On the other hand, the mere fact that the Copenhagen summit was held indicates there is now a global consensus to reduce carbon emissions. More and more nations and regions, and even some businesses, are pushing for carbon reductions.
Within a few years, a carbon footprint certification system will be in place, and this system will have an impact on all exporting nations and industries. If Taiwan does not try to catch up with these new standards, its exports and economy could both suffer as a result.
When it comes to formulating a carbon reduction policy, however, the government has been anything but consistent. It is true that the Executive Yuan plans to set up a “carbon reduction task force” next year, with Vice Premier Eric Li-luan Chu as its head. And Shih Yen-shiang, minister of economic affairs, has said reduction in carbon emissions “is something for which there is no alternative.”
And yet, when speaking to business groups, Premier Wu Den-yih has also said “the stomach must be taken care of first.” The government still believes that its most urgent task is revitalizing the economy. Thus major investment projects—such as the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical plant and the fifth stage of Formosa Plastics Group’s Sixth Naphtha Cracker Project—still have precedence. Things that might affect these investments—such as an energy tax—are put on hold.
Clearly, the government feels it is more important to deliver impressive economic results—even if this means leaving behind negative consequences for the future. What will happen when Kuo Kuang Petrochemical plant and the fifth stage of the Sixth Naphtha Cracker Project are finished, and Taiwan is faced with international pressure to reduce its carbon emissions? Will these large investments have to be cancelled altogether? If Taiwan is to meet new international requirements, how many cuts in other areas will have to be made?
At the moment, what the government should do is to study the international situation. Based on a stricter set of international standards, it should begin formulating carbon reduction guidelines. It should then determine if Taiwan will be able to meet these standards. And it should ask: If the nation is unable to meet these standards now, what kinds of policies will need to be put in place so that emission levels can gradually come down on an annual basis? At the same time, when it evaluates large investment projects that will emit substantial quantities of carbon, the government should also use these same findings to decide if it will approve the projects in question.
The government needs to be reminded that there are many ways of reducing carbon emissions. At one end are little things that ordinary citizens can do in their daily lives. At the other end are large, influential courses of action such as government policy and the rules regulating how businesses operate. All these have an effect on carbon emissions. But more importantly, carbon reduction is not something that can be done all at once. It is the result of incremental changes made year after year.
In all economies, for instance, the production of electricity has been the main source of carbon emissions. When it comes to cutting down carbon emissions, then, reducing the amount of electricity used must be a priority. Has the government provided enough incentives, so that in addition to developing energy-saving habits, the nation’s citizens are willing to spend more on electricity-saving appliances or switch to green light bulbs?
Exhausts from cars are also a major source of pollution. Has the government created the right incentives that would make consumers more willing to buy low-emission, high-mileage cars? Has it given the public reason to give up cars altogether, and to use the mass transportation system instead? This latter question, in particular, involves the question of whether the mass transit system provided by the government is well planned.
Profit-seeking enterprises are even more sensitive than the public when it comes to prices. If the government wants private enterprises to make structural adjustments, it needs an even clearer set of policies—one might call them pressure tactics—to lead them to make the necessary changes.
If the government does not increase its carbon emission standards, how many businesses would be willing to invest on their own in newer and better facilities that cause less pollution? Only when the cost of running high-pollution, high-carbon emission plants becomes prohibitive will businesses have an incentive to invest in green energies and carry out structural adjustments.
The government must formulate a clear set of goals; it must have practical guidelines. Only then will it drive the nation’s resources into the green-energy sector; only then will it lead the nation’s citizens to adopt a low-carbon way of life.
What is heartening is that some people in the business world are already responding to events in a positive way. Witness how many heavyweights from the business world attended a recent press conference held by talk show host Sissy Chen, during which Chen introduced the public to her documentary on climate change. The presence of these business leaders not only conveyed the concern of the business sector, it also showed that many people have begun to match their words and deeds, and have actually already starting reducing carbon emissions.
“Carbon reduction is more important than making money,” said Bruce Cheng, chairman of Delta Electronics Inc. If we apply this philosophy to the government, it would read: “The topic of carbon reduction is more important than short-term economic growth.” In fact, because Delta has for long been concerned with environmental issues, it has been able to make technological breakthroughs, and as a result its products are more competitive now.
In northern Europe, Denmark first launched its carbon reduction policies in the 1990s. Today its products and economic structure are even more competitive as a result of those policies. More than 20 percent of its electricity comes from wind power. Denmark has also become the world’s leader in producing wind turbines, with the world’s two biggest wind turbine plants both located there. The industry employs several hundred thousand workers.
Taiwan has had a late start: but if it launches a carbon-reduction policy now, even if this causes short-term economic pain, in the long and medium term such a policy will benefit the nation’s economic structure and development. What is the government still waiting for? (HZW)
(This commentary first appeared Dec. 27, 2009, in the “China Times.”)
Write to Taiwan Today at ttonline@mail.gio.gov.tw