Can an Air Pollution Control Act Rated at 100% Be Implemented at 50%?

 Can an Air Pollution Control Act Rated at 100% Be Implemented at 50%?

United Daily News Editorial (Taipei, Taiwan)

July 1, 2018

 Translation of an Excerpt

An amendment bill to the "Air Pollution Control Act," which had been delayed again and again, finally completed legislative action. The new law has sticks and no carrots, hanging high its objectives and not seeing the logic of implementation. It penalizes law-abiding citizens, but not illegal factories and “ghost cars”; to rely on it to reduce Taiwan's air pollution, it would be, we are afraid, looking for fish up in trees, as the Chinese saying goes.

“The anti-pollution grand march” at the end of last year was an overwhelming demonstration. At that time, Premier Lai Ching-te released a message to "engage in a battle to rescue Taiwan from air pollution." Lee Ying-yuan, EPA administrator, betting his job, declared that “I will resign if air pollution reduction does not achieve its goals,” attempting to smooth popular grievances. But now, looking back, the government seems to lack good faith in amending the law.

The main problem lies in the mentality of the ruling party. More than 70% of Taiwan’s air pollution sources are “locally-made,” only 30% is from overseas; however, the government has always pushed the problem overseas, especially from Mainland China’s air pollution. If we do not look squarely at the basic facts and always blur the focus, how could we prescribe the right medicine?

In addition, the attitude of the Cabinet, emphasizing the economy over environmental protection, also makes the revised “Air Pollution Control Act” destined to the fate of being hollowed out. When the DPP was in the opposition, it relentlessly used environmental protection issues to attack adversaries, knowing full-well that it was a useful weapon. However, once in power, it began to be wishy-washy for the sake of ballots, turning to emphasize the importance of the economy and further made a major turn in the matter of environmental protection.

Veritably, although the new law added a provision of "total volume control of air pollution," it instead provided that the EPA, after “consultations” with the Economics Ministry, submit [any disposition or penalties] to the Cabinet for approval. In other words, it is still adhering to the principle of the supremacy of economic development, hollowing out, in one stroke, the "Air Pollution Control Act." In another part of the law, such as the air pollution "off-set mechanism," on the one hand, it is sacrificing the use of automobiles and motorcycles by disadvantaged groups, to facilitate the large-scale sources of pollution of the rich, and on the other hand, it is sacrificing the air quality of the suburbs to cover up urban emissions. Especially, LNG-fired power plants, when necessary, may exceed the emissions standards and are not subject to the total volume restrictions, showing the mentality of letting environmental protection bow its head.

In comparison with whether the death penalty should be executed or should not be executed, the people’s “right to breathe” is a "basic human right" that the government must take more seriously. The issue of air pollution is definitely not a matter that could be independently accomplished by the EPA; this legislation that the DPP has self-promoted to be "100%," if being dragged on with the mentality of "half-done," in the end, it won’t get the effect of even 50%.

Attachment : none