China is seeking to meet its targets for saving energy and cutting carbon dioxide emissions by enforcing limits on electricity consumption, suspending production where necessary and even forcing energy-hungry factories to close down altogether. Taiwanese manufacturers are hoping to reap extra profits when these measures push up the prices of products made by such factories.
As controversy rages in Taiwan over whether construction of a coastal industrial complex by Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology Co should be allowed to go ahead, what signals do the actions of the Chinese government send to Taiwan?
In China it is commonplace for the government to use administrative measures to adjust market supply and demand, and neighboring countries are quite used to it. What is surprising this time is that the stated reason for the measures is to cut energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. China’s move is a sharp contrast to Taiwan’s attitude.
The Taiwanese government has never set a target date or an amount for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and it is hard to imagine it ordering conglomerates to shut down production. If such a thing were to happen, elected politicians would be lining up to complain that if businesses were to suspend work, their employees would have to take unpaid leave and their livelihood would suffer as a result.
As China enforces power consumption limits and orders factory shutdowns, Taiwanese factory bosses who stand to benefit from reduced competition — especially energy-guzzling and high-polluting industries — probably see this as a chance to increase production and make more profit, while pumping out more pollution into Taiwan’s environment.
At the same time they would no doubt seize the opportunity to claim that if they were to build factories in China, they would face the problem of having their electricity supply capped or ordered to suspend operation at any time without warning.
In order to thwart this threat to their profits and to avoid disrupting upstream and downstream supply, they would claim that factories like the planned Kuokuang petrochemical plant should be located here in Taiwan.
What a sorry prospect! For many decades industrialized countries have kept moving their production to emerging countries like Taiwan and South Korea. For a decade or more now they have been moving them to China, Vietnam and other developing countries.
Who would have thought that communist China would limit power supplies to factories or have them closed down on environmental grounds, or that the conclusion drawn would be that it would be better for energy-hungry and highly polluting industries to be located in Taiwan?
If such an idea holds sway, when will Taiwan ever see clear blue skies? When will we ever find a way to maintain economic growth while cutting pollution and carbon dioxide emissions?
The current government has given the green light to many dirty and power-hungry factories since it took office in 2008. If the Kuokuang plant gets the go-ahead as well, there will be no chance of seeing clear skies or environment-friendly growth within the next 20 years.
The truth of the matter is that Taiwan’s market economy is dominated by big businesses. Government agencies are powerless to set annual targets for cutting emissions, never mind enforcing them. Taiwan has for a long time held the prices of water, electricity and oil below those of other Asian countries.
The government would have us believe that this has been done so that the public would not be burdened by rising prices. The true beneficiaries, however, are factories that guzzle water and energy. So in fact Taiwan has been running communist-style price controls for a long time.
Although the Copenhagen Accord was signed last year, with the US and China exerting the strongest influence, hardly anyone believes the UN Climate Change Conference to be held in Cancun, Mexico, later this year, will see any new protocols signed. China’s unexpected move toward making good on its promised targets for energy savings and emissions cuts shows that it means business.
Should Taiwan be happy or worried? If young people in their 20s and 30s are fated to “enjoy” another 20 years of polluted and carbon-dioxide-laden air, will they choose to stay in Taiwan and work for the country’s future or will they look for any chance to pack up and leave?
Liu Chung-ming is a professor of atmospheric sciences at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS