“Do you agree that the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant should be halted and that it not become operational?” (你是否同意核四廠停止興建不得運轉)Surely a "yes" vote would indicate agreement, i.e. that the voter agrees that construction of the power plant should be halted and it not become operational, whilst a "no" vote would indicate the opposite. And yet despite the apparent simplicity of the text, various high-profile DPP politicians are claiming it is a "trick" intended to "manipulate" the public because, says TT reporter Chris Wang...
"... if the vote failed, it would authorize the construction and operation of the controversial plant."Well quite. I do not see what the problem is. Do the DPP want to halt construction, but not the operation of the plant?? That doesn't even make sense. Unless of course, what the DPP want is a second chance, i.e. if the vote "fails" and construction is thereafter completed, a second referendum could then be had on the question of whether or not it should become operational. That possibility seems to be supported by the reported remarks of DPP spokesman Lin Chun-hsien (林俊憲)...
“Since the referendum is unable to determine the safety of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, it should not be used to authorize the plant’s operation...”What planet is he on? The entire anti-nuclear movement and probably most DPP members don't want the nuclear power plant precisely because they have already come to the conclusion that it will not be safe. They do not need a seperate referendum to "determine" the safety of the plant.
Unbelievable.
At this point I'd be tempted to conclude that the only "tricks" being played here are by the DPP. And yet if we look at the five "reasons" listed with the referendum question as to why construction of the power plant ought to proceed, we lapse into vertigo. For not only is the KMT's primary argument in favour of the power plant nothing to do with energy efficiency as a sensible person might expect (instead it is about cutting CO2 emissions), and not only is their second argument a non-argument, but their third argument is - quite astonishingly - that, and I really must quote...
"Third, terminating the construction of the power plant could lead to power shortages because all renewable energy technologies, such as natural gas, are still undeveloped, extremely expensive and vulnerable to fluctuations in the prices of raw materials in the global market."Since when is natural gas a "renewable energy technology"?? Renewable energy comprises wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal and biomass. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, and is therefore in finite supply and is only "renewable" on a geological time-scale. Moreover, Taiwan already has natural gas power stations and imports an awful lot of natural gas every year - and these facts are verifiable simply by looking at the Energy Bureau's publicly available data. That statement alone is just bewildering.
I really cannot decide which of the two parties is the more whacko: the DPP, who seem to think that "the people" are stupid and easily manipulated just because a referendum question precludes the possibility of them demanding another one immediately afterwards, or the KMT, who seem to have difficulty distinguishing between fossil fuels and renewables.
Do they have trouble distinguishing their arse from their elbow too?
Unbelievable.
***
My own opinion is that electricity production should be decentralized as much as possible away from the centralized electricity grid, but in as much as that national grid remains, I would say electricity should be produced chiefly by coal and gas fired power stations augmented by a sober and therefore limited mix of renewables. Solar cells are only useful sometimes and torrefied biomass still has a long way to go in research terms.
Surely a "yes" vote would indicate agreement, i.e. that the voter agrees that construction of the power plant should be halted and it not become operational, whilst a "no" vote would indicate the opposite.
ReplyDeleteAnd what if one is not opposed to its construction but wants a better guarantee of safety? Not everyone is against nuclear power in general, some just don't like Taipower's current approach.
"Third, terminating the construction of the power plant could lead to power shortages because all renewable energy technologies, such as natural gas, are still undeveloped, extremely expensive and vulnerable to fluctuations in the prices of raw materials in the global market."
Turns out that's a mistranslation. A very literal translation would be more like "Renewable energy sources, natural gas, or other technologically immature alternative sources of energy, are high in cost and [...]"
"And what if one is not opposed to its construction but wants a better guarantee of safety?"
ReplyDeleteWell if "one" is content to have electricity produced under a near-monopoly, then one gets what one is given and one learns to swallow. The alternative is to argue for ways of instantiating market accountability.
"Renewable energy sources, natural gas, or other technologically immature alternative sources of energy..."
Natural gas is not "technologically immature", either; the top end combined-cylce turbines are pushing 60% efficient, which is excellent compared to all other types of power station barring the most advanced nuclear plants.
This issue of monopoly when it comes to things like electricity, water, education, health, and even policing is a sticky one. One wants to make sure the services are all available, but one would ideally provide the most guarantees of both quality and openness with regard to market freedom. I think that is impossible in a pure sense when it comes to policing and primary/secondary education. I think even the most staunch libertarian like yourself (does one have to be staunch to qualify is a question I won't even attempt to answer at this moment) would agree that policing should not be privatized (unless it is a company's office building, a gated community, etc.). I am on the fence, however, when it comes to electricity. I think water could do with more competition, particularly here in Hsinchu, where the government run water company constantly screws up on our water in my neighbourhood. I have to turn on the tank two or three times a month for days on end. It gets worse every year.
ReplyDelete"One wants to make sure the services are all available, but one would ideally provide the most guarantees of both quality and openness with regard to market freedom. I think that is impossible in a pure sense when it comes to policing and primary/secondary education."
ReplyDeleteProviding "the most" guarantees might be impossible in any system, depending on what you mean by "most".
In any case when it comes to policing and primary education, we already know that it is not impossible to privatize these things - far from it, it was in fact, with certain caveats, the way things used to be done in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. Prior to the introduction of government paid police forces in 1829, for instance, prosecutions were undertaken on a private basis, with victims paying constables for the expenses of catching the perpetrators and collecting evidence for a magistrate. Similarly, prior to the 1870 Education Act, primary education was paid for by parents (of both rich and poor, albeit in very different settings) on a private basis with lessons taking place in makeshift classrooms. Those private systems may not have been perfect of course, but you have to remember to distinguish between the material conditions in which they were produced then from their institutional nature (i.e. the rules by which they operated).