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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS