Taiwan is at an important time in developing its plans for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. It has just conducted a public hearing on its first periodic regulatory goal (for emissions reduction to 2020) and is preparing a plan of action to meet the goal.
More widely, Taiwan has committed to reducing 2050 emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels. It sees this as its contribution to international efforts, to cut emissions globally and avoid the worst effects of climate change.
It is essential that Taiwan should play its part. Taiwan ranks as the 22nd biggest economy, with substantial emissions. Climate change is a global problem that can only be ameliorated through global efforts.
The UK has a stronger target than Taiwan, set in legislation, to reduce 2050 emissions by at least 80 percent on 1990 levels (this translates to about a 75 percent reduction on 2005). So far, UK emissions have been reduced 42 percent since 1990, while GDP is up 67 percent.
So I visited Taiwan on a trip organized by the British Office Taipei and the Taiwan Research Institute to share the UK experience, in the expectation that there could be useful lessons on which Taiwan could draw.
I met many committed individuals, with much expertise, struggling with the requirements on how best to take forward the commitments made — at the Taiwan Research Institute, Office of Energy and Carbon Reduction, the Environmental Protection Administration and Academia Sinica, as well as other leading experts and non-governmental organizations.
Based on such a short visit, I should be careful about drawing conclusions to quickly. However, in the hope that they might prompt further consideration, I will make a couple of observations.
First, the UK experience prior to the 2008 Climate Change Act, was that it is very difficult to draw a program of action together when the center is reliant on the “offers” of constituent parts. It is highly likely that each relevant department, or sector, will be cautious in its ambition and look to others to make up any gap.
Part of the answer to that, in the UK, was to establish a body of experts — the Committee on Climate Change — independent of government, to provide advice on emission reduction targets and to monitor progress.
The committee looks across the economy to consider abatement potential on a consistent basis in the different sectors. It reports annually to the British parliament on whether progress is on track to targets.
Having an independent source of advice can be helpful to the government in considering how fast, and where, progress can best be achieved.
There are sources of technical expertise in Taiwan, in academia and research institutions, but nothing like this independent body. It might be worth considering whether and how such a model could be applied.
Second, it is important not to be overcautious. The speed of market development and technology change can surprise, in a good way.
Development of offshore wind in the UK is a case in point. Only three years ago, the cost of electricity generation from offshore wind was about US$200 per terawatt-hour (TWh). The industry was tasked with looking at how this might be reduced to US$133/TWh by 2020, and this was thought ambitious.
Recently, auctions for new-build offshore wind have secured investment at a price of about US$75/TWh, hugely reduced on what we thought possible even a couple of years ago. This has been achieved through deployment — building of offshore wind that has led to learning in technology development across the supply chain.
A small premium has had to be paid — in the higher immediate cost of this technology — to secure these reductions, but has been rewarded with a significant new industry with growth potential, and with expectations of further cost reductions to come and competitive prices without subsidy.
The lesson is that not knowing all the answers now should not be an excuse for inaction. Deployment efforts, development of options, monitoring results and adapting continuing actions in the light of that experience can be productive.
It is also consistent with the overall direction of travel. Consistent with the Paris agreement and international efforts to reduce emissions, markets in low-carbon technologies and services can be expected to grow many times over — and faster than the economy as a whole.
Deployment of emerging low-carbon technologies in Taiwan and development of markets in areas with the most potential, can put Taiwan ahead of others in the search for international markets. That could be good for Taiwan’s emissions, contribute to global efforts to combat climate change and be good for the economy too.
Adrian Gault is chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body in the UK established under the Climate Change Act 2008 that provides advice to the British government on building a low-carbon economy and preparing for climate change. He visited Taiwan on Nov. 20 and Nov. 21.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost