Former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) has started an open-ended hunger strike to call for an end to the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. The action has once again made the nuclear issue the hottest topic in Taiwan.
The controversy over the plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City, has been raging for more than three decades. When the DPP was in power, it ordered a halt to construction, only for the decision to be overruled by the Council of Grand Justices. When DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) met with Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) to discuss the issue, both men were very familiar with the other’s stance, and neither was able to persuade the other to change his position. The discussion was limited to whether the referendum threshold should be lowered. However, even if a referendum on nuclear power is held, how is the public to decide whether to scrap nuclear power or embrace it?
The intractability of the issue stems from access to information. Whether it be for energy demand projections, nuclear safety statistics or information on the treatment of nuclear waste, officials and sections of the public have their own side of the story and their own data to support their arguments. Each accuses the other of misquoting or misinterpreting the numbers. Neither side can get the other to concede.
Consider the supply and demand of electricity. Last year, the Ministry of Economic Affairs’ Bureau of Energy published projections on the growth rate for electricity demand, saying that, based upon an average annual growth in GDP of 3.07 percent, it estimates an increase in electricity usage of 1.41 percent in the period from last year to 2030, a figure lower than the average of 3.07 percent over the previous 18-year period. According to non-governmental organization forecasts, demand is unlikely to exceed supply going forward, not only if plans for the fourth nuclear plant are scrapped, but even if the first and second nuclear power plants are decommissioned, and the reserve capacity will still be able to rise to 20 percent.
The government consistently parries public concerns by raising the same few points. It says that if the fourth plant is not put into commercial operation, the nation will always be in danger of being short of energy; that coal combustion is a dirtier source of energy than nuclear energy, and nuclear energy is the cheapest and most stable option.
When asked about electricity demand by DPP Legislator Tsai Chi-chang (蔡其昌), Minister of Economic Affairs Chang Chia-juch (張家祝) said: “This goal is going to be very difficult to attain as it depends on a great many extreme contingencies, such as industry having to comply with installing energy-efficient equipment.”
Even if the fourth nuclear plant goes into commercial operation, it will account for only 6 percent of energy production. According to demand projections, the nation will not be in any danger of energy shortages.
On the pros and cons of nuclear power, all that needs to be remembered are the images from Japan following the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear disaster and the scenes of the current desolation there.
The government is handling this issue just as it has approached the controversy over the cross-strait service trade agreement, simply repeating its mantra that “the pros outweigh the cons,” without actually addressing public concerns. Instead, it frames the issue as something purely practical, talking of the country’s industrial policy, energy projections, electricity bills, the cost of developing alternative energy sources, the viability of improving energy-intensive industries and energy conservation, and the possibility of achieving the goal of a “green island.”
Yet all the government does is peddle propaganda and fear. No wonder the public is so resistant.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS