The vexing problem of supplying reliable energy while also tackling air pollution and climate change continues to occupy the minds of politicians and editorial writers in Taiwan.
Given this heated atmosphere, it was only a matter of time until the nuclear card was played again (“Nuclear power is the best for the environment,” Dec. 5, page 8).
The author, Lu Shyi-min (呂錫民), claims that nuclear power is clean and cheap, and therefore preferable to fossil fuels. However, this is completely misleading.
If you search Lu’s article for the words “accident,” “decommissioning,” “storage” or “terrorist,” you will not find them, because the nuclear propagandists do not want you to consider these serious problems.
If we add decommissioning nuclear plants and storing of nuclear waste for thousands of years to the costs of nuclear power, it is not cheap. Besides being astronomically uneconomical, it puts unfair and unjustifiable economic burdens and environmental risks on hundreds of future generations.
No government in the world has found a satisfying answer to the safe long-term storage of nuclear waste, which is exactly why the propagandists never mention this problem.
They also never mention the possibility of accidents or attacks. We know that the risk of serious accidents is very low, with only two catastrophic accidents so far: at the Chernobyl and Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plants. However, a very low probability still means that an accident can happen and given the locations of Taiwan’s nuclear plants, the consequences would likely be catastrophic.
Another low, but serious risk is that of a purposeful attack, either by a foreign military or terrorists.
Finally, even without accidents, the entire nuclear cycle constantly emits low-level radioactivity and this could become, through bioaccumulation and biomagnification, a more serious health risk over longer time periods.
In conclusion, nuclear power is neither clean nor cheap.
However, the decision by President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government to replace nuclear power largely with fossil fuels over the next decade is just as ill-advised.
As we are rapidly approaching climate (“Global warming outpacing forecasts,” Dec. 8, page 6) and ecosystem meltdowns (“Climate-related death of coral worldwide alarms scientists,” April 13, 2016, page 9), every carbon dioxide molecule added to the atmosphere should be considered a crime.
Furthermore, just about every week, another study comes out which demonstrates how incredibly harmful air pollution is to human health (“Air pollution a global public health emergency: WHO,” Jan. 21, 2016, page 9).
How so-called experts could claim that the danger is overexaggerated beggars belief (“Expert says air pollution issue is overexaggerated,” Dec. 6, page 3). For example, recent research in the UK has linked air pollution to low birth weight in children that can cause lifelong damage to health. My own research suggests a link between air pollution and children’s mental health.
Consequently, “renewable energies are the only solution that any responsible parent would wish for his or her child” (Letters, Mar. 28, 2011, page 8).
While that is the declared long-term goal for many governments, including Taiwan’s, the planned transition to a zero-carbon economy remains far too slow to avoid climate and ecosystem catastrophe.
As French President Emmanuel Macron said: “We are not moving fast enough” (“Investors turn against fossil fuels at summit,” Dec. 14, page 6).
Therefore, the government’s decision to replace nuclear power with fossil fuel power over the next decade should be reversed, because it contributes further to air pollution and climate change.
To not immediately replace both nuclear power and fossil fuels with renewable energy again leaves future generations to pick up the bill.
Ten years ago, leading climate expert and Nobel laureate Stephen Schneider, who I interviewed personally, said: “[Renewable energy] should’ve started 30 years ago, [but] people [are] trying to delay it further, which is ultimately irrational.”
Every single dollar going to fossil fuels and not to renewable energy this year or next year, or in the coming decades, is a crime against the environment and, ultimately, against human health and well-being.
In this heated discussion about energy supply, another important topic seems to have been forgotten. In every article about this topic published in the Taipei Times over the past few months, almost nobody has mentioned the cleanest energy source — lowering energy demand.
Some scientists have estimated that we could maintain our lifestyles with 10 percent of the energy that we currently use. While that might be a tall order, especially in the short term, energy savings is nevertheless the cleanest and quickest solution.
I always tell my students that if the money spent on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮) had instead been spent on double glazing, this would have probably saved more energy than the plant would have ever produced, given how ridiculously bad the insulation of Taiwan’s buildings is.
Better insulated buildings, expanded and free public transport, vegetarian or low-meat diets, increased reuse and recycling, and so on, should all be part of the package, because they all contribute to a better living environment and save energy as well.
The final irony is that the fossil fuel and nuclear energy representatives basically know that their time is up (“Investors turn against fossil fuels at summit,” Dec. 14, page 6) because renewables are already cheaper, but they also know that delaying the inevitable, even by a few years, means trillions of dollars of profits, which is why the propagandists continue to be supported by the industry.
All that we ecologists can do is continue to speak out against this collective madness and hope that the public hears it, and that the people who can make decisions make the right decisions to save the public’s health and the planet’s ecology.
Bruno Walther is assistant professor in the master program in Global Health and Development at Taipei Medical University.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with