Uber’s arrival in Taiwan in 2013 sparked massive protests by taxi unions and professional drivers. The demonstrators demanded that the Investment Commission revoke Uber Taiwan’s investment license on grounds that the company engaged in “unfair competition.”
Policy commentary has thus far focused on fairness issues, internal market regulations, taxation and consumer protection, but has yet to broaden the discussion to evaluate Uber’s potential environmental effects and their implications for sustainable transport systems.
Are Uber and other similar transportation network companies (TNCs) — eg, Lyft and SideCar — climate friends or foes? This is an increasingly critical question as the services proliferate globally, but the answer is still unclear at this moment.
The ride-sharing platforms, unsurprisingly, insist on their positive effects on the environment. The companies claim that passengers are helping lower the carbon footprint left by the modern “driving alone” transportation model and reducing the desire for personal car ownership.
However, a recent study by London’s Department of Transport suggested the rise of ride-sharing apps, such as Uber, has played a part in worsening traffic congestion. In the past few years, the number of private-hire cars has increased by 26 percent, because some people use ride-sharing services to take trips that they would not have taken otherwise.
The transportation situation varies by city and nation. To formulate robust policy solutions, Taiwan first needs to collect data and carry out independent assessments on TNCs mobility, emissions and environmental effects within its own territory.
In terms of legal action and regulatory responses, Uber is involved in at least 173 lawsuits around the world. In October last year, the Court of Justice of the EU was requested by a Spanish judge to issue a preliminary ruling to declare Uber’s legal status either as a transportation company or a digital platform provider.
Given past litigious experiences, government authorities face two options. The first is to simply ban the market entry of Uber and other similar TNCs. This choice might deprive people of collaborative consumption benefits and trigger legal disputes. The second option is to allow Uber to compete at the same level with local taxi companies and harness the sharing services’ pro-environmental potential for promoting a more sustainable transportation system.
Regulatory reform processes from early-acting jurisdictions, such as the US states of California and Colorado and the city of Seattle, have offered insightful lessons. For example, California has set a minimum fuel-efficiency standard and model, engine and year restrictions on vehicles eligible for Uber drivers. The California regulators also require all TNCs to submit reports detailing their drivers, routes, passengers, payments and the services provided within each ZIP code.
These additional low-carbon requirements and compulsory reporting standards can be useful to balance the interests of public safety, environmental protection and flexibility for innovation in the transport sector.
Technological changes bring both challenges and opportunities. Transport policy should be politically and publicly acceptable. Besides the operation of the Investment Commission, Taiwan might need a cross-agency policy
making integration, especially between transport and environmental authorities, and take this chance to convene public consultations on the regulatory environment for app-based platforms and collaborative economy.
Yang Chung-han is a doctoral candidate researching international environmental law at the University of Cambridge in England.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS