When US President George W. Bush’s administration declined yet again last week to take action to regulate carbon emissions, its excuse was farcical. The US Environmental Protection Agency cited the “great complexity, controversy and active legislative debate” as reasons for postponing measures that the US Supreme Court ordered implemented last year.The news broke just days after G8 leaders — including Bush — agreed in Japan to a “vision” of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, and one day before Bush repeated his call to open protected areas of Alaska to oil drilling. Bush will be remembered as the US president who did nothing when the urgency of global warming was crystal clear.
But the US is hardly alone in dodging its environmental responsibilities. Earlier this month, Minister of Economic Affairs Yiin Chii-ming (尹啟銘) said the government would put off regulatory action on emissions and rely instead on encouraging voluntary reductions.
While South Korea has “implemented coercive measures” to cut carbon emissions, Yiin said, “Our government believes that saving energy is a universal value and will gain public support.”
Yiin’s optimism sounded like a bad joke given the nation’s track record, with emissions that continue to grow at an embarrassing rate.
The question is how long it will take for the public and companies to set the nation on the right track without government regulation and whether we — and the world — can afford to wait that long. Initiatives such as the Industrial Technology Research Institute’s implementation of energy-saving measures and a green pact among 53 hospitals, hotels and department stores are encouraging, but no more than a drop in the bucket.
Hoping that a solution to environmental concerns will materialize without government action is unwise and ludicrous. It would also seem to contradict Yiin’s statement the same day about the administration’s vision for the environment — reining in greenhouse-gas emissions and lowering them to their 2000 level by 2025.
And just two days after Yiin’s remarks, Council for Economic Planning and Development Chairman Chen Tain-jy (陳添枝) called for legislation to regulate emissions cuts, saying the nation could “wait no longer.”
Chen emphasized the economic benefits of going green, noting that it would spur growth in eco-friendly technology and products. Indeed, the energy-saving campaign at the 53 hospitals, hotels and stores is expected to pour NT$1.04 billion (US$33 million) into the green-product industry within three years, while reducing the participants’ combined emissions by 83,000 tonnes.
If President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wants to succeed where his predecessor achieved little, his voice is needed in this debate. Ma should make clear his administration’s goals for the environment and how it intends to meet them.
If ambitious emissions reductions are to be realized over the next few decades, the government must recognize its role in bringing about change by seeking legally binding environmental targets.
At a time when it is scrambling to deliver on its promises of a stronger economy, working for environmental conservation is not out of synch with these goals. As Chen said, the switch to a green economy and infrastructure holds its own promise.
There is money to be made by cleaning up our act, but more importantly, the price of not doing so may be too dear.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS