The government continues to spout slogans about global warming, the impending energy crisis, energy savings and how to cut carbon emissions. However, ask what President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) energy policy is and government officials are unlikely to have an answer.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs’ Bureau of Energy recently proposed instructions for a revaluation of energy development guidelines as required by the Energy Management Law (能源管理法), with the objective of drafting a coherent energy policy for the next decade. These instructions suggested two solutions: decommissioning nuclear power reactors and increasing the number of coal-fired power plants to meet basic needs or the continued use of nuclear reactors, in conjunction with the expansion of coal-fired power plants. The bureau recommended the second solution.
This has drawn criticism from environmental protection groups. Limited storage of fossil fuels in recent years has set prices skyrocketing, causing many countries to look for ways to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy sources such as wind, water and solar power.
In light of this, environment protection groups have criticized the government, saying its energy policies are too conservative and designed to protect the interests of the nuclear and coal-fired power industries.
Not long ago, the solar power sector protested against a sudden reversal in government procurement policy for solar-generated electricity, a decision that could spell serious trouble for private sector investment.
Having concluded that the prices offered by privately operated power plants are much higher than for power generated at Taipower’s coal-fired and nuclear power plants, the government said it would stop buying their energy in order to cut costs.
However, the cost of solar and wind-generated electricity is high worldwide, making them not commercially viable at the moment. Governments are willing to pay a premium because they want to encourage the use of non-fossil fuels and prop up those industries until they become commercially viable. Taipei’s sudden decision is short-sighted and did nothing but protect traditional energy interests.
More importantly, the Ma administration’s energy policy is not a stand-alone policy, it is closely interwoven with the national industrial development strategy. If the government continues to promote high-pollution, high-energy consumption industries, such as the petrochemical and steel industries, then energy demand will continue to grow, the life of the third nuclear power plant will be extended, the fourth nuclear power plant will be built and coal-fired power plants will be expanded.
If, however, the government reviews industrial transformation and groups together high tech and high value-added industries with the cultural, creative and service industries as the businesses of the future, then it could be possible to limit the increase in energy demand or even possibly reduce it.
If the bureau fails to consider the nation’s industrial future, the likely outcome is increased energy consumption.
Ma often repeats a slogan on saving energy and cutting carbon emissions, and has promised that Taiwan will respect the Kyoto Protocol and any emission reduction agreements agreed at future international environmental conferences.
Despite this, the current report contains no commitments to live up to the Kyoto Protocol. If Ma really does think the environment, energy saving and carbon emission cuts are important, he should call a national energy conference so that concerned organizations can draw up action plans that promote sustainable environmental protection.
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
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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
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