The recent film An Inconvenient Truth caused quite a splash at its world premier. The movie is a recording of a 100-minute lecture given by former US vice president Al Gore on climate change and his personal feelings about it. It's not surprising that the film tries to convince viewers of the reality of climate change and its consequences. What is shocking is that a politician has finally become a true believer. Gore traveled the world getting first-hand proof from scientists and has made it his life's work to spread the message.
Gore explains the scientific evidence to a broad audience through impressive visual displays and concise narration. His audience includes students at Beijing University, business tycoons in Chicago, stock traders in New York and famous academics in London. But his appeal is still mainly to US citizens.
What this film seeks to show is that scientific research has discovered that human activities have a definite impact on the global climate, and that politicians and film makers can use their influence to change people's thinking and prevent this truth from being buried.
The most shocking part of the film comes when Gore proposes that Greenland's glaciers could melt within the current century. This could mean that in addition to many island and coastal countries, most of the US state of Florida and major cities like New York and Shanghai could all be submerged by the rising tide of flood water.
At the same time, vast quantities of fresh water would flow into the North Atlantic, interfering with the thermohaline circulation -- the global circulation of the oceans which is driven by the ocean water's density, which in turn is determined by temperature and salinity.
After a period of rapidly rising temperatures, the world could therefore be plunged into a minor ice age. The content of Gore's lecture is drawn from various influential scientific publications from around the world published in recent years. It is also the conclusion of the fourth report on climate change to be released by the United Nations Climate Change Task Force next year, and the most troubling prediction about the consequences of continued global warming.
For example, the task force's third report in 2001 estimated that the sea level will rise 0.18m to 0.66m by the end of the 21st century, leading to land subsidence among poorer communities in Taiwan's costal areas. However, those predictions have already been revised to at least a 6m rise in sea level by the end of the century, which could possibly even reach as high as 35m. If the sea rises by 6m, the Taipei basin would be half-submerged, and the Chianan plain and Ilan county's Lotung plain would be totally under water.
If the sea level rises by 35m in combination with powerful winds, frequent flooding from storms and landslides would drastically shrink Taiwan's inhabitable areas. Food shortages and unstable agricultural production would rise as arable land dwindled. Taiwan could be forced to buy all its food on the world market, and many Taiwanese could be forced to seek aid from China after being forced into exile as environmental refugees.
Perhaps we are entertaining groundless fears, but Gore believes that if our generation isn't willing to face this reality, future generations will have to pay for our failure. In the film, Gore accuses those who ignore the truth of being immoral. This is very unusual. When considered from an Eastern perspective, Gore is talking about the "hidden moral conduct" that has so much emphasis placed on it.
Many in Asia believe that the will of heaven works imperceptibly, but is nevertheless active, and that a lack of moral behavior will have repercussions. This emphasizes God as the ultimate arbitrator. Furthermore, those repercussions may not occur in the present, but could be brought upon one's children and descendants.
This thinking could clearly be used as a criticism of the harm modern people have caused by creating climate change, for which future generations must pay the price.
Gore emphasizes during the film that increasing energy efficiency and actively working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only won't hurt economic development, but will in fact help boost a country's competitiveness.
Taiwan's Cabinet recently proposed a law to reduce greenhouse gases by establishing a system to supervise greenhouse gas emissions. It also proposed imposing an energy tax to increase the costs to energy consumers. However, this plan does not clearly specify when the law will go into effect or give a timetable for emission reductions.
The whole world is racing ahead to improve energy efficiency and usher in a new age of improved energy productivity and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but the Cabinet's proposed policy is incapable of shaking up the current structure of production in Taiwan. It also limits the potential benefits of taking action by failing to set goals for the future.
It is clear that the longer Taiwan waits to face this problem, the more its competitiveness will suffer. If we are unable to see that global warming is a threat to our national security, future generations may lose their chance to continue living here.
Liu Chung-ming is director of the Global Change Research Center at National Taiwan University and Liu Ming-lung is chairman of the Environmental Quality Protection Foundation.
Translated by Marc Langer
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS