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.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS