As the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) second Asia Democracy Forum meets this weekend one might ask: “Is access to a clean environment a democratic right?” If so, who is responsible for protecting the environment and for implementing environmentally sustainable policies?
In a nation with an elected government, the government arguably represents the public’s interests and will therefore enact policies to protect those interests. The problem is that people are often driven by short-term gain, and the government tends to promote economic interests at the expense of environmental sustainability. This is particularly true when political campaigns are funded by big corporations that expect to see their financial interests protected while the administration they support is in office.
This is evident when large business ventures get green-lighted by the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) despite concerns from activists, while smaller, less lucrative projects are often met with delays as the government calls for additional environmental impact assessments.
Lynn MacDonald, professor emerita at Canada’s University of Guelph, said the problem lies in the fact that “governments are held accountable only in the here and now, a paltry four years, while the damage we do is long-term.”
She said the governments’ failure to act on warnings about environmental degradation — for example the Kyoto Protocol — is evidence that current political systems are not up to the task of balancing public interest with environmental protection.
Governments tend to act in ways that foster their longevity in power, while individual leaders tend to want to leave office with a legacy of public admiration.
These tendencies must be challenged if we are to ensure the long-term sustainability of Taiwan’s economy and environment. Governments must more aggressively promote environmentally conscious behavior among businesses and the public through legislation — with, for example, an outright ban on plastic bags and disposable containers, as well as a reduction in and eventual elimination of the use of fossil fuels — even if these policies make them unpopular in the short term.
This means that opposition parties must also act more cooperatively, rather than promising to reverse unpopular legislation should they take office.
Former US Environmental Protection Agency consultant Susan Hazen said that participation in environmental decisionmaking is as important as education, healthcare and other aspects of daily life for those whose daily lives reflect the quality of their environment. Daily environmental practices are inextricably linked to quality of life, and therefore it is in the public’s interest to participate in decisions that ultimately affect their environment.
However, this is only possible if the public has governmental support, as well as adequate access to the information they need to make informed decisions.
“Informed with basic facts about the quality of their environment, citizens can become active participants in identifying and resolving issues at both local and national levels,” Hazen said.
The polluting of Houjin River in Kaohsiung on Oct. 1, 2013, when Advanced Semiconductor Engineering Inc’s K7 factory was found to have discharged highly acidic effluent containing nickel into the river is evidence of the dangers that can occur when the public is inadequately informed.
The US, for example, has responded to the need for environmental information access by creating the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register in 1986 following several environmental disasters, including a chemical release from the Union Carbide plant in West Virginia in 1985. The register requires certain industrial facilities to submit data annually on the quantity of toxic chemicals they release.
On Aug. 22, when it was announced that the EPA is to be upgraded to a ministry, Premier Lin Chuan (林全) said: “Environmental protection is not at odds with development. Environmental protection and economic development can coexist and help shape an environmentally conscious economy. This is the highest goal of national development.”
Hopefully Lin and the DPP can accomplish what past administrations were unable to do.
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