拾易台灣觀察站
sez Taiwan Scope

Since mid-May, starting with the carbon reduction agenda of the inauguration ceremony organized by the new President, and coinciding with domestic hikes in fuel and electricity prices driven by rising international oil prices, energy conservation and carbon reduction have become national topics in Taiwan. These issues have occupied extensive media coverage for quite some time. Legislators have called on officials to switch from large vehicles to smaller ones; journalists have reported on hybrid cars and energy-saving light bulbs; scholars have encouraged the public to switch from driving to cycling; officials have urged everyone to use MRTs and buses instead of driving. Religious and environmental groups have appealed for reduced meat consumption and lower spending; there have even been occasional instances of radical environmentalists criticizing the President for wearing casual attire instead of a suit at meetings, accusing him of mere posturing. Summarizing and observing the content of these energy conservation and carbon reduction discussions reveals several inherent issues.

 

The first issue is that advocates often promote their demands in a zero-sum-game and revolutionary manner. If this "everyone is guilty" environmental revolution continues to evolve: entrepreneurs, tycoons, and Taiwanese businesses traveling extensively by air should face exorbitant "carbon fees" (note: commercial aircraft only travel 50 meters per liter of fuel); companies operating in high-rise buildings with central air conditioning, consuming significant air conditioning, elevators, and lighting, should be shut down; people should cease domestic and international tourism, as it is an energy-consuming activity with no social contribution; the national military should ideally be completely disbanded; idle taxis should be banned from the roads; and environmental advocates should only use bicycles or sailboats to promote environmental causes.

 

The populist approach to environmental issues risks undermining economic activities that sustain social stability and development. This is already evident in the automotive and other transportation-related industries. The reduced purchasing power of these populations and families is also affecting other industries, gradually leading to a lose-lose or universally impoverished society.

 

Some populist environmental topics are dividing social classes. The call to commute by bicycle is one such example: cycling is only practical for distances within 8 kilometers and gradients below 5%. Most low- and middle-income workers cannot afford to live in city centers, cannot easily choose jobs close to home, and cannot afford branded bicycles with gears costing over NT$30,000. As a result, the carbon reduction glory of bicycle commuting is often awarded to university professors or high-income individuals living near prime business districts. Taking the MRT or buses to work is another example: over 15 million people in Taiwan live outside of Taipei City and County, Taichung City, and Kaohsiung City, where MRTs and dense bus networks are unavailable. Not to mention those whose homes and workplaces are far from MRT or bus stations, those who need to drop off or pick up children, or those who must visit clients in various locations. In reality, the honor and convenience of public transport commuting mainly benefit employees of government institutions or companies with slower work paces.

 

The second issue is Taiwan's tendency to blindly believe in miracle solutions. The idolization of bicycles lasted for a week, but fortunately, heavy afternoon rains across Taiwan dampened the public’s infatuation with this mode of transportation, sparing consumers from waking up only in autumn or winter. The media showers affection on hybrid cars, which cost twice as much as gasoline-powered vehicles of the same class, while showing mild interest in diesel cars, which are NT$100,000 more expensive than gasoline cars and about 10% more fuel-efficient. However, they ignore developments like multi-gear automatic transmissions, which improve fuel efficiency by about 2% (adding around NT$6,000 per gear to the car price), and space-saving spare tires or alternative functionalities. Meanwhile, the introduction of fifth-stage environmental standards for scooters has been met with media complaints about rising prices, with no mention of the significant carbon reduction and energy-saving benefits this could bring to Taiwan’s largest motor vehicle market. In truth, quick fixes for energy conservation and carbon reduction often come with notable side effects, while gradual improvements are more widely accepted by society and sometimes achieve even greater and more remarkable results.

 

The third issue lies in the legitimacy and accuracy of these topics, which remain open to debate. Common misconceptions include the following:

(1)   Do the general public in Taiwan have a proper understanding of energy conservation and carbon reduction and are they willing to take action?

People in Taiwan are far more focused on cost-saving in private matters than on energy conservation and carbon reduction. Therefore, having the government establish low-energy, low-carbon standards and use price mechanisms to reduce industrial and public consumption of high-pollution, low-reserve energy remains the most efficient approach.

(2)   Can public transportation reduce carbon and conserve energy?

This is a paradoxical, misleading argument. In fact, public transportation systems like 12-ton buses that stop and go on routes without direct paths, and metro and high-speed rail systems with enormous construction costs and carbon footprints, are far from eco-friendly during off-peak hours. A more accurate statement would be that the government has invested heavily in public transit systems and encourages people to use them during off-peak hours to improve their energy-efficient, low-carbon operational rates. While it’s fine for individuals to save money in private and the public sector to gain benefits from overloading during peak hours, this isn’t a sustainable direction for societal development in the long term.

(3)   Does using public facilities reduce carbon and save energy?

Partially true. Air conditioning in public spaces such as train stations, libraries, and shopping malls is indeed more economical than in private households. However, people can’t spend all 24 hours a day in public spaces, and most people who choose to spend extended time in public areas are motivated by reducing their own electricity costs, effectively passing it onto others. This has little to do with the noble mission of preserving the Earth for future generations.

