Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Referendum: Process vs. Results

Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Referendum: Process vs. Results
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 12, 2013

Summary: The appeal of the anti-nuclear camp slogan "I am human. I am anti-nuclear" is simple and powerful. But it condemns anyone who dissents. It morally impugns anyone who thinks differently. It hinders debate and communication. It turns the referendum into a war between "humans" and "sub-humans." This is hardly consistent with respect for science and reason. The ruling and opposition parties must be more open-minded. They must not care only about winning. After all, the consequences must be borne by everyone.

Full text below:

The fate of the Number Four Nuclear Power Plant (4NPP) will be determined through a public referendum. This may mislead people into thinking that is the purpose of the referendum. People may conclude that the referendum is merely a showdown between those who favor and oppose the 4NPP, and that whoever has the numbers, will get their way. In fact, the referendum process is more important that the results. Only dissent and debate can lead to a referendum result consistent with the greater good. Only that can ensure that those who failed to get their way will not feel aggrieved and endlessly complain.

Alas, the Ma administration and the anti-nuclear camp have yet to engage in much in-depth debate. Nor have they contributed to rational debate among the public. Taipower's report is still filled with jargon. It fails to answer public doubts in plain language. Anti-nuke activists persist in their monotonous "I am human. I am anti-nuke." rhetoric. They refuse to acknowledge how difficult it is to develop alternative energy sources. The Ma administration's first wave of propaganda reeked of political calculation. It accused Green Camp elders of flip-flopping. This may expose the two-faced nature of the Democratic Progressive Party. But it fails to address larger public concerns.

Concern only for the outcome of the referendum is bound to undermine rational debate. Both the ruling and opposition parties have committed the same mistakes. The Ma administration has yet to offer any framework-oriented talking points. Instead, it blindly attacks the anti-nuclear groups, without any consideration for the results. This approach is unlikely to be effective. Environmental groups or the Mothers League are unlikely to change their positions. Government attempts to reach out have repeatedly been rebuffed. This merely fuels anti-nuclear sentiment. Conversely, the anti-nuclear camp may enjoy considerable public support. They have repeatedly questioned Taipower's moral posture. But they have yet to tour the 4NPP, and refuse to do so. When they hold talks with government officials, they blindly harp on whether the government is "merely patting them on the head." Such attitudes leave the impression that they are preoccupied with moral posturing, and myopically ignoring the need to cope with the harsh realities of Taiwan.

The 4NPP referendum process is more important than the results. Why? Because only rational debate can lead to a rational outcome. Making a choice is easy. Thinking is not. A choice made without thinking is dangerous. This is true regardless of whether one is anti-nuke or pro-nuke.

Before one votes on whether to halt or continue construction on the 4NPP, one should ask a number of questions. One. Security considerations. Can the government and Taipower safely operate the 4NPP for four decades? Have they improved the facilities or increased supervision to ensure safe operation? Two. Alternatives. Taiwan is taking the non-nuclear road. Sooner or later, alternative energy sources must be found. What will the energy supply consist of? Can they realistically be implemented? Three. Responsibility for the consequences. Those who urge continued construction of the 4NPP must assume responsibility for its safety. By the same token, those who demand halting construction on the 4NPP must assume responsibility for electricity rate increases, for power outages, for weakened economic competitiveness, even damage to the environment resulting from the adoption of other forms of power. Can the public on Taiwan withstand the impact of these changes?

A full debate must take place. People must understand what changes the existing energy supply will undergo. They must understand that the percentage of renewable energy will have to be increased. They must understand that their daily lives and industrial development will be impacted. They must accept increased electricity rates, no matter how high. Providing the public understands this before it scraps the 4NPP and takes Taiwan in a new direction, it should be considered a positive development. The fear is that the two sides will resort to fear-mongering and baseless accusations. The fear is that once construction on the 4NPP is halted, no alternative energy sources will be available. The fear is that the public will not be able to tolerate increased electricity rates, and will complain about power shortages. Industries may even need to relocate. In that case, the referendum will be a formula for disaster.

If one cares only about results, Chen Shui-bian could claim to be an "anti-nuclear prophet." When everyone was high on anti-nuke euphoria, he ordered a halt on 4NPP construction. But because construction on the 4NPP was halted and restarted, few believe it is safe. In other words, Chen Shui-bian planted the seeds of disaster -- precisely because he hastily ordered a construction halt. His actions led to punitive damages for breach of contract, added costs, and changes in the design. No one knows how it will end.

The appeal of the anti-nuclear camp slogan "I am human. I am anti-nuclear" is simple and powerful. But it condemns anyone who dissents. It morally impugns anyone who thinks differently. It hinders debate and communication. It turns the referendum into a war between "humans" and "sub-humans." This is hardly consistent with respect for science and reason.

The ruling and opposition parties must be more open-minded. They must not care only about winning. After all, the consequences must be borne by everyone.

核四公投的過程論與目的論
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.12 03:04 am

核四存廢將交由公投決定，很容易讓人產生一種「目的論」的錯覺，以為這無非是正反雙方各自號召群眾一決高下，哪邊人多哪邊得勝。事實上，公投更重要的是在「過程」，唯有經過不同意見的反覆錘煉和思辨，人們才能在公投中得出合乎最大公共利益的選擇，更不致在日後面對非預期變化時懊惱不已或怨天尤人。

然而，觀察最近馬政府與反核團體的互動，卻感受不到多少深度辯論的火花，或有助於人們理性思辨的觀點。台電的報告依舊充滿專業術語，無法用淺白的說明來解答民眾疑惑；反核人士則固守「我是人，我反核」的單調論述，不願直視台灣發展替代能源的困境。馬政府的首波文宣更是充滿政治算計，直接攻擊綠營元老重臣的今是昨非，這雖可點破民進黨的兩張臉孔，卻脫離了向廣大群眾訴求的重點。

若一心只在意公投的勝負，勢必使理性辯論的過程受到侵蝕，但目前看來，朝野似乎都犯了相同的毛病。馬政府至今尚未針對全民提出任何架構性的說帖，卻一味想從反核團體下手，不論其策略考量為何，結局恐將事倍功半。因為，環保團體或媽媽聯盟都是最不可能動搖的一塊，而政府一再溝通碰壁，反將助長反核聲勢。另一方面，反核陣線雖凝聚了可觀的社會支持，但他們一再以道德主義的立場質疑台電，卻連進入核四廠區實地考察也不肯走一趟；與政府官員座談時，又一味掛慮著有無「被摸頭」的問題。這樣的態度，可能使反核論述停留在理想主義的高調，使人們忽略了對台灣現實條件及日後調整因應的關注，恐將留下短視之禍。

之所以說核四公投的「過程」比「結果」更重要，原因正在於此：要有理性的思辨，才有成熟的公投果實。選擇很簡單，但思考則不容易；沒有經過深刻思考的選擇，是危險的，無論反核或擁核都一樣。

從這個觀點看，在投下核四續建或停建的一票前，人們至少必須追問幾個不同層次的問題：第一，安全性的考慮：政府和台電有沒有維持核四廠四十年安全運轉的能力？有否透過設施改良或加強監督以確保安全的手段？第二，替代性的選擇：台灣走向非核之路，就長期或短期而言，在電力供應上有多少替代能源的選項？它們的分配比重如何？有沒有具體實現的可能？第三，後果的承擔：續建核四有安全風險必須承擔，同樣的，停建核四則有電價上漲、電力供應不繼、經濟競爭力削弱的後果，乃至因發展其他形態電力而引發新的環境破壞或景觀改變的問題，台灣社會對這些變動的承受能力如何？

如果經過充分的辯論，人們認知台灣現有電力結構必須逐步調整，再生能源的比重必須調高，日常生活和工業發展的形態必須改變，再高的電價也可以接受；那麼，即使公投廢了核四，卻因而促使台灣走向全新的發展方向，亦應該視為極可貴的一步。怕的是，在過程中雙方一味彼此恐嚇指摘，公投廢核之後卻拿不出替代辦法，最後民眾更因受不了漲價及缺電之苦而怨聲載道，甚至企業紛紛外移；那麼，這場公投將是無邊的災難。

若從「結果論」看，陳水扁大可以「反核先知」自居，因此在眾人皆醉之際，他就率先下令核四停工。但若從「過程論」看，今天核四鬧到停工又復建以致沒人敢信其安全的地步，不正是因為阿扁貿然下令停工種下的災難？遂致違約賠款、追加預算、變更設計，終致不知如何收場。

反核團體的口號「我是人，我反核」，雖是簡單有力的訴求，卻隱含譴責異己、排拒不同思考的道德暗示，也阻礙了雙方的辯論和溝通。把公投上綱為「人」與「非人」之戰，恐怕不符科學理性精神。

請朝野都拿出更開放的態度，進行這場公投辯論。不要一味只想著誰勝誰負，畢竟，所有後果是要全民共同承擔的。