Can President Ma Deliver on Carbon Reduction?

Can President Ma Deliver on Carbon Reduction?
China Times News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 15, 2009


Nearly one hundred national leaders gathered in the Danish capital of Copenhagen to discuss new greenhouse gas emissions standards. President Ma Ying-jeou made public his latest entry in his "weekly journal." His theme was "carbon reduction, creating an environmentalist paradise." He called on people to do their utmost to conserve energy and reduce carbon, thereby transforming Taiwan into an "environmentalist paradise." But at such a critical juncture, President Ma's weekly journal utterly failed to mention his own most important environmental policy, an energy tax. Premier Wu Den-yih recently said the administration had "no timetable" for the implementation of an energy tax. This cast doubt on the government's determination to promote an energy tax. In the absence of any specific policy, the Republic of China is a long way from its ideal of an environmentalist paradise.

Global warming is a clear and present danger. It is threatening the survival of more than just polar bears. Island nations in the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean are in danger of being inundated. Melting permafrost has forced Eskimos in Alaska to relocate villages. Residents in the Himalayas live in fear as a result of melting mountain glaciers. Barrier lakes may burst through their containment walls at any time. Time magazine pointed out that over the past five decades, the total area of glaciers in the Himalayas has diminished by one fifth, far more than in other areas. Glaciers in the Himalayas constitute the third most important glacial region outside the Arctic and Antarctic. It is the water source of the most important river system on earth. It affects the safety of the drinking water of half the world's population. If the situation cannot be reversed, it may lead to regional conflicts and wars.

Developed and developing nations have bickered endlessly over the past few days at the Copenhagen summit on climate change, over who bears the greatest responsibility for increased carbon emissions. The harsh reality is that wealthy, developed nations have long been largest emitters of carbon. The biggest victims meanwhile, have been poor, developing nations. Scientists estimate that it will cost about one per cent of the global GDP to slow global warming. Compare this to the financial tsunami. Governments have earmarked five per cent of their GDP to bail out banks. It costs less to fight global warming than one might imagine. Therefore, developed nations have a responsibility to provide financial aid to developing nations fighting climate change.

Poor and wealthy nations have bickered endlessly at the Copenhagen summit. The Republic of China is not a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Even if the Copenhagen summit reaches a new consensus on carbon reduction, the ROC has no obligation to comply. But global warming has already precipitated disasters on Taiwan. A few months ago the 8/8 Floods included the heaviest rainfall in a century. It caused serious landslides, and buried Hsiaolin Village under a mountain of mud. Haven't we learned our lesson? After such a massive disaster, can we still ignore international trends? Can we continue to engage in unbridled development of more high-pollution, high energy-consumption industries? Can we continue to emit even more carbon dioxide?

Carbon dioxide emissions on Taiwan over the past few years are an embarrassment. Carbon dioxide emmissions on Taiwan have grown at a rate among the fastest in the world. They have accelerated since 1999. Our carbon dioxide growth rate is higher than our economic growth rate. Not only have we failed to grow our economy, we have also failed to protect our environment. According to the Academia Sinica, we use energy less efficiently than the European Union and Japan, because our government has kept energy prices below international standards and has fostered high energy-consumption industries. If we refuse to change our development model, our exports are bound to face trade sanctions from the EU and other industrialized nations. High carbon emissions have become a hidden risk to our economic future.

The Ma administration trumpets its dedication to energy conservation and carbon reduction. Since taking office more than a year ago, just what has it done? Take the Executive Yuan's "Sustainable Energy Policy" for example. It set carbon reduction targets for 2008 to 2020, and 2000 to 2025. Internationally the base year is 1990. By contrast, we have used 2008 as our benchmark, a comparatively loose standard. Furthermore, the long-debated greenhouse gas emissions law remains stalled in the Legislative Yuan. As for the Tax Reform Commission's "energy tax" program, it has been sidelined by the administration without even undergoing debate.

In recent years, more and more international companies have come to realize that low-carbon, green energy policies offer commercial opportunities. Microsoft, Intel, and Hewlett-Packard have taken the lead in carbon reduction. TSMC, ASUS, Taiwan Delta Electronics, Chi Mei and other companies have aggressively sought low carbon footprint certification. In the face of this new trend toward green energy and reduced carbon emissions, we cling to our model of ultra-low energy prices and high energy-consumption industries. Presidential office and executive branch officials cling to the old fossil fuel model. They assume that energy conservation and reduced carbon emissions must harm economic development. In fact, energy conservation and reduced carbon emissions may pose new challenges, but they also offer new business opportunities. These await a joint initiative by the government and business. Since President Ma took office, he has assumed complete control of both the party and the government. If he fails to honor even his commitment to an "energy tax," can the Republic of China really talk about making itself into an environmentalist paradise?

