With the eyes of the world on the COP26 summit, which ends on Friday in Glasgow, Scotland, Taipei on Oct. 31 rushed out its roadmap to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
However, details about the capital’s plan are a little thin on the ground.
The majority of it is plucked directly from existing targets and the supplementary material extended to an anemic two pages. The plan, which aspires to map out the next three decades of carbon reduction work, was more obscure than a scribbled treasure map from a cheap pirate’s tale. There was precious little evidence of Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) supposed ambition when he said: “The work starts here.”
In its Taipei City Energy Policy white paper last year, the Taipei City Government said that approximately 70 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in its jurisdiction come from electricity use, meaning that the city’s development of sustainable clean electricity is crucial to achieving net-zero carbon emissions.
A glance at cities such as Tokyo and Seoul that are also striving to achieve zero emissions reveals that, without exception, they complement energy-saving initiatives with development of sources of sustainable energy to reduce carbon emissions from electricity use.
However, in Taipei’s plan, the three main departments and the four major strategies only provide a sparse few sentences on how to transform energy, with the exception of some references to hydrogen power.
If Taipei is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the next 10 years is crucial. Unfortunately, it seems that Taipei’s 2030 goals are decidedly unambitious, and remain stuck at the 30 percent reduction compared with 2005 levels, goals that were announced at the beginning of the year, while the greater part of the work to cut emissions is kicked down the road to sometime over the next three decades.
Information on what the departments are to do in the interim to achieve the targets and how they are going to do this is severely lacking.
Compare this with the net-zero roadmap announced by Tokyo in 2019, which laid out in detail that its energy agency was required to introduce electricity savings of 38 percent by 2030, with renewable energy sources accounting for 30 percent of electricity.
Moreover, its transportation department was tasked with ensuring that 50 percent of new vehicles would be carbon-free by 2030.
The blueprint released by Taipei comes nowhere near the detail of the Tokyo plan, seeming to just pass on the burden of carbon reduction to the next generation.
This shows why the policy visions that are scattered across action plans and white papers must be published in the form of self-governance ordinances, and be accompanied by medium and long-term planning so they can be monitored by the city council and residents.
Ko himself last month said that carbon emissions reduction is not just about it being the right thing to do or protecting the environment, it is also an economic issue and a public safety one.
He quoted former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who said: “A problem that has not been solved for 40 years cannot be solved in four years, but if we don’t start doing things now, we will still face the same problems in another 40 years’ time.”
The same sentiment should be applied here. Ko must look at the extreme weather events such as high temperatures, water shortages and heavy rain that have hit Taipei in the past few years, and wake up and smell the coffee. The climate crisis is already happening, and he needs to propose a more substantial plan for the next decade.
Liu Yi-chun is a campaigner for Greenpeace East Asia.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
President William Lai (賴清德) has rightly identified the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a hostile force; and yet, Taiwan’s response to domestic figures amplifying CCP propaganda remains largely insufficient. The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) recently confirmed that more than 20 Taiwanese entertainers, including high-profile figures such as Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜), are under investigation for reposting comments and images supporting People’s Liberation Army (PLA) drills and parroting Beijing’s unification messaging. If found in contravention of the law, they may be fined between NT$100,000 and NT$500,000. That is not a deterrent. It is a symbolic tax on betrayal — perhaps even a way for
RSS