Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Taiwankengo/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0
THE PAN-BLUE CAMP’S efforts to leverage on environmental causes in order to attack the DPP can be observed in recent contention in Keelung. A clash last month at an environmental impact assessment in which three TPP legislators, Chang Chi-kai, Chen Gau-tzu, and Vivian Huang were present, proves a case in point.
The central government currently plans to build a fourth liquified natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in Keelung. Plans for the LNG terminal currently involve transforming the 2,000-megawatt oil-fired Xiehe Power Plant, which is currently the only fully oil-fired power plant in Taiwan, into a gas-fired plant. At the meeting, opponents of the LNG terminal stormed the podium and refused to allow the meeting to continue.
Originally, plans were to build the terminal off of the northern coast of Waimushan. However, criticism from local politicians and environmental activists led to the relocation of the proposed LNG terminal to near the Xiehe Power Plant.
The plans for the LNG terminal originally did not pass an environmental impact assessment. The assessment was criticized as perfunctory by civil society groups critical of the LNG plant, as well as delayed numerous times. As the members of the assessment committee were originally scheduled to step down in June 2022, this led to calls in 2023 for the process to be delayed in order to conduct a more comprehensive assessment.
The TPP legislators who appeared at the meeting made similar criticisms, accusing the assessment of not containing data about groundwater pollution. They argued that Taipower, Taiwan’s state-run power utility, had hidden data about groundwater and soil pollution. Data about ship collisions and near-collisions was also brought up as showing further dangers of the plant.
Authorities have denied that there was incomplete or missing information, stating that the area is not designated as a control area for groundwater and soil pollution, and that violations of the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act are reported separately from environmental impact assessments. At the same time, it has often been the case that Taipower has been involved in cover-ups for the sake of advancing development projects.
Keelung mayor George Hsieh, who belongs to the KMT, previously called in 2023 for a national referendum on the LNG terminal. This was blocked by the Central Election Committee (CEC), which stated that the Keelung mayoral government could not involve itself in pushing for a national referendum. Afterward, Hsieh stated that he would file an administrative lawsuit against the central government for seeking to block the terminal, arguing that the move violates Keelung’s autonomy.
Later on, the CEC shifted to argue that the Keelung local government would be violating its authority in approving the referendum, but that the local government could provide “guidance” to referendum petitions. The suggestion was also that national energy policy is not subject to a referendum.
Civil society groups have sought to protest the LNG terminal for many years. Environmental groups have been critical of construction plans with the view that this may threaten biodiversity, particularly regarding coastal wildlife and coral reefs. Likewise, environmental groups have sought to highlight that Keelung’s potential as a tourist destination could be threatened by pollution, citing Yilan’s tourism as due to successful environmental protections there.
Photo credit: Taiwankengo/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0
Groups opposed to the receiving station include organizations such as the Society of Wilderness, Wild at Heart Legal Defense Association, Citizens Association for Public Policy, Taiwan Watch Institute, Left Corner Foundation, and others. These groups are hard to accuse of being pro-KMT or pro-TPP. Some local pan-Green politicians are also opposed.
Yet the central government’s priority is on increasing Taiwan’s LNG storage capacity because of the fact that energy supplies to Taiwan could potentially be cut off as a result of a Chinese blockade of Taiwan. The government is hoping to increase LNG storage capacity from 7 to 14 days.
But, in this respect, local environmental groups are caught between a rock and a hard place. Namely, even if such civil society groups are more pan-Green in leanings, advocating for a cause that the pan-Blue camp has thrown its weight behind will lead to allegations of acting as a flank of the pan-Blue camp.
The KMT has thrown its weight behind referendum campaigns before. Previously, a December 2021 referendum was held on an LNG receiving terminal that was to be built off the coast of Datan, Taoyuan. The Taoyuan LNG terminal was criticized by local environmentalists as threatening the 7,000-year-old Datan coral reef.
Although the referendum petition originally would not have met the necessary benchmarks to be put to a national vote, it did after the KMT got involved with the issue. This occurred despite that the LNG terminal was first proposed when the KMT held power, with the conservation of the Datan reef proving to be an issue on which the KMT and DPP traded positions between when in power and out of it. At the time, the government also defended itself by citing how it had amended plans for the LNG terminal in response to criticisms.
The referendum was defeated in favor of the DPP, something reflective of the strong position of the DPP at the time, particularly with Taoyuan mayor Cheng Wen-tsan of the DPP being highly popular at the time before his later fall from grace. But, in light of the KMT’s successes in using the Datan struggle as a boost for campaigning efforts in 2018, the pan-Blue camp likely still hopes to capitalize on future environmental causes.