自五月中旬新任總統藉由就職典禮的減碳行程安排開始，又躬逢國際油價飆漲帶動的國內油電雙漲推波助瀾，節能減碳剎時間成了台灣的全民話題，佔據媒體大篇幅版面好長一段時間。立法委員嗆聲要官員大車換小車；記者大幅報導油電混合車與省電燈泡；學者要大家不開車改騎自行車；官員要大家搭捷運公車別開車；宗教團體順勢附和要大家減少吃肉；也有環保團體鼓勵大家減少消費；還有稍微激進的環保人士直接罵總統棄西裝改輕便服出席會議是作秀‧‧‧歸納這些節能減碳的議題內容，其實有一些致命的問題存在。
第一個問題是提議者常以制高鄙夷的觀點質疑其它人的生活方式。如果社會大眾再放任這種你死我活的環保革命繼續發酵，接下來對大量使用飛機旅行的企業家首富與台商們應該祭予天價「排碳」罰鍰(按：民航機每公升燃油只能推進50公尺)；在中央空調帷幕高樓上班，大量耗用空調、電梯與照明的公司行號應予以停業；民眾應該停止任何國內外旅遊，因為這是對社會沒有產出的耗能行為；國軍需停止運作或全面裁撤；空跑沒載客的計程車應該被砸；環保人士以後只能騎自行車或搭帆船推動環保運動‧‧‧這樣的民粹運作只會摧毀維持社會穩定發展的經濟活動，不幸的是事實上也已經發生在汽車業與其它運輸相關行業。這些購買力大降的人口與家庭也正在影響其它的行業，逐漸在構築社會皆輸或均貧的後果。另一個可悲的現象是有些議題是在分化社會階層。改騎自行車上班的訴求是一例：因為8公里以內、坡度不大於5%的距離才適合自行車通勤。絕大部分中低收入的工作者無法選擇住在市區、無法輕鬆選擇離家近的上班地點、也無法買動輒3萬元以上的27段名牌變速自行車，結果以自行車通勤的減碳光環倒是頒給了大學教授、或是居住在商業精華區附近的高所得者；改搭捷運或公車上班又是一例：全台灣有一千五百萬以上的人口居住在沒有捷運與綿密公車網的台北縣市、台中市與高雄市之外，更遑論那些居住與上班地點與捷運站公車站有相當距離，上下班必須接送孩子，或是必須至各地拜訪客戶的都會區上班族。實際上，搭乘大眾運輸工具的榮譽與便利是給予了上班步調較慢的政府機構或企業的員工。
第二是台灣社會常有的一窩蜂迷信特效藥的現象。對自行車的造神運動持續了一週，還好全台各地的滂沱午後大雨澆醒了社會大眾對這種交通工具的熱戀，不用等到入秋入冬之後消費者才南柯夢醒；媒體對車價是同級汽油引擎車款兩倍的油電混和車厚愛有加，對車價高出汽油車款10萬元、省油約10%的柴油車略有興趣，至於有2%左右省油效果的多檔位自動變速箱(每檔位增加車價約6,000元)、車用備胎小型化或以其它功能代替等的發展趨勢漠不關心。機車進入五期環保標準，媒體除了唱衰車價提高之外，對這個國內數量最大的機動車輛市場可以帶來的減碳節能效果隻字未提。極端的反例則是譏笑總統與行政官員脫下西裝是作秀‧‧‧事實上，節能減碳的速成秘方大多伴隨可觀的副作用，反而是循序漸進的小改善容易為社會普遍接受，有時達成的效果會更加卓越顯著。
第三是對議題本身缺乏瞭解，隨之而來的空泛阿Q式行動方案只是一次又一次的迎神廟會大拜拜。幾個常見的議題迷思如下：
(一)
社會大眾普遍對節能減碳已有正確瞭解並樂意付諸行動？錯！台灣民眾對私領域的省錢大作戰關注程度，遠高於節能減碳。所以由政府制訂創造低耗能低碳的環境標準，藉由價格機制減少產業與民眾對高污染低存量能源的消費，仍是目前最有效率的作法。
(二)
搭乘公共交通工具可以減碳節能？這是一個非常弔詭、似是而非的論述。 事實上無法直線到達目的地一路上必須走走停停的12噸重公車、耗費上兆土建工程費用碳足跡慘不忍睹的捷運與高鐵等大眾交通工具，在離峰時間是極不環保的交通工具。所以準確地說是政府公部門已經鉅額投資在先，歡迎民眾在離峰時間多搭乘大眾交通工具讓這些系統達到節能低碳的營運效率。至於民眾硬要犧牲乘坐品質與時間成本在尖峰時間超載搭乘這些工具，私領域可以省荷包，公領域可以得到超額運轉的效益固無不可，但長期而言仍不是優質社會的發展方向。
(三)
使用公共場所設施可以減碳節能？部分正確。在車站、圖書館、大賣場等公共空間的空調，的確比私人家戶使用的空調更有規模經濟效益。但是民眾不可能每天24小時都待在公共空間生活；再者，選擇長時間逗留在公共空間的大部分人的主要動機，是節省自己的用電支出，轉嫁由其他人負擔。跟保護地球永續生存的神聖使命構不上關連。
(四)
省電燈泡應該全面推廣？螢光燈具和LED燈具耗電量分別只有白熾燈泡三分之一與五分之一，連小學一年級的同學都知道該換省電燈泡吧！但是螢光燈具的製程含汞，大量使用之後的回收體系非常重要；LED燈具有大量的無效餘熱，又是另一個型態的環保課題；螢光燈具中的T5燈管，廠商號稱可以比現有的T8與T9燈管再省電30%，但廠商沒說、媒體也不曉得問的是T5燈管必須搭配市價約5,000元的電子安定器才有宣稱的省電效果，這才是T5燈管目前無法普及的原因；螢光燈具還有伴隨大量輻射的問題。我們有色人種運氣不錯，沒有類似白種人曝露在螢光燈具下皮膚癌比率偏高的疑慮。但若國家標準規定螢光燈具需配置抗UV玻璃護罩，要求這個註定賺大錢的明日之星產業承擔部分社會責任，使省電燈具以更高的標準節能並維護國民健康，應當會更有意義。
(五)
提供碳權交易的金融市場可以減碳？抱歉！除了改造商品的製造過程與使用過程可以節能減碳之外，碳權交易就好像這幾年在台灣新興的RETs不動產信託基金一樣，每個人都可以持有大樓的部分所有權，也可以在金融市場中買賣流通套利，但大樓還是矗立在那裡，二氧化碳也是。
(六)
小車比大車省油？原則上是正確的，但除了車體大小之外，其它的變數包括車重(例如當地消費市場對撞擊安全較為重視的德國車，車重普遍要比西歐與日本同級車要重)、傳動系統、變速箱型式、引擎排氣量、引擎附加機構(例如渦輪增壓、可變汽門正時、燃油直噴系統等)、使用燃料(汽油、柴油、生質柴油、生質酒精等)，都足以讓「小車比大車省油」的定律翻盤。最客觀的方法，是政府修訂嚴謹的車輛油耗測試方法並公布結果，這要比社會大眾想當然耳的臆測判斷有用許多。
(七)
不開車就可以擺脫對石油的依賴？這樣的見解只對了一半。因為塑膠製品 廣泛地應用在我們的日常用品中，大至家電，小至電腦印表機、MP3 隨身碟、文具用品、玩具、牙刷等不一而足，都是由石化原料加工衍生而成的商品。較幸運的是，這些石化產品比起石化燃料，還多了一些回收再利用的可能性。
相對於革命式、或是廟會大拜拜型態的社會運動，節能減碳運動也可以升級為另一種社會大眾都可以參與、絕大多數人都感到榮耀或是受到獎賞、並且鼓勵頭角崢嶸的形式，簡稱為「文藝復興式」的社會運動。這樣成功的機率較大，成效亦愈大。可行的議題包括：
一、政府與民間推動彈性上下班制。固定上下班尖峰時刻的塞車停等嚴重浪費燃料資源，也嚴重浪費大家的時間。彈性上下班制度還可以包含夏令日光節約時間的功能，看起來是個社會多贏的方案。
二、積極投資二級縣市的寬頻網路建設。預期可以增加SOHO在家工作的機會，兼顧年輕父母養育幼齡子女的階段性需求，也可以減少因為會議或購物需求發生的交通成本。
三、西部六大區域經濟圈的設立。可以大量減少龐大就業人口的移動成本，並能有改善高人口密度三大都會區生活品質，減少高耗能高碳足跡玻璃帷幕大樓在鬧區興建，獎勵綠建築與綠社區在新市鎮立足，同時也是紓解南北發展失衡、貧富不均的政治難題的有效解決方案之一。
四、對於正在使用中的機動車輛、動力機械與船舶等，採用例如Euro5歐盟五期等更嚴苛的油耗、污染與安全標準。嚴苛的標準必然會帶動新車價格的上揚不利銷售， 但這仍然符合污染由使用者付費的公平原則。另一方面是推動老舊低效率的車輛汰舊換新，兼收節能減碳並給予產業喘息再生契機的雙重效果。
五、鼓勵其它環保節能商品的消費，取代抑制消費的極端訴求，避免經濟蕭條引發的社會運作崩盤風險。除了省電燈具與節能低碳車輛之外，應用與影響層面廣泛的環保節能商品首推可節電約40%的直流變頻馬達：除了在冷氣機、冰箱、洗衣機使用，還可以應用在機齡超過廿年的大樓電梯汰換更新，以及汽車市場等；抗UV與高隔熱高透光率玻璃，亦可以廣泛應用在房屋與汽車；低噪音低機場維護成本與低油耗的新式螺旋槳飛機取代噴射飛機，有潛力讓瀕臨淘汰邊緣的國內航空業重現生機；生質材料塑膠袋依以價制量的策略低度推廣，有可能彌補數年前強勢限塑政策的挫敗，緩解一坑又一坑遺害百年的塑膠袋垃圾環境賀爾蒙的傷害；還有無汞製程乾電池、無鉛製程電子產品電路板等，不勝枚舉……
六、開徵環保稅。策略目的是提高耗能高污染商品的販售成本，亦可以在WTO的架構限制下合法補貼節能減碳商品。可行的方法是提高修法門檻最低的商品營業稅率，同時推動例如「GGMP」綠節能好製程商品的認證制度，讓節能減碳商品得以享受稅率優惠。環保稅這項武器還可以成為合法的貿易障礙，適度阻擋第三世界國家以高污染製程製造的低價商品(例如牙膏、毛巾、鞋、玩具等)進口傾銷，兼收保護扶植國內優質企業之效。
七、高科技產業賦稅獎勵措施落日，轉而支持發展廢棄物回收與再生產業。在沒有比鼓勵消費更好的制度來維持社會穩定運作之前，建構一個回收與再生體系來處理消費後的廢棄物是必然的選擇。目前在時機上，油電與各項原物料的國際價格持續飆漲，即提供回收與再生產品銷售發展的誘因；再者，愈早吸引有志企業以創新科技與較佳經營效率協助這個3K(骯髒、辛苦、危險)產業升級，所要付出解決目前以三個資源回收運銷合作社為主的寡佔與地方利益糾葛陳痾的代價也會愈小。
八、修憲恢復教科文預算不低於總預算25%的憲法條文，重現我們國家特色，尤其是修正以短期商業資金贊助為主造成長期性與策略性基礎研究不足的問題。以節能減碳為例：地熱發電、太陽能發電、深海資源搜尋與開採、基因改造生質燃料與材料作物研究、取代石化材料與木質材料的矽化物或生質材料研究，乃至於研發介於摩托車與小轎車之間的雙人載具，建構單一河流梯田式多水庫的可行性分析等，都是我們國家在該項天然資源或研究基礎較其它國家已有較佳競爭優勢，又能帶給我國龐大長遠利益者。
九、中山裝與西裝成為官方正式服裝。以羊毛料為主的西裝外套與長褲亦需搭配長袖襯衫穿著，才是國際標準的正式穿法。這種原本起源於西方溫帶國家的衣著並不適合一年有四分之三時間白天氣溫都在25度以上的台灣。改良式的中山裝除了長短袖皆宜、適用輕薄通風布料讓穿者舒適、會所空調費用略有節省之外，還可以較堅挺的麻料裁製，讓我們一般身材較遜的東方男士藏拙。中山裝還是我們立國歷史文化的一部份，也很有資格成為我們國家特色之一。順帶一提的是，幾年前日本前首相小泉純一郎提倡夏季不穿西裝，並號召大型企業會社負責人如當時豐田汽車會長奧田碩等人出面響應。同樣是脫掉西裝，我們的總統、行政院長與政府官員卻遭到民意代表、社會團體與媒體圍剿，兩廂對照之下非常突兀。
節能減碳運動一如許多環保與公益活動一般，民眾或團體的私利益不一定與國家社會的長期公共利益一致，不能盡如人意討好每一個人。這類吃力不討好，但對社會有重大或深遠影響的關鍵議題的規劃執行權隸屬在政府公部門，大概只有極具遠見且使命感強烈的非凡執政者才願意承擔重任，例如：
一、增建核能發電機組，非核家園承諾遞延20年。在目前可見的減碳或對抗溫室效應的特效速成處理方案中：將二氧化碳封存在岩層或海床的施工技術尚待驗證，且有二氧化碳收集與運送過程的耗能疑慮；在大氣層高空散佈二氧化硫可以將太陽熱輻射反射回太空讓地球降溫。但二氧化硫引發酸雨造成森林死亡，可能讓地表的二氧化碳吸收能力減少造成減碳的反效果。森林重建至少需五十年以上，錯誤無法即時挽回的風險也需要考慮；大量栽種藻類或其它海洋植物藉以吸收二氧化碳的技術正在萌芽。但牽涉到撼動地球最大生態系統的食物鏈底層，也有全面性生態浩劫的風險‧‧‧相較之下，核能發電發展技術已臻成熟，核廢料處理隨著經濟型太空載具的發展，有可能在半個世紀內以合理的成本運送至太陽銷毀，部分程度解除污染地球環境的風險。使其成為太陽能、風力、地熱、潮汐等零碳發電方式技術成熟得以進行大規模商業運轉之前，風險最低、最即時，亦有可能是發展中國家僅剩的解決方案。
二、常設性憲法位階的國土規劃機關。就國家的利益來看，我們的國土需要適當比例的綠肺來吸收二氧化碳，並維持人居社區與總體環境生態的穩定；也需要有充足的漁場、林場、農地與綠蔭提供食物、商品或遊憩空間；還有軍事或戰略需要必須限制部分土地、河流與海洋僅供國家使用。但就民眾或企業的利益出發：土地的稀有性讓持有者不斷增值，且住宅與工商用途的土地價格遠高於農林漁牧用地，會鼓勵私部門挑戰法律規章讓私有土地擴張，以及透過政治利益交換甚至蓄意污染等手段將綠地水泥化。面對這種零和遊戲，只有掌握國家最高權力的機關規劃執行可堪全民永續發展的國土方案。
三、人口減量。說來汗顏！近百年已暴增五倍的60億人口，就是地球最大的資源消耗者與污染源，人口減量是最直接有效的節能減碳方法。但是在廿世紀包括我們在內的許多低所得稅率的國家是以人口成長作為生產力增加與經濟發展的基礎，並以後代人口增加帶來的財稅收入支付前代人口的退休與福利照護。這種無窮擴張的老鼠會結構只有仰賴人口不斷增加才能存續，但也注定會走上資源枯竭、經濟停滯的困局。2005年實施的勞退新制裡的個人帳戶制帶來我們社會結構發展的新頁：當我們個人的終生照護需由自己的勞務所得支付，就是擺脫人口成長緊箍咒的第一步。試想若政府提出2100年台灣人口回降至2,100 萬的願景目標，固然可以有效節能減碳，民眾也可預期因每人可分配資源增加而提升生活品質，但期間必須因應稅率增加的稅制變革；人口降低期間必然發生的結構失衡，必須考慮高齡人口再就業、教育資源隨家庭少子化重分配；單身族群增加會改變與塑造新的家庭親族文化‧‧‧妥善因應這些緩慢但巨大問題所需的深度討論與決策，卻是三年至四年更迭頻繁的政治權力市場中食之無味、乏人問津的雞肋， 甚或是避之唯恐不及的票房毒藥。
敬以所見所聞所學，提供一套系統性的看法，希望可以拋磚引玉，讓更多的民眾、專家與主事者願意參與解決複雜多面的節能減碳相關議題。
Since mid-May, when the new
president began implementing carbon reduction initiatives as part of the
inauguration schedule—and amid the spike in international oil prices driving up
domestic fuel and electricity costs—energy conservation and carbon reduction
have quickly become a nationwide topic in Taiwan, dominating media coverage for
an extended period. Legislators have loudly called for officials to replace
large cars with smaller ones; journalists have extensively reported on hybrid
cars and energy-saving light bulbs; academics urge people to switch from
driving cars to riding bicycles; officials are encouraging the public to use
public transportation like subways and buses instead of driving; religious
groups are joining in by advocating for reduced meat consumption; environmental
organizations are promoting reduced consumption; and slightly more radical
environmentalists are criticizing the president for allegedly making a show of
attending meetings in casual wear instead of a suit... Summing up these topics
surrounding energy conservation and carbon reduction, several fundamental
issues become apparent.
The first issue is that
advocates often question others’ lifestyles from a lofty, condescending
perspective. If society continues to allow this cutthroat environmental
revolution to escalate, next we might see hefty “carbon emission” fines imposed
on entrepreneurs, wealthy individuals, and Taiwanese businesses who frequently
travel by airplane (note: commercial aircraft only advance about 50 meters per
liter of fuel); companies that operate in skyscrapers with central air
conditioning, consuming large amounts of energy for air conditioning,
elevators, and lighting, might face shutdowns; people might be barred from any
domestic or international travel, as these are energy-consuming activities with
no social output; the military might be forced to cease operations or undergo
drastic cuts; idle taxis without passengers could be dismantled; environmental
advocates might be restricted to bicycles or sailboats for their activities...
Such populist actions would only devastate the economic activities that sustain
social stability and growth. Unfortunately, this is already affecting the
automotive industry and other transportation-related sectors, with reduced
purchasing power impacting not only these but also other industries, gradually
leading to widespread economic losses and impoverishment. Another unfortunate
phenomenon is how some of these issues are creating societal divisions. The
call to bike to work is one example: cycling is feasible only within 8
kilometers and on terrain with a grade of less than 5%. The majority of middle-
to low-income workers cannot afford to live in urban areas, nor can they easily
choose workplaces close to home, or afford name-brand, multi-gear bicycles
costing over NT$30,000. Ultimately, the honor of commuting by bicycle for
carbon reduction often goes to university professors or high-income individuals
living near central business districts. The push for using the subway or bus is
another example: more than 15 million people live outside of Taipei, Taichung,
and Kaohsiung, areas that lack extensive subway and bus networks, let alone
those who live and work far from public transit stations, need to transport
children, or must visit clients in various locations. In reality, the
convenience and honor of using public transportation are reserved mainly for
employees in government agencies or corporations with slower work tempos.
The second issue is the tendency
in Taiwanese society to obsessively believe in quick fixes. The glorification
of bicycles lasted for about a week, thankfully tempered by heavy afternoon
rains across the island that snapped the public out of their infatuation with
this mode of transportation—no need to wait for the fall and winter for people
to wake up. Media coverage showed great enthusiasm for hybrid cars, which are
twice as expensive as comparable gasoline-engine vehicles, and some interest in
diesel cars, which cost about NT$100,000 more than gasoline cars and save about
10% in fuel. However, there is little attention to trends like multi-gear
automatic transmissions, which save around 2% in fuel (each additional gear
adding around NT$6,000 to the price), or miniaturized spare tires or
replacements with other features. With the fifth phase of environmental
standards for motorcycles, the media has focused on the price hike, yet there
is no mention of the potential carbon reduction and energy savings in the
country’s largest motor vehicle market. In an extreme counterexample, the media
ridicules the president and officials for removing their suits as a publicity
stunt… In reality, fast-track solutions for energy conservation and carbon
reduction often come with considerable side effects, whereas gradual
improvements are more broadly accepted by society and can sometimes achieve
more remarkable results.
The third issue is a lack of
understanding of the topic, leading to hollow, naive plans that resemble
traditional temple worship ceremonies. Common misconceptions surrounding these
issues include:
(1)
Do
the general public in Taiwan have a proper understanding of energy conservation
and carbon reduction and are they willing to take action? Wrong! 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; even
elementary school children know they should switch 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. Luckily, 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? Unfortunately not. Aside from transforming the manufacturing and
usage processes of products to save energy and reduce carbon emissions, 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 only half 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.
沒有留言:
張貼留言