(4)   Should energy-saving light bulbs be universally promoted?

Fluorescent and LED lighting consume only a third or a fifth of the electricity of incandescent bulbs; it seems cannot be better to switching to energy-saving bulbs. However, the production of fluorescent lamps involves mercury, making recycling systems essential after extensive use. LED lighting generates a lot of ineffective heat, posing another type of environmental issue. The T5 fluorescent tube, claimed by manufacturers to save 30% more energy than existing T8 and T9 tubes, requires an electronic ballast costing around NT$5,000 for the advertised efficiency, a key reason why it hasn’t yet become popular. Fluorescent lighting also emits significant radiation. Those of us with darker skin have a lower risk of skin cancer from fluorescent exposure than fair-skinned individuals. Still, if national standards required fluorescent lighting to include UV-protection glass covers, this would be a meaningful step toward higher standards in energy-saving lighting while safeguarding public health.

(5)   Can a financial market for carbon trading reduce carbon?

In reality, only transforming the manufacturing and usage processes of products can achieve energy conservation and carbon reduction, whereas financial tools lack this capability. Carbon trading resembles Taiwan’s recent REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts). Everyone can own a share of a building and buy, sell, or trade shares on the financial market, but the building remains standing, and so does the carbon dioxide.

(6)   Do smaller cars save more fuel than larger ones?

Generally, yes. However, other factors, such as vehicle weight (for instance, German cars prioritize collision safety and tend to be heavier than similar Western European or Japanese models), transmission system, gearbox type, engine displacement, additional engine features (such as turbocharging, variable valve timing, direct fuel injection), and fuel type (gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, ethanol), can all affect this rule. The most objective approach would be for the government to establish rigorous fuel economy testing methods and publish the results, which would be far more useful than the public’s assumptions.

(7)   Does not driving eliminate our dependence on oil?

This view is partially correct. Plastic products are widely used in our daily lives, from household appliances to computers, printers, MP3 players, USB drives, stationery, toys, and toothbrushes—all of which derive from petrochemical products. Fortunately, unlike petrochemical fuels, many of these products have the added potential for recycling.

 

Compared to revolutionary or grand temple festival-style social movements, the energy-saving and carbon-reduction movement can also be upgraded into a form of social movement that everyone can participate in, where most people feel honored or rewarded, and innovative leaders are encouraged. This can be termed a "Renaissance-style" social movement, offering a higher chance of success and greater impact. Possible topics include:

1.      Promoting flexible work hours by the government and private sector:

Fixed rush-hour traffic congestion wastes fuel resources and everyone’s time. A flexible work system, potentially incorporating daylight-saving functions during summer, seems like a win-win for society.

2.      Actively investing in broadband infrastructure in second-tier counties:

This could increase opportunities for remote work, accommodate young parents with young children, and reduce transportation costs from meetings or shopping.

3.      Establishing six major economic zones in western Taiwan:

This would significantly reduce mobility costs for a large workforce, improve the quality of life in densely populated metropolitan areas, and discourage the construction of high-energy-consuming, high-carbon-footprint glass curtain buildings in downtown areas. It would also support the growth of green buildings and communities in new towns, while providing an effective solution to political issues related to the imbalance in development and income disparity between the north and south.

4.      Implementing stricter fuel, pollution, and safety standards for vehicles, machinery, and ships in use, such as Euro 5:

While strict standards may drive up new vehicle prices and reduce sales, they align with the principle that polluters should bear the cost. Moreover, encouraging the replacement of old, inefficient vehicles not only conserves energy and reduces carbon but also gives the industry a chance for renewal.

5.      Encouraging consumption of other eco-friendly and energy-saving products:

Rather than promoting extreme consumption restraint, which risks economic downturns, encouraging eco-friendly products mitigates such risks. Beyond energy-saving lights and low-carbon vehicles, broadly impactful items include DC inverter motors, which save around 40% energy and can be used in air conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, and retrofitting older building elevators. UV-resistant, highly insulating, and transparent glass can be widely applied in buildings and vehicles. New propeller aircraft with low noise, low maintenance, and low fuel consumption could revitalize the struggling domestic aviation industry. Biodegradable plastic bags, promoted with pricing strategies, might recover from the setbacks of previous plastic reduction policies, mitigating the environmental hormone damage caused by plastic waste. Other examples include mercury-free dry batteries and lead-free circuit boards in electronics.

6.      Implementing an environmental tax:

This would strategically raise the sale costs of high-energy-consuming, high-pollution goods, while legally subsidizing energy-saving and carbon-reducing goods under WTO restrictions. One approach is to increase the business tax rate for low-standard goods and promote a “GGMP” green and energy-efficient product certification, allowing such goods to enjoy tax breaks. Environmental tax can also act as a legal trade barrier, limiting the influx of low-cost products produced with high-pollution processes in third-world countries, thus protecting and supporting domestic quality enterprises.

7.      Phasing out tax incentives for high-tech industries and shifting support to recycling and regeneration industries:

In the absence of better methods than encouraging consumption for social stability, establishing a recycling and regeneration system to handle post-consumption waste is essential. With international prices for oil, electricity, and raw materials soaring, the market is now ripe for recycled and regenerated products. Early attraction of enterprises committed to innovative technology and operational efficiency in this challenging sector would minimize the costs of dealing with monopolistic practices and local interest conflicts currently dominant in Taiwan’s three main recycling cooperatives.

8.      Amending the constitution to reinstate the provision that the education, science, and cultural budget be no less than 25% of the total budget:

This would help restore a unique national identity, especially by addressing issues with strategic and long-term basic research, which has suffered from reliance on short-term commercial sponsorships. Relevant research areas that would give Taiwan a competitive advantage include geothermal energy, solar power, deep-sea resource exploration, genetically modified biofuels, alternatives to petrochemical and wood materials, two-person vehicles between motorcycles and compact cars, and multi-reservoir systems on single rivers.

9.      Making Zhongshan suits and suits the official attire:

Wool-based suits with long pants and long-sleeve shirts, originating from temperate Western countries, are unsuited for Taiwan, where daytime temperatures exceed 25°C for three-quarters of the year. An improved Zhongshan suit, suitable for both short and long sleeves and made of lightweight, breathable fabric, could provide comfort, reduce air conditioning costs, and flatter the body type of many Asian men. This suit, rooted in Taiwan’s national history and culture, has the potential to become a unique national symbol. Years ago, when Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi promoted “no suits in summer” with support from corporate leaders, the gesture was widely accepted. In contrast, when Taiwan’s leaders followed suit, they faced public and media criticism, highlighting a stark difference.

 

The energy-saving and carbon-reduction movement, like many environmental and public welfare initiatives, doesn’t always align individual or group interests with the long-term public interest of society. Not every measure can please everyone. Such challenging yet socially impactful initiatives fall under the government’s purview, and it may take a visionary and dedicated leader to tackle them. Examples include:

1.      Building additional nuclear power units, postponing the non-nuclear policy by 20 years:

Among current fast-track solutions for reducing carbon emissions or combating the greenhouse effect, the technique of storing carbon dioxide in rock layers or seabeds is still unverified, with concerns about the energy consumption involved in collecting and transporting CO₂. Similarly, dispersing sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere to reflect solar radiation and cool the Earth poses risks, as acid rain from SO₂ can harm forests, potentially decreasing CO₂ absorption and resulting in unintended consequences. Algae or marine plant cultivation for CO₂ absorption is in its infancy but carries the risk of ecological disaster due to its potential impact on the ocean’s food chain. In contrast, nuclear power technology is already mature, and with advancements in space transport, it may become economically viable to transport nuclear waste to the sun for safe disposal within half a century, thereby reducing the risk of environmental pollution. Until technologies like solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power become commercially viable, nuclear power may be the safest, most immediate solution—perhaps the only one left for developing countries.

2.      Establishing a permanent national land-planning agency at the constitutional level:

From a national interest perspective, Taiwan needs an adequate proportion of green lungs to absorb CO₂ and stabilize communities and ecosystems. It also needs sufficient fisheries, forests, farmland, and green spaces for food, goods, and recreation. Additionally, certain areas of land, rivers, and seas may be reserved exclusively for national defense or strategic purposes. However, from an individual or corporate standpoint, the scarcity of land leads to appreciation in its value, and land designated for residential or commercial use fetches a much higher price than agricultural or forestry land, encouraging private interests to challenge regulations and encroach on green spaces. Facing such a zero-sum game, only a national authority with the highest level of power can design and execute a sustainable land-use plan for all citizens.

3.      Reducing population:

It may seem harsh, but the global population of 6 billion, a fivefold increase in the last century, is Earth’s greatest consumer of resources and pollutant. Population reduction is the most direct and effective means of energy-saving and carbon reduction. However, in the 20th century, many countries with low tax rates, including Taiwan, relied on population growth as a driver of productivity and economic development, using increased tax revenue from younger generations to fund the retirement and welfare of older generations. This “Ponzi scheme” structure, which depends on endless population growth, is unsustainable, leading to resource depletion and economic stagnation. The individual accounts system introduced in the 2005 labor pension reform marked a new chapter for Taiwan, allowing people to cover their own lifetime care costs from their own labor income, the first step toward freeing society from the trap of population growth. Imagine if the government set a vision for Taiwan’s population to decrease to 21 million by 2100; not only would it save energy and reduce carbon emissions, but people could also expect an improvement in quality of life as resources per capita increase. However, to achieve this, tax reforms may be required to adjust tax rates, and structural imbalances during the population decrease must be addressed, including elderly reemployment and redistributing educational resources due to declining birth rates. An increase in single-person households will also lead to new family and cultural dynamics. These slow but significant issues require in-depth discussions and decisions, yet they often become overlooked or dismissed in the fast-paced, short-term political environment where they lack appeal.

I humbly offer these ideas as a starting point, hoping to spark further discussion and encourage citizens, experts, and leaders to address the complex and multifaceted issues related to energy conservation and carbon reduction.