There have been reports that Zhongshan Football Stadium will continue to be used as a venue for long-term exhibitions after the Taipei International Flora Expo finishes and that exhibition halls will be built in the nearby parks. Visitors would then be able to enjoy and admire beautiful and colorful flowers on technologically advanced 3D screens in elegantly decorated exhibition halls with comfortable lighting and air conditioning.
The only problem with this scenario is that they will not be able to smell the fragrance of the soil or lie down in the green grass. Visitors may not have to sweat, but they will also lose access to the natural surroundings of a park.
This situation speaks to an inherent conflict in Taipei’s decision to host the flora expo. The sort of ideas that go into organizing a computer or art exhibition cannot be applied to a flower exhibition.
The organizers of the expo claim that it is, “The glory of Taipei, the pride of Taipei.” They also say it will showcase the high standard of floral art and technology, bring benefits to the flower industry and raise the city’s international profile. There is apparently no end to its positive effects.
However, many people may wonder, like I do: Why should Taipei — a metropolitan area with lots of flower outlets, but very few flower growers — organize a big flora expo instead of Changhua or Yunlin Counties where Taiwan’s flower industry is concentrated?
The answer is of course that organizing an international event requires a wide range of public facilities and hundreds of millions of NT dollars. In Taiwan, only Taipei and Kaohsiung fit the bill.
However, the life cycle of flowers is very short, and to sustain a six-month-long flower exhibition and ensure fresh flowers are always available means frequently replacing withered flowers with fresh ones. Those flowers will have to be transported to Taipei from the south of the island, incurring transportation costs and increased carbon emissions that run counter to the government’s policy of saving energy and reducing emissions.
The official Web site of the flora expo says the event is based on three concepts: to “convey the essence of gardening, science and environmental protection technology,” to “reach the environmental goals of reducing carbon emissions and 3R [reduce, reuse and recycle]” and to “combine culture and art as part of eco-friendly living.”
This begs the question, in what way does moving flowers from their place of origin to the exhibition hall in Taipei contribute to the goal of reducing carbon emissions? Perhaps the organizers should offer an explanation in order to dispel any confusion.
Another issue arises if we assume that a few million flowers, including their soil and packaging, will have to be replaced every week. That will create a lot of waste.
The flora expo is a great event both for Taipei and for Taiwan. All Taiwanese hope it will be successful and that international visitors who come to attend the expo will also be able to experience the beauty of Taiwan. That is why not only the main exhibition hall, but all the related events should leave visitors with the feeling that the event was a well-planned, green, low carbon emission exposition, and not just a beautiful exterior.
Even more important, the more than NT$9 billion (US$282.2 million) being spent needs to bring the people of Taiwan more than just a fleeting encounter with the beauty of nature. Concrete plans must be put in place to ensure the facilities can be used sustainably and provide ongoing benefits to the wider community after the expo is over.
Chen Wen-ching is a researcher at the Environment and Development Foundation.
Translated by Perry Svensson
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Astride an ascended economy and military, with global influence nearing biblical proportions, Xi Jinping (習近平) — general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chairman of the Central Military Commission and president of the People’s Republic of China — is faithfully heralded, in deeds and imagery, as a benevolent lord, determined to “build a community of common destiny for all mankind.” Rather than leading humanity to this Shangri-La through inspirational virtue a la Mahatma Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln, the CCP prefers a micromanagement doctrine of socialism with Chinese characteristics as the guiding light. A doctrine of Marxist orthodoxy transplanted under a canvas