李崇菱 Tsung Ling Lee[1]

R95A41013

 

 

 

 

    As the earth heats up during the recent year, so does the debate on climate change, the urgent need to readdress the global problem as the consequences of climate change has become more prominent in recent years. This is more so in 2009 as Taiwan experienced the devastation after typhoon Motakot swamped the southern Taiwan in August; and in the subsequent month, Typhoons Ketsana and Parma hit Philippine coasts; the weather anomalies and human devastation demands global attention and the execution of a workable global solution.

 

    In light of this, Taiwan serves as an interesting microcosm for climate change, because as a tropical island nation it is particularly vulnerable to rising seas and temperature. For example, as a comparison the temperature in Taiwan has risen 1.43°C since last century, which is twice the world average of 0.6°C. If sea level rises by 1 meter, Taiwan risks at losing 274 square meters of land. Moreover, Taiwan has a heavily industrialized economy, where currently it ranks 26^th as the world largest economy and produces around 1% of the world total greenhouse gases (GHGs). During the past 18 years, Taiwan’s carbon dioxide (CO₂) emission has grown by more than 140%[2], continuing with business as usually, would almost certainly means a dangerous and a catastrophic consequence is highly probable, this is a route Taiwan can ill afford. 

 

    According to the public poll conducted by Taiwan Public Opinion Studies Association released in June this year, the awareness on climate change has increased in the recent years, as nearly twice as many Taiwanese people believe environment protection should take precedence over economic development[3]. However, the top three environmental issues ranked by those who participated in the poll are landscape preservation, air quality improvement and water quality improvement. While it is encouraging that the public has become aware of climate change and its likely impacts, however the ranking of environmental priority reveals some worrying concerns, as it indicate that people are underestimating the gravity of the problem. This is disconcerting, particularly in Taiwan context.

 

    As a matter of fact, in terms of energy supplies, Taiwan relies heavily on foreign suppliers where 42.3% of its coals supply comes from Australia, 36.9% are imported from Indonesia, and China supplies approximately 16.8 % of coals to Taiwan[4]. These imported coals are used for electric power generation, steel, cement and petrochemical industries[5]. Domestic coal production stopped in 2000, and the coal shortage is mostly met with imports. Moreover, in terms of oil consumption, where it occupies the largest share of energy consumption in Taiwan (45.7%?),[6] Taiwan relies on Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and other middle east countries for its oil supplies. Both coals and oil supplies in Taiwan comes from imports, the inadequacy of domestic energy production poses hidden danger to Taiwan, especially considering the security of oil supplies is subject to volatile international politics and turbulent regional geo-politics which Taiwan has little influence. To prevent supply disruptions, refiners in Taiwan are under regulatory requirement to stock no less than 30 days of consumption, an energy policy similar to those of Japan and South Korea[7].The majority of the oil consumed in Taiwan is by the industrial sector; though refiners in Taiwan are under regulatory requirement to maintain base level of oil supply, the absence of alternative and sustainable energy supply, poses hidden danger to Taiwan industries and exposes the vulnerability of Taiwan in the international realm which must not be overlooked.  

 

    How policy is implemented and executed is dependent on the perimeter set out by law, and law gives weight and actualizes the grand venture envisaged by policy makers. This is particular so in light of regulatory framework of energy policy, where a cohesive energy policy is desirable, and the law regulates and sets to achieve the desirable outcome of public policy, where, in theory should based on the interest of the public, and the nation as a whole. However, given the trans-boundary nature of climate change, where polluters might not be subject to “green” laws and regulations, and for those advocators of green energy might still suffer the consequence of climate change, it highlights the political sensitivity and the grand-scale problem of climate change. This is global challenge that demands global effort and global strategy; to deal with climate change with effective means and to slow down global warming, would inevitable invite a paradigm shift that departs from the traditional notion of state-centric thinking; where nation-state implement their own “command and control” approach. This become prominent when the scope of harm does not know borders, policy decision needs to be made at a supranational level for it to be effective, yet at the same time regulatory authority at international level risks centralizing decision power and isolate nation-states from the decision process, thus rending the process at risk of democracy deficit.

 

    However, without a coherent international monitoring system and functional governing body, all efforts and good wills of individual nations might go astray in mist of a battle to combat global warming. This is because climate change is not a confined local or a regional problem; the temperatures are rising, the sea level is rising, the effects of climate change are real and are happening at a much rapid pace than predicted[8].

 

    One of the consequences of climate change is the rise of prevalence of natural disasters such as typhoons, environmental refugees are not necessarily the polluters in responsible and contributors of global warming. In mist of climate chaos, humanity as a whole for the first time, have to face the price for industrialization, regardless race, age, nationality, religion, and sex. The commonality of the problem demands the readdress of the issue from a global perspective.

 

    Hence, when dealing with law and policy of climate change, I propose the following. Climate change is a multifaceted issue, and it should be dealt with as such. For example, to combat and halt global warming through the control of GHG emission, a unilateral state action is neither inadequate nor feasible because it does little when the big picture is considered. Take the Kyoto Protocol for example, despite some attempts to decrease carbon emission of its committed signatories, when the United States, which produces the largest amount of GHG emission refused to ratify the treaty, the Kyoto Protocol achieves little and expires soon in 2012,[9] and post-Kyoto international negotiation is underway. To monitor and to decrease global GHG emission, state cooperation is vital and international independent monitoring agency is critical to success. Nevertheless, for climate change agenda to gain its full momentum and become the top priority for states, consensus from state actors must take the form first. However, how to achieve the agreed target or how to implement the relevant operational mechanisms, there should be flexibility for state actors to decide. States actors must allow the freedom to implement and choose the suitable instrument, which reflect its domestic needs and balance its self-interest, and this will increase the incentive for state actors to commit to the cause.

 

    In other words, so long as state actors all acknowledge that climate change is a top priority in its national agenda, then how to implement the relevant acts should be subject to state actors’ discretions. For example, the debate over carbon tax and cap and trade system is much heated debated on the climate change scene. Both sides of the camps present creditable arguments; where cap and trade imposes an overall cap on permissible emission level in the economy, from the perspective of environmental benefit it provides certainty that results from its implementation (benefit certainty), and because cap and trade operates on market-basis, the cost is uncertain. Whereas carbon tax sets the precise amount of tax in advance, it provides cost certainty, but it does little to warren the reduction of GHG emission and does not offer benefit certainty[10]. Hence, on the international realm, which route to take in an effort to combat global warming should be subject to state actors’ discretion, where government chooses the instrument that is most suitable for its domestic economy and structure, and might less the concern of democratic deficit. However, an institutional monitoring mechanism must be in place, where bad behaviors are punished, and to monitor the transparency of the process, and historical contribution is taken into consideration. By allowing two competition economy models to co-exist, carbon tax and cap and trade, in reality would complicate the daily running of business, but since no one is certain which one is more beneficial while the effect of climate change is real, two competing economy model might counterbalance and counteract each other’s deficiency. At supranational level, the institutional focus should be on how to monitor the competing economy models and to coordinate the inherent deviation between the two, and ensuring all available data gathered such as external costs, efficiency, etc. are accessible to all.

 

    Interestingly, in relation to Taiwan’s scenario, Dr. Daigee Shaw[11] from Chung-Huan Institution for Economic Research (CIER) purposed Taiwan should implement carbon tax for a 10-year period, then follow by the adoption of cap-and-trade system. The underlying argument is to avoid the complications between the executing of dual competing economy models, which is the current state in the European Union where emission trade scheme (ETS) and carbon tax run concurrently[12]. While simplicity might be the preferable route in policy implementation, by taking the carbon tax route for a 10-year period, Taiwan might risks being marginalized from the cap-and-trade system when it would be a well established international economy norms in a decade.

 

    While the interplay between international and domestic level is dependent on political negotiations and complicate political reality that often result in political comprise, at domestic level, government should commit to encourage innovation as the centerpiece of environmental policy structure[13]. While Taiwan is not a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)[14], Taiwan voluntarily abides to the UNFCCC objective[15]to reduce its GHG emission. Revitalization of environmental regime is necessary to promote and induce creative thinking, inventing, funding, testing, refining, and commercializing new technologies[16]. This is where the private industry consistently outperforms the public sector; therefore, the government should recoil from “command and control” approach and establish a regulatory framework that monitors private sectors’ environmental progress while establish incentives for private sectors to invest in green technologies by rewarding innovation. By shifting innovative process to the private sector, this will not only increase the scale and diversity of innovation, it is also likely to increase Taiwan’s international profile, as well as enhance Taiwan’s international collaboration opportunities. While the initial investment in green technology is costly and often acts as a financial obstacle for private sectors, the role for government to play is to set the environment standards and structure incentives that encourage business and industry to invest through laws and regulations.

 

    Despite the promising results of biomass energy, in reality, during the production of biomass energy, the amount of carbon dioxide must also be accounted.[17] Though production efficiency is one plausible consideration in policy implementation, a holistic approach is preferable as it considers other factors such as agricultural profitability, employment opportunity, and the creation of new market etc. In other words, production efficiency of regenerated energy can be improved through innovative technologies. To discard the potential of regenerate energy as alternative fuel because its inefficient production method, would ignore the potential and a probable more sustainable solution. As with any source of energy, regenerate energy needs time and technology to mature for it to be sustainable in the long run. To deny regenerate energy the chance of further technology investment because of its production efficiency at its infancy, is to deny a probable solution to combat climate change.            

 

    In short, the effects and impacts of climate change are inevitable and would worsen if no collective global effort and collaboration are taken. Taiwan as an island nation serves as an interesting microcosm for climate change, and how Taiwan implements its climate change policies can reflect and mirror the efforts to halt global warming at international level. However, since climate change is a transboundary challenge with multifaceted dimensions for the new century, to tackle the global problem must resort to collective strategy and coordination, otherwise any attempts by individual state actors would be futile and nugatory.

 

 

---