The Editor says: The controversy over the Taoyuan Datan algal reef continues to rage in environmental circles, prompting the Ministry of Economic Affairs to issue a formal statement of clarification. Environmental groups and the diving community have kept pushing for signatures, but beyond sheer passion, coach Carrie Tsai — the author of this piece — offers some timely alternative perspectives, inviting us all to pause and reflect: those of you who signed the petition, did you truly think through this century-defining dilemma?
This article is adapted from a Facebook post by coach Carrie Tsai. Beyond the post itself, we highly recommend taking a moment to browse the comment thread, where many readers have contributed measured and rational discussion! (Comment thread here)
The second phase of the algal reef petition is approaching its final countdown. At first, I didn't overthink it — I simply believed that anything good for the ecosystem deserved support. But over the past few days, as I began receiving other information and started seriously researching and digesting views from all sides, I realised things may not be as straightforward as I had assumed.
Background summary:
#SaveTheAlgalReefReferendum
Main demands of the algal reef protection groups:
http://algalreef.weebly.com/20013278331997725509382833......
Accuses the government of deception, claiming the Third LNG Terminal (Terminal 3) project is set to destroy more than 300 hectares of algal reef.
Over the past few days, the Ministry of Economic Affairs also began releasing information:
https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=900598
CPC Corporation held a press conference presenting construction plans to emphasise its "avoidance and alternative modification scheme," stating that the Third LNG Terminal has already skirted the sensitive algal reef zones. The Ministry of Economic Affairs further stressed that construction is currently underway using existing reclaimed land to preserve the algal reef.
So what is the argument about now?
The algal reef referendum group hit back, slamming CPC for "sidestepping the core issues and misleading the public," pointing out that the total water area required for dredging the shipping channel and turning basin at the Guantang Industrial Port amounts to as much as 913 hectares, which would destroy the algal reef ecosystem beneath the port's footprint.
https://e-info.org.tw/node/229649
On this point, I genuinely want to wait and see whether the Ministry of Economic Affairs responds in the coming days.
Update 2/25: Ministry of Economic Affairs response
https://www.facebook.com/335544036485779/posts/5326880134018786/?d=n
Why does the government place such importance on Terminal 3?
https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1433097 Primarily for energy transition, plus the impact on northern Taiwan's power supply stability — and the resulting social and economic consequences — if the site were relocated.
However, some argue the government is simply scaremongering and that Taiwan doesn't have a power shortage at all. Note that this article only cites 2019 data and should be taken as reference only:
https://www.storm.mg/article/357148
And now Nuclear Power Plant No. 4 is being dragged into the debate?! What does the algal reef even have to do with Nuclear Plant No. 4?!
Chart source: https://www.ettoday.net/news/20181120/1310606.htm
If Taiwan truly doesn't have a power shortage, then delays caused by relocating Terminal 3 wouldn't be a problem. But what if there really is a power shortage down the line? Without adequate infrastructure in place, Taiwan's current primary energy sources — coal, natural gas, and nuclear — would leave us with no choice but to rely on more coal or ramp up nuclear power generation to maintain supply stability. Restarting Nuclear Plant No. 4 seems unlikely to me, but coal-driven air pollution is a rather more pressing concern. Of course, this is all hypothetical — are we willing to gamble on whether Taiwan will or won't face a power shortage?
In researching these issues, I've also read extensively on #NuclearForGreen and #NuclearFreeHomeland.
I absolutely support a nuclear-free homeland, and I genuinely hope Taiwan can work toward that goal. But how much energy-transition hardship must we endure along the way? How do we strike a balance between economic development and ecological preservation? This has always been an extraordinarily difficult target to calibrate. What I want to know is: what does this petition — what does my signature — actually stand for?
I want to ask: how long could you cope without electricity? How high could you tolerate electricity bills rising? Looking at things broadly — how many resources do we waste? How many people run their air conditioning all day in summer? How many stay in a guesthouse and leave the AC blasting all day while they go out to play, because they're not the ones footing the electricity bill? How many times have you walked out of a room and forgotten to turn the lights off?
In the end, I just want everyone to see the many dimensions this issue touches on, to understand how this debate affects us, and then to make their own informed decisions. (Comment thread here)
Cover image credit: UDN — Datan Algal Reef Referendum Petition in Crisis: Environmental Groups Sprint for 260,000 Signatures in 8 Days — Photo by reporter Tseng Tseng-hsun
