In late 2007 and early 2008, during my term as minister of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), two major development projects, heavily polluting and with high energy consumption, were planned at the sixth naphtha cracker in Mailiao Township (麥寮), Yunlin County. Based on Article 8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法), the EPA decided that the two projects — Kuokuang Petrochemical Technology Co’s proposed eighth naphtha cracker and Formosa Plastics Corp’s planned steel mill — both required a phase two environmental impact assessment (EIA).
The main reason for the decision was that if the development were approved, the resulting pollution would exceed the environmental carrying capacity, and the developers could not come up with ways of adjusting the environmental cost by reducing the pollution.
When reporting to then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), I said: “These two major development projects, heavily polluting and with a high energy consumption, will spew out black smoke together with the sixth naphtha cracker day in and day out. How can that be a good thing?”
When Chen asked: “So what should we do?” I had no choice but to frankly say that: “The best thing would be to re-evaluate the two projects; the best thing would be not to build them at all.”
All the members of the EIA committee felt that there was a risk that the projects would have a major impact on the environment and that we should go on with a phase-two EIA.
The result was that the Kuokuang plant could not be built in Mailiao, and the company instead proposed building it in Changhua County, at a 2,000 hectare wetland close to Dacheng Township (大城). Should we really allow that area, now almost free from pollution, to also be so polluted that it exceeds the environmental carrying capacity? And what does environmental carrying capacity mean? It is a so-called “environmental and health standard” setting a maximum pollution value that we are supposed to accept just because it has been arrived at by a lot of so-called “academics and experts” who consider themselves smart. The question is if we should all be forced to just accept this maximum value? Former associate administrator of the US’ Environmental Protection Agency Milton Russell often says that many people think pollution emissions are unethical, but that the question being asked is how much pollution is needed for it to be considered unethical: Talking about what levels of pollution are acceptable is a bit like talking about how many times a child can be sexually molested before it is seen as immoral.
There are not many people who think there is no risk that the Kuokuang project will have a major environmental impact. This is why there should only be two possible outcomes of the assessment of the environmental impact of building a plant at the Dacheng wetlands in Changhua: Moving on to a phase-two EIA in strict accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, or an all-out rejection and abandonment of the project. If the project is handled in the same way as the EIA for the Suhua Freeway project, where the authorities first set a timetable before “conditionally” accepting the EIA, that would smack of political considerations. In addition, supervising the project in accordance with the EIA after it has been approved would both increase the cost to society and waste national resources, not to mention raising concerns about violating the law. The academics and experts appointed by the EPA to sit on the EIA committee should give careful consideration to the issue and follow the law.
Winston Dang is a former Environmental Protection Administration minister.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS