Wed, Nov 15, 2000 page8

• Letters

  Nuclear pros and cons

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Is the political crisis over the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (核四) really about nuclear power? I think it is just part of the ongoing political struggle between the KMT and DPP and the nuclear issue is just a political backdrop.

  When the KMT, split and humiliated after the May election, tried to reassert itself through its majority in the legislature, the DPP president became increasingly frustrated by his failure to push through his policies. With no money in the government coffers to implement his social welfare policies and the war against"black gold" going slowly, Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) decided to make a stand on the nuclear power plant issue. If Chen could take the high ground on nuclear power and secure public backing for his decision, the KMT majority in the legislature would back down. This victory would give him the upper-hand in the struggle for power between the executive and legislative branches.

  It is too bad that Chen made this policy issue his Rubicon, because his decision is fundamentally flawed. The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is more than just a debate over nuclear energy. Some may argue that the KMT should not have started building this plant in the first place. Sure, if the power plant were still in its planning stage, the project would be relatively easy to cancel. But the KMT made the plant a cornerstone of its economic development policy. With the plant, the government was able to convince the public that Taiwan's power needs would be met well into the future. And of course, once the plant was started, there was no need to debate the alternatives.

  When the DPP took power in May,?everyone knew that they wanted to stop construction of the plant. But by halting construction at this point, the DPP is basically attempting to change past policy, rather than influencing present and future policy. This is a bad precedent for Taiwan. By trying to go back and overturn past decisions without a powerful mandate to do so, Chen is promoting a culture of undoing that is detrimental to Taiwan's democracy.?If he succeeds, what is to stop future KMT or PFP governments from overturning his policies when he leaves office? If this happens, all continuity in government will be lost.

  Chen's lack of economic experience is his greatest liability. When he was a legislator and mayor of Taipei, he mainly concentrated on social and political issues. Decisions on these issues do not always have a direct effect on the economy. For example, tearing down private houses on public land or renaming a park may score political points, but they do not have a major effect on the economy. Stopping construction of the plant unquestionably does. By halting construction, Chen was effectively saying the KMT's energy policy was fundamentally wrong, so we have a responsibility to change it. "Don't worry though, we, the DPP, a party with no experience in making national economic policy, guarantee that there will be no power shortages in the future." How is the business community supposed to place this amount of trust in a government with no track record?

  The president needs to learn how to manage change while maintaining continuity. On the national economic level, even changes that may ultimately be beneficial have serious short-term consequences. If the party in power cannot take into account both the short-term impact and long-term benefits when making economic policy, the economy is headed for a rough ride over the next four years.

  William W. Hoyle

  Taichung

  The socialisation of costs and the privatisation of benefits is a basic practice of capital accumulation. Even if Christopher Lingle's highly questionable rendition of nuclear power plant accidents were accurate ("Nuclear facts and fiction, Nov. 12, page 9), he leaves out completely the crucial issue of nuclear waste disposal. This includes waste from nuclear plants and nuclear fuel production as well as decommissioned nuclear plants.

  Lanyu's Tao (Yami) Aboriginal people currently carry the bulk of the externalised costs of Taiwan's nuclear power production in what some have termed a serious case of "environmental racism." Several thousand of the 100,000 barrels of nuclear waste there are leaking, contaminating Lanyu. The Tao are politically marginalized and therefore are forced to carry the costs of Taiwan's industrialization while receiving little of the benefit.

  The mining and refining of uranium creates significant environmental dangers. For example, in July 1979, a spill from a uranium mill tailings dam in the US, near Churchrock, New Mexico, released 94 million gallons of tailings liquids and 1,100 tons of tailings solids into the Rio Puerco River. This contaminated the only water source for the local Navaho Aboriginal peoples. Throughout the world, production of nuclear fuels is extremely polluting, producing massive amounts of radioactive tailings wastes. There are no proven methods for safe long-term disposal of nuclear wastes. Some isotopes remain toxic for several thousand years so nuclear power requires future generations to bare the costs of containment.

  Lingle advocates continuation of severe discrimination against those who are politically weak such as the Tao, Navaho, the young and even future generations by forcing them to carry the social costs of today's capital accumulation. He repeatedly advocates the "divine right" of markets over all other social considerations. This kind of economistic fundamentalism is extremely dangerous to present and future generations.

  Mark Munsterhjelm

  Sanchung City
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Chinese technicians join airport MRT project

  • 2

    A train for whom? Is a new monorail helpful for Cairo?

  • 3

    Apple is giving Intel’s turnaround some momentum

  • 4

    Taiwan firms eye Philippines amid shift to non-China supply chains: CIER

  • 5

    Taiwan wants bilingual, AI-ready graduates — but tests for yesteryear