The clear role of carbon
Charles Hong asserts that “the environmental impact of carbon dioxide on global warming is still controversial.” He could not be more wrong (Letters, Sept. 29, page 8).
There is no scientific controversy over the contribution of carbon emissions to global warming, only a political one that mainly occurs in the US.
Further, his examples of Typhoon Fanapi and Typhoon Morakot serve to underline his apparent confusion of local weather events with the global climate — a common misunderstanding.
The science, built up over the last 35 years or so, is very clear. Global warming is largely the result of increased carbon dioxide, a key factor of which has been human activity.
National political -discourse in the US in particular, from where Hong writes, has struggled to come to terms with this in the last decade or so, but has arrived late to an argument that has long since moved on to what we can do about global change — not whether or not it is happening or what is causing it.
Appealing to electric cars as a solution will not really help, because it is not a carbon neutral option.
The US at the moment is struggling to meet its current energy demands at peak times in a system largely built in the 1930s; and most of the power stations burn fossil fuels. Electric cars will inevitably increase demand for power — and increase carbon emissions.
Paul Deacon
Kaohsiung
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS