Respect for environment
A devastating leak prompted by an explosion at an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico last month means it might take decades for the Louisiana wetlands to recover from an oil spill three times larger than previously thought .
The disaster caused by the oil spill is a nightmare, and calls for immediate action to save threatened areas not only to reduce the environmental and economic impact but also to protect the natural ecology.
US President Barack Obama tried to reassure fishermen and others in the Louisiana area that the government would do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to cope with the oil spill (“Obama reassures as oil spill spreads,” May 4, page 7). However, after much calculation, the extent of the seriousness of this pollution is still unknown.
The US government should pay full attention to the consequences of this catastrophe because the fishing and tourism industries and the ecosystem of the affected areas will suffer severely. Moreover, it might take decades for the polluted areas to recover.
All of us understand that oil is one of the most important energy sources and is indispensable in many industries; nevertheless, the damage caused by leaking oil has prompted people to rethink the impact of offshore oil exploration.
Our natural resources and marine wildlife have been seriously harmed by accidents such as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
People have searched for alternative energy forms such as solar, wind and geothermal energy since the turn of the century.
This most recent disaster has taught us not only to focus on people’s safety on offshore rigs, but to also put more effort into developing alternative and renewable energy sources.
In conclusion, it is imperative that we take it as our responsibility to protect the Earth. After all, our world cannot afford more damage from disasters such as oil spills, earthquakes, floods and drought.
CLAIRE WU
Taipei County
Pacific Islanders’ history
With reference to your review of my book, Surviving Paradise (“Notes from a very small island,” May 9, page 14), and Bradley Winterton’s doubts about my claim that Taiwanese Aborigines colonized the Pacific Islands, I would like to clarify and support this claim.
It is the orthodox view among linguists, anthropologists and archeologists that the origin point for the colonization of the Pacific Islands was Taiwan. Between 5,000 and 7,000 years ago, the ancestors of the modern Taiwanese Aborigines expanded out of Taiwan into the Philippines, Indonesia, New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, mixed with local populations, and then colonized previously uninhabited islands in Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia — including the Marshall Islands.
So modern-day Pacific Islanders and modern-day Taiwanese Aborigines have common ancestors who lived in Taiwan and some of the Taiwanese Aborigines who lived 5,000 to 7,000 years ago were responsible for setting off the expansion that would eventually lead to such feats as establishing a civilization on the remote Easter Island and discovering Hawaii and Madagascar across vast stretches of empty ocean.
One reason most academics agree that Pacific Islanders originated in Taiwan is that the Taiwanese Aborigines speak Austronesian languages related to the languages spoken by Pacific Islanders. The rich diversity of Austronesian languages spoken in Taiwan indicates that the language family developed there for many thousands of years and then, more recently, was carried to other islands like the Marshall Islands.
This is similar to the Germanic languages found in Europe that shows (if we didn’t know already) that the Germanic languages arose there and were later carried to places like England, rather than vice-versa.
Modern-day Pacific Islanders feel no sense of connection toward Taiwan as an ancestral place of origin, but that is almost certainly where they came from.
PETER RUDIAK-GOULD
PhD student in anthropology, Oxford University
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at