Public discourse around the nation’s energy transition has increasingly been reduced to single-line, reductive narratives — for example, portraying green energy as a “futile pipe dream,” questioning the pace of Taiwan’s renewable energy development or even rejecting the transition’s overall direction. Such remarks might sound sharp, but they oversimplify the complex realities of energy governance, and tend to conflate the inevitable challenges of the transition process with the failure of the transition itself.
An energy transition is not a short-term undertaking, but a long-term restructuring that involves power grid construction, energy storage deployment, land-usage coordination and an overhaul of market mechanisms. To judge renewable energy as being infeasible based solely on changes in the share of electricity generation over the past few years is, in itself, a fallacy that uses short-term results to negate long-term policies. Applying the same standard to nuclear power would lead to a similar conclusion — getting from planning and review to actual commercial operation often takes more than a decade. As such, short-term performance is an inappropriate basis for assessing feasibility.
Some critics tend to focus on the land-use controversies surrounding solar power, yet fail to fully account for the diverse technological and institutional paths of renewable energy development. Rooftop systems, agrivoltaics and floating installations are precisely the policy choices adopted in many other countries to reduce land-use conflicts and enhance spatial efficiency. When the entire discussion focuses on just a few highly contentious cases, it risks obscuring the issues that truly warrant attention — namely, whether policy design is comprehensive and governance capacity adequate.
Furthermore, equating unmet policy targets directly with policy failure can easily lead to misjudgements in public evaluation. By nature, public policy must be adjusted in response to market conditions, technological maturity and the external environment. Throughout the past decade, the cost of renewable energy has continued to fall and global investment has grown rapidly, demonstrating that the energy transition’s overall trajectory has not been reversed as a result of short-term setbacks. Rather than rejecting the energy transition’s overall direction, what warrants closer scrutiny is whether institutional supports have kept pace with its demands.
More importantly, energy choices cannot exist separately from Taiwan’s structural realities. With a heavy reliance on imported energy, rising carbon costs and international supply chain demands for green electricity, Taiwan cannot avoid the long-term challenges of its energy transition. Advocating for a return to a highly centralized or import-dependent energy structure solely because of the difficulties encountered during the transition could expose the nation to even greater risks with regard to energy security and economic stability.
The energy transition is imperfect and requires continuous ajustments, but negatively labeling the entire process fails to address real-world challenges such as energy security, industrial competitiveness and climate risks. Public discussions should focus on how to strengthen institutional design and improve implementation capacity, rather than letting emotional judgements replace rational analysis.
In an era of rapid global energy restructuring, what Taiwan needs is a more mature discussion surrounding energy governance. Only through continuous adjustments across institutional, technological and social conditions can the energy transition become a policy choice that is demonstrable and worthy of public trust.
Lin Ren-bin is an academic member of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union and an associate professor at Chinese Culture University’s chemical and materials engineering department.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
On March 22, 2023, at the close of their meeting in Moscow, media microphones were allowed to record Chinese Communist Party (CCP) dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) telling Russia’s dictator Vladimir Putin, “Right now there are changes — the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years — and we are the ones driving these changes together.” Widely read as Xi’s oath to create a China-Russia-dominated world order, it can be considered a high point for the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea (CRINK) informal alliance, which also included the dictatorships of Venezuela and Cuba. China enables and assists Russia’s war against Ukraine and North Korea’s
After thousands of Taiwanese fans poured into the Tokyo Dome to cheer for Taiwan’s national team in the World Baseball Classic’s (WBC) Pool C games, an image of food and drink waste left at the stadium said to have been left by Taiwanese fans began spreading on social media. The image sparked wide debate, only later to be revealed as an artificially generated image. The image caption claimed that “Taiwanese left trash everywhere after watching the game in Tokyo Dome,” and said that one of the “three bad habits” of Taiwanese is littering. However, a reporter from a Japanese media outlet
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
RSS