Some news media have recently reported on a “plastic bag chaos,” citing online posts claiming that Japan and Australia both still provide free plastic bags, and questioning whether Taiwan’s plastic reduction policies are merely an excuse to charge consumers.
However, the issue is not whether breakfast purchases come with a plastic bag, but rather that the premise of these claims is fundamentally flawed.
All Japanese retailers have been required to charge for plastic bags since July 2020. Convenience stores and supermarkets commonly impose a fee, with the explicit goal of reducing single-use consumption. Australia’s approach is even more direct, as regions have outright banned single-use plastic bags, requiring consumers to either bring their own bag or pay for one.
Treating the thin produce bags in fresh food sections as representative of the entire system is not a valid comparison — it is taking one small detail and presenting it as the whole.
Once an incorrect example is used, the subsequent conclusions are bound to be skewed. The claim that plastic bags are free abroad while they are charged in Taiwan is not a real institutional difference, but a comparison built on a flawed understanding. The discussion was misdirected before it even began.
The “plastic bag chaos” is not an issue unique to Taiwan. It reflects broader disruptions across the global petrochemical and packaging supply chains. International reports indicate that the conflict in the Middle East has driven up the cost of petrochemical raw materials, affecting the supply of plastics and packaging materials.
South Korea has already experienced panic buying of trash bags and packaging materials, implementing purchase limits. In Japan, packaging material shortages have impacted some food production, and India has reported shortages in medical-grade plastic materials. At the same time, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has said that Taiwan would no longer face plastic bag shortages after unification.
However, China’s own petrochemical sector is being similarly affected, with industries such as synthetic rubber potentially cutting output by as much as 30 percent and straining the entire petrochemical supply chain. All of these developments point to one underlying issue — the problem lies upstream, in raw materials and supply chains, not in any sudden, localized shortage of plastic bags.
Yet, in Taiwan, the narrative has been reduced to something else entirely. The issue is being directly attributed to government incompetence. Reducing a global supply chain disruption into the failure of a single area is not just an oversimplification, but a misdiagnosis of the problem itself.
Some are even interpreting Taiwan’s plastic reduction policies as a government excuse to collect money. In reality, the fees for plastic bags are collected by the individual retailers that sell them. Global supply fluctuations are one issue, and Taiwan’s plastic reduction policies are an entirely separate issue. Forcing the two together leads to a line of reasoning that ultimately leads to misguided conclusions.
Chang Shang-yang is a farmer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS