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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers