of how to process nuclear waste, of the 32 countries that have nuclear capability in the world, not a single one relies on maintaining nuclear power alone.
If Taiwan is to rely on nuclear power alone, it will need to build plants with more than six times the current capacity. Also, since nuclear power plants cannot be started and stopped as needed, there is no way to manage the differences in peak and off-peak periods, and they of course cannot deal with current transportation requirements.
The government has shown that it has little inclination to promote renewable energy; a position clearly at odds with the international trend.
Renewable energy has only taken off over the past 10 or so years, and yet the total installed capacity already exceeds that of nuclear power, which has been in commercial use for six decades. Ten years ago, 80 percent of the new power generation facilities in EU countries were coal-fired or natural gas powered, but within the last six years, more than half of the newly installed facilities are renewable energy sources. Last year, this proportion increased to 70 percent.
Wind power accounts for more than 30 percent of Denmark’s power generation and 20 percent of Spain’s, while solar energy accounts for 8 percent of Italy’s. Meanwhile, 20 million Germans live in communities powered entirely by renewable energy sources, and about 6.5 million people worldwide are employed either directly or indirectly in renewable energy-related industries.
In 2005, the US, which has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, passed the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The RFS stipulates the amount of bioethanol that is to be used in transportation fuel annually. Last year, it was up to 10 percent. In June, the US government announced that it would reduce the amount of carbon emissions from power plants by 30 percent compared with 2005 levels by the year 2030.
In recent years there have been rapid developments in inexpensive shale gas, energy conservation and renewable energy.
Long-term droughts in California and Texas and occasional extreme weather have prompted US President Barack Obama to prioritize carbon reduction.
At the APEC summit in Beijing last month, the US achieved a climate change agreement with China. Washington undertook to reduce carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025, while Beijing agreed to ensure its carbon emissions peak by 2030. Although the undertakings by these two countries is sufficient to prevent global temperatures increasing by more than 2?C., they also greatly increase the possibility of a new universal climate change agreement.
Recently, US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern agreed that the majority of fossil fuel reserves should be left underground and not extracted. Germany’s largest power company has announced its intention to commit itself to developing renewable energy and expects to cut its coal and oil-fired sections as of 2016.
Taiwan relies almost entirely on imported energy, at a cost of between 13 and 15 percent of its annual GDP, but it seems the government has paid little thought to the possibility that one day it will not be able to buy, or afford, the energy it currently consumes.
The day when we can no longer use coal or oil is getting ever closer. Other people are busy preparing themselves for that day. Is Taiwan?
Gloria Hsu is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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