The Cabinet’s Tax Reform Committee recently decided that the government should gradually implement a proposed energy and carbon tax next year at the earliest, but this decision was instantly rejected by Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義). Wu and legislators reacted as if the taxes would increase public suffering, adding that the government should not levy new taxes until after the economy recovers. It seems everyone is against the energy and carbon tax proposals.
These reactions are disappointing because they fail to address the matter. Most people, in fact, jumped to conclusions before understanding what the proposal entails. The development of civil society in Taiwan should be fully encouraged, but this kind of decision-making runs counter to that aspiration.
As a matter a fact, neither an energy tax, a carbon tax nor even an environmental tax are news. While countries in northern Europe began imposing carbon taxes around 1990, their public welfare systems remain enviable. Taxes, therefore, do not necessarily cause public suffering. Everyone would be in favor of the kind of social welfare benefits seen in northern Europe.
It is true that some industries will be adversely affected by such taxation. In particular, energy-wasting, high carbon emission industries would be affected, which would make it difficult for those hoping to rely on cheap energy in the long run. However, such an outcome could be a good thing in terms of public benefits and long-term industrial development.
A short-term impact might be better for these industries than slow long-term suffering. Even grade school students know that energy conservation and carbon emission reduction lies in our future. As a result of cheap energy sources, there are no incentives for Taiwanese industries to make progress on that front; instead, they will become decreasingly competitive.
The international community has recently begun calling on corporations to assess their carbon footprint and energy efficiency. Companies that fail to adapt will disappear. If a smaller impact could push Taiwanese industry to catch up with the efficiency of enterprises in other advanced countries, that would be a good thing for Taiwan’s future industrial development.
Will gas prices of NT$45 per liter be considered high in future? If one argued that NT$10 for a bowl of plain noodles is expensive, everybody would counter that this is cheap. But would the same assertion have been right 40 years ago, when a bowl of noodles was only NT$2.
As for the argument that these taxes should not be levied until after the economy recovers, that might be true for other types of taxes. By that time, however, it would be even harder to impose energy and carbon taxes because when the global economy recovers, oil prices will skyrocket. We must not forget that not so long ago, critics expected that oil prices would exceed US$200 per barrel and that everyone would save energy and reduce carbon emissions even without the implementation of energy taxes.
It is hard to decide whether one should support or oppose the proposal. If the goal really is to save energy and reduce carbon emissions, there are actually more urgent policies than a carbon tax, such as quantity restrictions. Such restrictions are needed to plan an effective carbon tax and carbon-emissions trading system. We already know we will have to save energy and cut emissions, so any policy should be considered a major national initiative and be openly discussed.
Government officials and legislators should not be allowed to shoot down a policy on a whim before it has had a chance to be discussed thoroughly.
Kao Jehng-jung is a professor in the Institute of Environmental Engineering at National Chiao Tung University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
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