Environmental D-Day
The recent interview with Laurence Smith (“Northern Lights,” page 13, Sept. 22) about how climate change might positively impact nations that lie north of 45 degrees latitude was well reported. Smith’s book, The World in 2050, is an important one, too. When it was reviewed last year in the Seattle Times, the reviewer said that Smith in the final analysis “comes up with some bleak conclusions.”
The Taipei Times asked Smith if he had read the Seattle Times piece that concluded that the future looked grim and if he agreed.
“I’m optimistic,” Smith told the reporter, adding: “There are lots of reasons for optimism … That being said, looking at climate change, I am actually quite pessimistic.”
The Seattle Times said that the book was “an important book, a wake-up call for doubting Thomases who believe it’s OK to drive gas guzzlers because they can afford it. As I read it one thought I never had before kept reoccurring: Thank goodness I’m old.”
While Smith remains an optimist in his public lectures and on his international book tour, as he told the Taipei Times, he is in fact “quite pessimistic” when looking at what’s happening to our world in terms of climate change.
Smith is right to feel pessimistic about what we are doing to this Earth, and it is high time that everyone becomes grim and despairing about the future because of what we are doing with fossil fuels.
While Smith believes that nations in the northern regions will benefit in the short term from climate change — longer summer agricultural seasons, shorter shipping routes through an ice-free Arctic — he also says that in the long term, if there is to be a long term, we must stop using fossil fuels, tone down our luxurious lifestyles and start living in a more -environmentally friendly way.
I myself am a pessimist and I feel that by 2050, 2080, 2100 for sure, the Earth’s population will have been decimated by catastrophic climate events that will see more than 8 billion people die and leave only 200,000 souls eking out a sad existence in those regions above 45 degrees latitude. It’s not going to be a pretty picture and we have to stop fooling ourselves and pretending that everything is going to be okay.
Everything is not going to be okay.
How loud must one shout from the rooftops to alert the world to the fact that we are in dire straits? We are looking at life in “polar cities” by the year 2080, and not a sanitized Hollywood view of such a science fiction scenario.
Indeed, we are headed to hell on Earth. Smith does not want to say this in public because he is a respectable professor from the University of California, Los Angeles, with a book and a career to promote, and I salute him for his probing research.
I am glad he came to Taiwan to speak at the Lung Yingtai Cultural Foundation’s MediaTek lecture series, as he has an important message.
However, Smith’s message is not enough. It is time to drop the optimism and become realistic about humankind’s future.
If we do not collectively act right now, then we will be doomed. What does it take to wake a sleeping planet? Do people think that life in polar cities is going to be fun — and a financial boost to economies?
We are headed to hell on Earth. We will live, those of us who survive, that is, in desolate polar cities. Enough of this pretty academic rigamarole about a happy future in what Smith calls “northern rim countries.”
Sure, optimism will help sell books and further one’s career. All professors take this route. However, it no longer serves the public good or the future of the human race. We have arrived at a crossroad and it is time to take action. We must stop the burning of coal and oil today. Yesterday, in fact. Time has run out.
Dan Bloom
Chiayi City
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that