Pope Francis earlier this month formally published an encyclical, subtitled On care for our common home, which called on the world’s Catholics and all responsible people to tackle the urgent and pressing problem of climate change. Otherwise, our common home will be destroyed and every one of us will suffer the consequences, the pope wrote. The document goes on to state that humankind has not done enough to look after the world, which was bestowed to us by our creator. Not only has human activity led to climate change, it has also flushed away the opportunity for humankind to rectify the mistakes it has made, he added.
A rare occasion indeed: Religion and science are singing from the same song sheet.
The encyclical further states that, “those who deny climate change, who blindly disregard the facts and believe science will solve everything, have become an obstacle in the way of solving the problem. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change.”
These problems should be addressed politically, but instead, the buck has been passed to technology and finance, with the result that international talks have been delayed and failed. Many individuals are wedded to market mechanisms — carbon emission trading — which attracts speculation and fails to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, these illusory promises of carbon emission reductions have actually delayed the opportunity for much-needed reform of the present system.
Whether or not politicians acknowledge that climate change is a result of human activity, one thing is for sure: The impact of climate change is not limited to only high-altitude mountains or the polar regions. Increasingly, there are indications that climate change is becoming more serious by the day. The poor and disadvantaged bear the brunt of climate change. Recently, India endured a prolonged heat wave, with temperatures reaching higher than 40oC. In the US state of California, there has been a drought for four consecutive years, while North Korea has recently suffered a centennial severe drought. Even in the past few days, both Taiwan and Georgia have experienced torrential rain and other weather events that have upset daily routines and the ecological cycle. These types of weather events might become more extreme and more frequent.
Scientists advise that, in order for the human and ecological impact of climate change to be contained within manageable levels, overall global carbon emissions must peak this year, then continuously be reduced, to bring global carbon emissions to less than half 1990 levels by 2050. In order to give developing countries space to increase their emissions levels, industrialized nations must, have reduced their carbon emissions to at least 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020, and between 80 percent to 90 percent by 2050.
Looking at climate control from the perspective of total emissions, if the aim is to ensure Earth’s temperature does not increase by more than 2oC, accumulated carbon emissions caused by human activity must not exceed 3 trillion tonnes. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, 2 trillion tonnes of carbon has already been released into the Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, there is only 1 trillion tonnes’ worth of room for maneuver. According to the current pace at which carbon is being emitted into the atmosphere, after about 30 years this last 1 trillion tonnes might have been exhausted.
When the time comes, if emissions have not been reduced to zero, mankind could enter a whole new world, the likes of which has never been seen before. We still have a chance to reduce emissions, which would allow the remaining 1 trillion tonnes to be spread over 100, 300, 500 years, or even forever.
Asking for a vast reduction in carbon emissions is, in fact, not in the least bit unrealistic. The International Energy Agency (IEA) — which several years ago was still disdainful of renewable energy — earlier this month released its Special Report on Energy and Climate Change. The report states that existing technology might allow carbon emissions from energy production to peak by 2020 and that this might not impact upon the overall world economy.
Earlier this month legislators passed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Management Act (溫室氣體減量及管理法), which caused Taiwanese media to say Taiwan is “marching toward a new low-carbon era.”
However, when examined in detail, the carbon reduction target has been kicked into the distant future of 2050 — and only requires emissions to be cut to half of 2005 levels. Not only is this a much looser target than the “50 percent reduction on 2000 levels” previously promised by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), it is also out of step with international trends.
Furthermore, since the act relies on a carbon emission trading scheme as a way to reduce levels, the government is able to avoid committing itself to a definite timetable.
Another problem is that, although the Environmental Protection Administration is a high-level government department, before any important step is taken the administration must first consult with the main utilities providers. Despite energy consumption being the main source of carbon emissions in Taiwan, the act excludes emissions produced by publicly owned energy providers. The act also allows for carbon credits at 10 percent — using international carbon credits — yet fails to explain how it is going to prevent abuse of the system. Lastly, the fine for exceeding the upper limit for excess emissions has been set at NT$1,500 (US$48) per metric tonne.
Taiwan’s economic activity has significantly declined in recent years. The proportion of companies using offshore production has climbed to more than 50 percent. However, the government’s forecast for energy demand continues to blindly follow increases that would normally be expected during a period of economic growth. If demand for energy continues to grow, how is the government going to reduce emissions to half of 2005 levels?
When should Taiwan’s carbon emission levels reach their peak? What type of a year-on-year carbon reduction strategy should Taiwan adopt? None of these questions are addressed by the act.
To use the words of Pope Francis, in the past 20 years, those who possess the most resources and economic or political power have been unwilling to tackle the root causes of climate change. They deny climate change, disregard facts and believe science can solve everything.
They often adopt a cynical attitude to the problems of climate change, thereby impeding the implementation of real measures to reduce emissions.
The act accurately reflects the logic of those who have gained from energy policy during the past two decades. The goal of this act is to kick the objective of emissions reduction into the distant future, while ensuring regulations are as loose as possible. The act lacks a fixed time period for implementation and replaces substantial cuts with a financial mechanism.
Apart from giving Taiwan the ability to announce to the world that it possesses a law on climate change, the act serves no other purpose: It is of no use to man or beast. There is a danger that, following the government’s claim that Taiwan is “marching towards a new low carbon-era,” the opportunity for much-needed reform is going to be squandered.
Gloria Hsu is a professor in National Taiwan University’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences and president of Mom Loves Taiwan, an environmental protection group.
Translated by Edward Jones
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS