Last month, the UN confirmed that the world has failed to contain global warming to the Paris Agreement’s threshold of 1.5°C, sounding a death knell for global climate governance. This is no longer a future warning, but an immediate reality.
Humankind is facing a crossroads of existential consequence, and yet US President Donald Trump is instead pushing to expand fossil fuel policy and refused to send an official delegation to this year’s COP30 climate summit. The world’s largest economy and historical emitter, it seems, is stepping back from the fight.
These climate and political shocks come as dual blows to Taiwan, which is on the front line of the climate crisis and highly reliant on international trade. Alarm bells are ringing not just for the environment, but over national security and economic survival.
The destructive consequences of the Trump administration’s decisions are not just about US carbon emissions, but about their political reverberations. Institutions of global governance do not come easy, and the US’ absence has served to seriously undermine the Paris Agreement.
Against a backdrop of warming set to exceed the 1.5°C threshold, world leaders gathered at COP30 to discuss emergency response measures to “loss and damage.” The lack of US presence sends a clear signal that “America first” and barefaced energy nationalism are prioritized above any principle of shared global responsibility.
There is a danger of major developing countries holding up US inaction as an excuse to delay their own decarbonization, and that the undercutting of global climate finance commitments would push vulnerable nations in need of adaptation funding into further precarity. The cooling effect of the US breaking ranks on international cooperation is unmistakable.
In Taiwan, we cannot afford to view the crisis as the business of other countries. A breach of 1.5°C of warming constitutes a direct and immediate threat to Taiwan’s survival. Powerful typhoons and floods are set to become a regular occurrence, while high temperatures and extreme dry periods threaten key sectors, including agriculture and the semiconductor industry, which require stable supplies of electricity and water.
The UN’s admission of failure means that it is time for Taiwan to take its plans for domestic adaptation and building resilience to a wartime level of urgency. There is no time for empty talk about net zero by 2050 — we must confront the imminent climate shocks now.
As our most important political ally, the US’ choice to step back and embrace fossil fuels would inevitably embolden domestic voices calling to slow down emission reductions to protect the economy. Going down this road would only further isolate Taiwan economically. The US might have abandoned the fight, but the EU stands ready and waiting as the world’s largest single market, armed with its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as an economic goad. Being an export-oriented country, Taiwan’s key industries of steel, petrochemicals and electronic components tie it to the EU’s green supply chain.
If Taiwan chooses to follow the US’ lead, it can expect to face high EU carbon taxes and exclusion from the supply chains of international brands like Apple and Microsoft, which are bound by environmental, social, and governance commitments. These economic ramifications are too great for Taiwan to ignore.
Facing climate breakdown and the crumbling of political leadership, Taiwan’s response must be focused and determined. We cannot allow for distractions or wishful thinking, and we must recognize that a net zero transition is no longer just an environmental issue, but one of economic survival and national security.
First, the government must resist internal pressure and accelerate its deployment of renewable energy, in particular in geothermal, biomass and energy storage systems to ensure a stable transition.
Second is to transform and upgrade industry — the government must shift from across-the-board subsidies to mandatory transitional guidance for carbon-intensive industries to adopt new technologies and comply with CBAM standards.
Finally, climate resilience must become a core principle of all public development projects. From the urban “sponge city” concept to disaster-warning systems in rural areas, public infrastructure and engineering projects must be reimagined to fully reflect the reality of a world having broken the 1.5°C threshold.
The US’ move is a gamble that Taiwan cannot afford to make. This moment of global disorder is exactly the point at which Taiwan must demonstrate its resilience and ability to turn the crisis into an opportunity for transformational change.
Chen Jie-an is a legal specialist for a technology corporation.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS