Fri, Mar 09, 2001 page12

• Let reason guide nuclear debate

  • By Fu Daiwie 傅大為
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The ruling DPP announced, almost without condition, that construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (核四) is to resume. This move was as frustrating as it was desperate. Just a few days before the announcement, we had heard that unconditional resumption of construction had been rejected, and then, just a few days later, the government was already moaning and groaning, expressing profound regret that construction would be resumed. The dizzying speed with which the government changed its position leaves one scratching one's head.

  After tempers have subsided, how is the DPP going to reconsider the direction of Taiwan's energy development from a macro perspective? On the one hand, we see the DPP's Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) resolutely resigning his post as the party's top adviser to protest the decision to resume construction. But we also constantly hear voices in the DPP criticizing the anti-nuclear movement.

  This kind of critical voice has basically made the anti-nuclear movement -- a cause that has influenced countless people in Taiwan and awakened broad public awareness -- look like a populist movement, lacking reason and professionalism. As the ruling party sings the praises of the "knowledge economy," this so called anti-intellectual, populist tide could well become an obstacle to the government as it attempts to move in a new policy direction. What's more, this kind of criticism implies that Taiwan must continue to depend on cheap labor and cheap electricity for its industrial output, and therefore cannot afford to "de-nuclearize" in the face of competition from manufacturing economies in East Asia and elsewhere. Similarly, it implies we shouldn't put excessive stress on environmental protection, let alone stress the fact that not one industrialized Asian country has become "non-nuclear."

  I strongly disagree with this kind of argument. First of all, the formulation of an inevitable conflict between populism and reason is actually something with which we've been familiar for quite a while. During the era of KMT rule, wasn't the slogan of "reason and professionalism" often used to suppress environmental and anti-nuclear activism? In fact, in observing the development of grassroots and environmental activism over the past 10 years, the environmental and anti-nuclear movements have proven to be the most "intellectual" of the social activist causes. Over the longterm, they have had an extremely high percentage of science and engineering professors in their ranks. In addition, the nurturing effect of the movements, as well as participants' personal stake in the issues, combined to make those involved in anti-nuclear activities the most civic-minded of their kind -- the group most able to rationally question traditional knowledge and authority.

  On numerous occasions I have seen televised debates between Kungliao (貢寮) residents and pro-nuclear professors from National Tsinghua University (清華大學), and been deeply impressed by the residents' powerful arguments and ability to raise substantial, commonsense questions. What is a truly democratic society? If knowledge and power cannot be united with civil rights, the right to information and self-determination, then democracy is just empty talk.

  Second, with regards to the question of structural restrictions on Taiwan in terms of division of labor in the global economy, we know that the international division of labor is something that is relative and historical, not absolute. In the development of the modern world system, many countries have seen their status move up and down in the global economy.

  During the 1960s and 1970s, some academics said that Taiwan suffered from structural limitations, and was thus unable to move away from an economy based on light industry and cheap labor. But, with the new opportunities found in the international economy, we were able to achieve a partial economic transformation, though at a considerable social price. Does this mean that even today we still have to use the excuse of structural limitations to suppress the environmental movement? It is precisely the restrictions imposed by this international structure that led to the state of emergency that exists today and that make it necessary for us to overcome this structural limitation -- again.

  Today, as we consider different paths of energy development, we cannot afford to let economic development and environmental activism conflict with each other. From the substantial development witnessed in Germany's alternative energy industry and looking at the business opportunities reflected in the research and development done on alternative energy, it is evident that a new energy policy that modifies the direction of economic development -- together with a socially responsible environmental policy -- could complement each other. A year ago, a Texas-based professor, Chen Mo-shing (陳謨星), published an article in Taiwan outlining alternative energy policy considerations and also criticizing the waste and hindrance to economic development associated with nuclear power. Even if construction on the nuclear plant resumes, these are ideas that are worth considering. The problems caused in California by the liberalization of the power industry should not be used as an excuse for Taiwan -- a place very different in terms of the international division of labor -- to embrace nuclear energy. By the same token, when France became a nuclear power it didn't mean that East Asia and Taiwan had to follow its example.

  Lastly, the formulation and promotion of new energy policies in the 21st century is no easy affair for Taiwan. In the past, although Taiwan's environmental and anti-nuclear movements were highly intellectual, they still had many faults and needed even more intellectuals and experts to join in. Attracting more professionals to join in the research and development of alternative energy sources while engendering more far-reaching concern in civil society -- and then combining these two to prevent the so-called "populism versus reason" bipolar conflict -- will perhaps be the keystone of the next phase of the environmental knowledge movement. As for the participation of more professionals, the research institutes of Taiwan's universities, the National Science Council (國科會) and Academia Sinica (中研院) all should bear responsibility.

  Fu Daiwie is a professor at National Tsinghua University.

  Translated by Scudder Smith
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bologna advance to face AC Milan in Coppa final

  • 2

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    HK, Macau residency rules tightened

  • 5

    Eric Chu, 2 others to be questioned for leading illegal assembly last week