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2009.12.15
社論－馬總統的減碳政見 能否兌現
本報訊

全球近一百個國家領袖齊聚丹麥首都哥本哈根，討論新一輪溫室氣體減量規範之際，馬英九總統發表最新「治國週記」，以「落實減碳工作，營造環境大國」為題，呼籲國人為節能減碳盡一己之力，營造台灣為環境大國。不過，在這個關鍵時刻，馬總統的治國週記中，完全未提到自己最重要的環保政見｜能源稅，再加上行政院長吳敦義日前說，能源稅的實施「沒有時間表」，社會大眾對於政府推動能源稅的決心，已產生疑慮。在缺乏具體政策下，台灣距離環境大國的理想，恐怕越來越遠了。

氣候暖化所帶來的危害已迫在眉睫，不僅是北極熊的生存面臨威脅，太平洋與印度洋中的島國擔心被海水淹沒，阿拉斯加的愛斯基摩人已因凍土層融化而被迫遷村，喜瑪拉雅山區居民也因高山冰河融化，冰磧湖隨時可能潰堤而生活在恐懼中。《時代》雜誌指出，過去五十年來，喜瑪拉雅山上冰河面積減少了五分之一，遠超過其他地區。喜瑪拉雅山上的冰河是南北極之外，第三個最重要的冰河區，它是地球上主要河川體系的水源，關係著地球上二分之一人口的生命飲水安全。如果情勢無法扭轉，未來可能引爆區域衝突與戰爭。

這幾天，在哥本哈根氣候變化峰會中，已開發與開發中國家為了誰該減排更多的碳、誰該承擔較大的責任而爭吵不休。殘酷的現實是，富裕的已開發國家長期排放大量的碳，但受害最大的卻是貧窮的開發中國家。科學家計算出減緩暖化所需成本大約是全球ＧＤＰ的百分之一，相較於金融海嘯時各國政府為救銀行而消耗掉ＧＤＰ的百分之五，抗暖化的經費並不如想像中來得大。因此，已開發國家當然有責任金援開發中國家因應氣候變遷。

儘管哥本哈根會議中窮國、富國吵翻天，台灣由於非聯合國氣候變化綱要公約（ＵＮＦＣＣＣ）締約國，即使哥本哈根峰會達成新的減碳共識，事實上台灣也沒有遵守的義務。不過，對台灣而言，暖化所造成的災害早已發生。幾個月前的八八水災帶來百年來最大的雨量，造成嚴重的土石流與小林滅村的慘劇，這樣的教訓還不夠嗎？經歷了這麼大的災難，台灣還能夠無視於國際趨勢，肆無忌憚地發展更多的高汙染、高耗能產業，繼續排出更多二氧化碳嗎？

檢視台灣歷年來的排碳成績，實在令人汗顏。台灣的二氧化碳成長率是世界上成長最快的國家之一，自一九九九年之後更進一步惡化，二氧化碳成長率竟高於經濟成長率，不僅經濟沒搞好，連環境保護也沒顧到。依中研院的分析，因為政府長期實施低於國際水準的能源價格政策與扶植高耗能產業，台灣的能源使用效率比歐盟與日本都來得低。這樣的發展模式如果不設法調整，台灣的出口勢必面臨歐盟等工業國家的貿易制裁，碳風險反而成為台灣經濟發展新的隱憂。

標榜節能減碳的馬政府，上任一年多以來，究竟做了那些努力？以行政院通過的「永續能源政策綱領」為例，減碳目標是二○二 ○年達到二○○八年的標準，二○ 二五年回到二千年的標準。先看看這項目標，國際上是以一九九○年為基準，相形之下，台灣則是以二○○八年為基準，相對非常寬鬆。其次，研議已久的溫室氣體減量法仍躺在立法院，至於賦改會提出的「能源稅」方案，尚未經過政策辯論就被府院打入冷宮。

近年來國際上越來越多企業體認到低碳成長帶動的綠能商機，從微軟、英特爾到惠普已率先實施減碳，國內也有台積電、華碩、台達電、奇美等積極取得碳足跡認證。面對這股綠能減碳的新趨勢，台灣似乎仍沉醉於超低能源價格與發展高耗能產業的模式中，府院高層仍死抱著石化燃料舊思維，以為推動節能減碳即會傷害經濟發展。其實，節能減碳雖帶來新的挑戰，同時也帶來許多新商機，有待政府與企業共同努力開發。馬總統上任迄今，既然全面掌握黨政大權，如果連最基本的「能源稅」政見都無法兌現，不知台灣如何奢談邁向環境大國？