The Editor says: The controversy over the Taoyuan Datan algal reef continues to burn through environmental circles, pressuring the Ministry of Economic Affairs to issue an official statement of clarification, while environmental groups and the diving community keep pushing for petition signatures. But beyond the wave of passion, author Carrie Tsai — a dive instructor — offers some timely and contrasting perspectives, inviting everyone to pause and reflect: have those of you who signed the petition truly thought through this once-in-a-generation dilemma?
This article is adapted from a Facebook post by instructor Carrie Tsai. Beyond the post itself, we highly recommend taking some time to browse the comment thread, where many readers have contributed balanced and rational discussion! (Go to the comment thread)
The second phase of the algal reef petition is now in its final countdown. At first, I didn't give it much thought — I simply felt that anything good for the ecosystem deserved my support. But over the past few days, as I started receiving other information and seriously dug into perspectives from all sides, I came to realize that this issue might not be as straightforward as I had assumed.
Background:
#SaveTheAlgalReefReferendum The main demand of the groups protecting the algal reef: http://algalreef.weebly.com/20013278331997725509382833...... They accuse the government of deception, claiming the Third LNG Terminal (Terminal 3) project is about to damage more than 300 hectares of algal reef.
Meanwhile, over the past few days the Ministry of Economic Affairs has also been releasing information: https://www.setn.com/News.aspx?NewsID=900598 CPC Corporation held a press conference and released construction drawings to emphasize an "avoidance and alternative revised plan," stating that the Third LNG Terminal has already been redesigned to steer clear of sensitive algal reef zones. The Ministry of Economic Affairs further stressed that current construction uses existing reclaimed land in order to preserve the reef.
So what exactly is the dispute now?
The algal reef referendum group has hit back, accusing CPC of "sidestepping the key issues and misleading the public," pointing out that the total water area required for dredging the navigation channel and turning basin of the Guantang Industrial Port amounts to 913 hectares — which would destroy the algal reef ecosystem beneath the industrial port footprint. https://e-info.org.tw/node/229649
On this point, I personally 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 the government places such importance on Terminal 3
https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1433097 The primary reasons are energy transition and the impact on society and the economy caused by unstable power supply in northern Taiwan should the site be relocated.
Some people, however, claim the government is simply fearmongering and that Taiwan has no electricity shortage at all — though this article only cites 2019 data, so take it as a reference only: https://www.storm.mg/article/357148
And now Nuclear Plant No. 4 is being dragged into the conversation?! What does the algal reef have to do with nuclear power?!
Chart source: https://www.ettoday.net/news/20181120/1310606.htm
If Taiwan truly has no electricity shortage, then delays caused by relocating Terminal 3 shouldn'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 little choice but to burn more coal or ramp up nuclear power generation to maintain stable supply. I personally think restarting Nuclear Plant No. 4 would be a very difficult undertaking; meanwhile, the air pollution from coal is the more pressing concern. Of course, this is all hypothetical — it comes down to whether you're willing to gamble on whether Taiwan will face a power shortage or not.
In researching these issues, I've read extensively about both the #NuclearForRenewables and #NuclearFreeHomeland camps.
I absolutely support a nuclear-free homeland, and I genuinely hope Taiwan continues moving toward that goal. But throughout this transition, how much are we willing to endure in terms of energy transformation? How do we strike a balance between economic development and ecological preservation? This has always been an incredibly difficult target to calibrate. What I want to know is: what does my signature on this petition actually stand for?
I want to ask: how long could you go without electricity in your daily life? How high could you tolerate electricity bills going? Broadly speaking, how much energy do we waste? How many of us run the air conditioning all day in summer? How many people leave the AC blasting in a hotel room all day while they're out exploring — because it's not their bill to pay? How often do we walk out of a room and forget to turn off the lights?
In the end, I simply want people to see the full scope of what this issue touches, to understand how it affects our lives, and then make their own informed decision about what to do. (Go to the comment thread)
Cover image: United Daily News — Petition to Save Datan Algal Reef in Critical Phase, Environmental Groups Sprint for 260,000 Signatures in Final 8 Days Photo by reporter Tseng Tseng-hsun
