China Steel, CPC Corp, Taiwan and other state-owned firms have been falling over themselves in their search for land to plant trees. President-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has also proposed a 60,000-hectare forestation project. These efforts all purport to reduce carbon emissions, but will they really be effective?
The effectiveness of planting trees in carbon reduction depends on several factors, including climate, soil and the species and age of the tree, and it is difficult to use a single standard for measurement. If we go by the calculations used by the Bureau of Energy, every year one hectare of Taiwan’s forests is able to absorb 20.2 tonnes of carbon. How much forest must be planted to offset the emissions of Taiwan’s large-scale industries?
Formosa Plastics Group’s (FPG) Sixth Naphtha Cracker Plant emits 67.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, which would require a 3,340,000 hectare forest to offset its effects. Offsetting carbon emissions from FPG’s planned steel refinery would require 740,000 hectares of forest. These two together would exceed Taiwan’s total area of 3.6 million hectares.
For China Steel, 1 million hectares of land would be needed to offset its annual emission of 20.4 million tonnes of carbon. This is equivalent to the total area of Kaohsiung, Pingtung, Tainan and Chiayi. Kuokuang Petrochemical would need about 350,000 hectares, about three times the size of Yunlin County, where it is located. Taipower’s Talin plant would require 880,000 hectares, larger than Kaohsiung, Pingtung and Tainan counties combined.
Ma’s 60,000-hectare forestation plan would be able to absorb 1 million tonnes of carbon emissions every year. This would not be able to offset even a tenth of the FPG steel refinery’s carbon output. China Steel has announced that it has set aside 48 hectares of land as a green zone and plans to adopt 20 hectares of forest on Tatushan. CPC Corp, Taiwan, has completed the greening of 470 hectares of land and will go on to plant 30,000 trees. Yet, given its enormous emissions, this is only a drop in the ocean and would lead one to suspect that these are just superficial public relations efforts.
In relation to the extraordinary amounts of carbon emissions generated by these heavy industries, seeking to plant enough forest to offset them all is impossible. These efforts only serve to divert focus from the root problem. The fundamental solution still lies in altering the industrial structure and curbing the development of energy-intensive and high-pollution industries. Otherwise, how could Ma achieve his goal of bringing Taiwan’s 2025 carbon emissions down to this year’s levels?
If businesses really do wish to link forest protection with carbon reduction, they would do better to assist the government in the reclamation of state and privately owned forests that have been illegally logged or over-harvested. This land could be left alone to allow its forest to recover naturally. Or they could become responsible global citizens by doing their best to protect forests in Southeast Asia and the Amazon from the terrors of illegal logging. What really matters is decreasing carbon emissions in the manufacturing process.
Individuals can also play a part in changing their lifestyles by eliminating as much as possible any unnecessary consumption. Walk more, ride a bicycle or take public transportation. Buy local goods to help reduce the carbon emissions generated by international transport.
The task of working together to cut carbon emissions is an urgent and painful one. The government and industry should avoid superficial gestures and face the roots of the problem. Only then can the goal of carbon reduction be realized.
Lee Ken-cheng is director of Mercy on the Earth, Taiwan.
Translated by James Chen/em>
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS