Ireland's got nothing on Taiwan...

(UPDATE: Click on images for larger version)

The first time I ever left the US, when I was 20, I took my bike to Ireland to ride around the country for three weeks. Before going, the general consensus among those I talked to was that I would never see a place more green than Ireland.

"It's so green." "So lush." "Fifty different shades of green."

I'm not saying they were wrong, but they've never been to Taiwan. I'm almost hypnotized by the mountains and forests here. They seem almost dangerously green and vivacious. You see a tree sitting atop a giant rock, it's roots snaking around the hulking mass, determined to live where it shouldn't, and you wonder, if your not careful, is a tree going to swallow your Binglang stand or are vines going swallow your children whole?

Then, perhaps, you remind yourself to lay off the Shel Silverstein books.

Anyone who's seen the gray skeleton forests of the Appalachian winter, I think, would be enamored by the verdant cool of a Taiwanese mountain in January.

China & the Olympics: pollution, censorship, and a turkey-sized chicken

There's a lot of news out lately about China and the Olympics. The closer the games get, the more exasperating the international media coverage gets, and if there's one thing the Chinese government adores, it's the press. I'll admit, too, that the intensity of the scrutiny afforded China is somewhat unfair as far as the Olympics go -- and, of course, many probably think it's not enough -- but the fact that other countries don't weather the same barrage of negative coverage is the only thing I find regrettable. I defer to the side of keeping them honest, rather than keeping them comfortable, no matter the country on the receiving end, especially if it were Taiwan.

As far as coverage goes, a lot of this stuff has been floating around for a long time, no pun intended. For instance, the fact that the air in Beijing is slightly more breathable than the windswept plains of Venus doesn't bode well for those hoping to demonstrate their aerobic prowess. About two months ago, the news wasn't too promising [all emphasis mine]:

The gray, acrid skies rated an eye-popping 421 on a scale of 1 to 500. In the West, pollution this bad might qualify as an emergency. In Beijing, doctors advised people to stay indoors, but residents here are accustomed to breathing foul air. Earlier this year, the city actually recorded a 500.

For Beijing officials, Thursday was especially depressing because the city was hoping to celebrate an environmental victory. In recent years, Beijing has steadily increased its "Blue Sky" days - those scoring below 101 - and the city needs one more "good" air day to reach its goal of 245 for this year. These improving ratings are often how Beijing tries to allay fears that Olympic marathoners will be gasping for breath.

"We're definitely hoping for the best," said Jon Kolb, a member of the Canadian Olympic Committee, "but preparing for the worst."

For the world's Olympic athletes, Beijing's air is a performance issue. The concern is that respiratory problems could impede athletic performance and prevent records from being broken. For Beijing's estimated 12 million residents, pollution is an inescapable health and quality of life issue. Skepticism about the improving Blue Sky ratings is common. The concern is whether the city can clean itself up long after the Games are over.

This article from The Times paints picture that's a little rosier:

I watch a news report on BBC World, talking about fears of pollution during the build-up to the Olympics, and the shots are of a smoggy day in Beijing. I look out of my window. It is the kind of winter sun you get on a good day skiing in the Alps.

Our fixer has two young sons. She says that they have permanent colds and chesty coughs. There is no doubt that the weather is abnormal this week, but there is also no doubt that China will be doing everything in its power to recreate these skies in August. Factories will shut down, half the cars will be taken off the road and houses will not be burning coal - it will be 40C and more when the Games are on. In fact, if I was a marathon runner - not that I spent the entire week worrying about Paula Radcliffe, my hero - I would be more concerned with heat and humidity than smog.

But a commenter says that a couple of days with blue skies is a bit too superficial for an assessment:

A clear sky does not show the real problem: try to spend a couple of weeks in your own rented flat and measure the amount of dust that settles in your floor every day. I'm on the 8th floor and it's staggering, you must hoover everyday if you don't want to wake up with a sore throat. Then check how much your skin and eyes dry up and finally try and use any of the local gyms: do some running and let me know if it feels the same. I don't want to be a scaremonger,but let's scratch beyond the surface. The criticism I have against the IOC (human rights issues aside, which are many and extremely relevant) is that they come over here to do their scheduled checks once in a while. Had they come the week preceeding Christmas, they would have cancelled the event altogether (pollution index of 420 out of 500). They should monitor the situation day in, day out and from here. As for the freedom of speech...

I'm paranoid about breathing the air in Taipei. I can't ever convince myself to go jogging or take a long bike ride because I think the benefits would be canceled out by the particulate lodged permanently in my alveoli. This would be much worse if I lived in Beijing, and, honestly, it's the first thought that comes to my mind when I think of studying in China.

Of course, the environment isn't the only thing that pesky international journalists insist on pointing out over and over. They're just giddy over the wealth of reports that await them in every internet cafe, back alley, and all the places in between. Human rights abuses, internet censorship, etc. abound, and the Chinese government is doing everything they can to paint them black to make sure the Olympic torch doesn't illuminate them.

Luckily for them, British Olympic Association has been kind enough to ban their athletes from speaking ill of the Middle Kingdom. After all, it's not polite to disgrace your host:

British athletes will be banned from competing in this summer's Olympic Games in Beijing if they criticise China's totalitarian regime.

The gagging order has been imposed by the British Olympic Association. Competitors who break the rule will not travel to the games or, if they are already in China, will be put on the next plane home.

It means sportsmen and women will be unable to raise concerns about China's human rights record or its occupation of Tibet.

Critics accused the BOA of bowing to political pressure and said that the move raised the spectre of the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which passed off without protest and were hailed as a propaganda coup for the Nazi regime.

Hmm, I think I've seen that Nazi comparison somewhere else....

The reaction is in contrast to other countries, including the United States and Australia, where athletes will be free to speak out about China should they wish to do so. The Prince of Wales will not attend the Beijing games because of concerns over human rights.

Since the 1988 Olympics in Soeul, British competitors have been asked to sign contracts that include a pledge "not to comment on any politically sensitive issues".

However, this year's contracts will, for the first time, explicitly refer competitors to Section 51 of the International Olympic Committee charter, which "provides for no kind of demonstration, or political, religious or racial propaganda in the Olympic sites, venues or other areas".

The requirement is actually not that terribly distasteful. The Olympics is supposed to be a place for sportsmanship and a celebration of peaceful competition where people from all countries can come together, put aside their political differences, and play. However, the fact that this is the first time the BOA has found it necessary to stress the issues that the athletes are not to broach is telling.

Moreover, the fact that the United States doesn't require their athletes to acknowledge such an agreement brings me back to the discrepancies in the policies of Europe and the United States vis-à-vis China.

Imagine the possibility of a British athlete getting sent home for merely paying respects to those who died during the construction of the stadiums and arenas in which he or she is competing. While that would seem normal to us, it's certainly "politically sensitive" to China. Why else would they have denied it?

Thankfully, the international athletes, spectators, and press may be a little freer to read and report on their experiences in China than they normally would, seeing as the government might be opening a gate in the Great Firewall, according to the Peking Duck.

We all knew this was inevitable: there was no way China would invest gazillions of dollars in all things related to the 2008 Olympics and then leave themselves vulnerable to charges of mass censorship, which would obviously rise up in a deafening chorus as the thousands of foreign media who will be here seek to get on their favorite web sites only to encounter the dreaded "server not found" page. Just as the "Juden verboten" signs were quietly removed from the storefront windows in 1936, the cybernanny will go on temporary leave come the summer. (And no, I am not equating the CCP with the Nazi party, but this comparison of how each prettied things up for the Olympics is a valid one.)

One commenter even notes that he heard they were going to be selling Playboy "so that foreign athletes wouldn't rage without easy access to nudity." There appears to be some truth to this.

In the same vein, restrictions on the foreign press are being relaxed in the lead up to the Olympics. This, I believe, includes Taiwanese journalists, yet it may not be any easier for Taiwanese politicians to get a seat:

"Beijing as the host welcomes all guests of all NOCs,'' he said.'' However, he then hedged when asked if political leaders of Taiwan would be welcome if they were invited by their NOC.

"Up to now I haven't got any information about that,'' he said.

Pressed on the question, he replied: "There are 205 NOCs recognized by the IOC, but only 192 sovereign states recognized by the United Nations,'' Zhao said. "So not all the NOCs are sovereign states or nations. ... Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are inseparable from China.''

"We welcome all Chinese people to come to Beijing for the Olympics Games.''

So will Taiwan officials be coming or not?

The most difficult Taiwanese official for China to stomach would be president Chen Shui-bian, who will leave office after elections in March. Chen has strengthened the island's independent identity.

Finally, it comes as no surprise to most people that the US cooking staff (and I suppose, probably, everyone else) will be bringing their own food:

When a caterer working for the United States Olympic Committee went to a supermarket in China last year, he encountered a piece of chicken — half of a breast — that measured 14 inches. “Enough to feed a family of eight,” said Frank Puleo, a caterer from Staten Island who has traveled to China to handle food-related issues.

“We had it tested and it was so full of steroids that we never could have given it to athletes. They all would have tested positive.”

In preparing to take a delegation of more than 600 athletes to the Summer Games in Beijing this year, the U.S.O.C. faces food issues beyond steroid-laced chicken. In recent years, some foods in China have been found to be tainted with insecticides and illegal veterinary drugs, and the standards applied to meat there are lower than those in the United States, raising fears of food-borne illnesses.

The US may surpass Europe in alt-energy and tech investment

When I lived in Europe, I often lamented the seeming disdain many Americans had for any talk of the environment. Back home, concerns about oil, global warming, and pollution were, to many people, laughable. In my experience, just asking people to turn off the lights or TV when they're not in the room to "save energy" would get you a smirky "Ok, treehugger."

I was amazed in Europe at the little things. Almost all of the apartment buildings I've ever been in from Italy to Sweden to Ireland had timed switches or motion-detectors for the lights in the corridors, and most grocery stores made you pay for bags if you didn't bring your own. Making all of this and more possible was a popular consciousness that something needed to be done to make sure we can sustain good living conditions in the places we live.

The thing that really got me, and still annoys me, is the fact that the debate in Europe and the United States has always been framed around the apocalyptic threat of melting glaciers and spreading deserts. It seems to me that the most effective means of combating global warming is to stop using global warming as the impetus, instead of looking at cold, hard self-interest. Don't talk about saving the ice caps by changing your lightbulbs and buying a hybrid vehicle; focus on the money you'll save if you make that change. Don't talk about the possibility of desertification if your car's burping out CO2; emphasize the undeniable science behind pollution and our bodies and our babies. Hammer in the idea that cleaner air and water means healthier people and lower insurance premiums.

I was amazed at how readily these ideas were accepted in Europe, but I always held out hope. I believed the idea would catch on in the United States, and the response would be considerably different when it did. I said that Europeans, in my opinion, looked more to the government to address problems they have, calling on the government to create standards that would force companies to adapt to a new market, which I don't think is wrong, but it's not enough. On the other hand, I believed Americans would look to businesses to innovate and capitalize off of people's desire for change, and the government would follow suit.

I don't think either of these approaches is inherently good or bad, but I do believe that the latter creates the possibility of a faster change, and it seems that it may be taking place:

Europe laid the groundwork for many of these technologies thanks to government policies supporting investment and still has a strong scientific presence. But “the financial engine has swung back heavily over the past couple of years” to the US, said John Balbach, a partner at Cleantech.

The US push reflects a stampede by venture capitalists centred on both San Francisco and Boston, who are seeking to apply an approach to building up new technology industries that was honed in the PC and internet businesses.

Of course, there are fears of a coming bubble:

However, the rush of venture capital money is already prompting warnings of a coming bubble in the US, particularly in the field of solar energy. Nearly $1bn was poured into alternative energy ventures in California alone last year, according to Cleantech, as investors raced to harness technologies from the chip industry to try to find the next breakthroughs in photovoltaic cells.

“There are lots of methods, but none of them [has] been proven,” warned Ray Rothrock, a partner at venture capital firm Venrock.

More on the environment: Ozone is good when you're not breathing it, from what I understand.

This is from a couple of days ago. Apparently, for the last week or so there have been a blanket of ozone lingering over Taiwan for the last week or so:

The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) has issued health warnings given the high level of ozone concentration over the country.

Yeh Fang-lu (葉芳露), an EPA air quality inspector, yesterday said that the ozone
concentration above Taiwan has been higher than normal over the past several days, owing to the recirculation of a high pressure system over the western part of the country.

threat

This has created a health threat that is likely to remain for a week if there is no change in the current weather pattern, Yeh said.

Yeh added that the ozone density was detected at 222 parts per billion (ppb) at the EPA's Kuting surveillance station in Taipei last week, marking the highest
level in the past decade.

This compares with a normal record of 60ppb in winter and 20ppb in summer in northern Taiwan, he said.

The ozone concentration was detected at 161ppb in the central and southern areas of the country, covering Yunlin, Chiayi and Tainan counties, and at 176ppb in Kaohsiung City and County and in Pingtung County this week, Yeh said.

outdoors

He warned people in these areas against heading outdoors between noon and 2pm.

As ozone concentrations above 95ppb can cause respiratory distress, the EPA has instructed local governments to be on alert over changes in air quality.

It also advised seniors and those who have weak immune systems to refrain from going outside or to wear surgical masks if they have to do so.

Just another reason for me to feel like every time I inhale, my lungs are being plastered with nasty muck. Luckily, there are rain clouds over Taipei right now, which, I think -- I'm no meteorologist -- means a low pressure system has moved in.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Gobi desert comes to Taiwan

(Photo cred)

Last week, Fanfan started having sneezing fits. I mean really strange one's where she sneezed for about thirty minutes every minute. She also had a fairly bad cough. I thought it was just spring allergies, but then I realized a couple of days later that it might have been that the deserts of China were making a surprise visit to Taiwan:

Dust particles blown across the Taiwan Strait from a sandstorm that arose in China's Inner Mongolia region on Saturday will begin to undermine Taiwan's air quality today, environmental officials said yesterday.

It will be the third sandstorm to hit Taiwan so far this year, and the effect will be more evident than before, officials with the Cabinet-level Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) said.

When the floating dust hits northern Taiwan today, EPA officials said, the micro particle pollution density may range between 150 and 250 microgram/cu m, surpassing the normal level by 100 to 200 microgram/cu m.

The floating dust is not expected to dissipate until Tuesday afternoon, the officials said, adding that the air quality in central and southern Taiwan will also be affected as dust particles move southward along with a rainy front that hit Taiwan late Saturday.

Worse still, the officials said, North Pacific high pressure systems have been gaining strength in recent days, and may bring more dust particles. As most parts of the island will become sunny again on Monday due mainly to the rainy front going away, there should be no rain to "purify" the sandstorm.

The Foreign Policy blog has a video of the storms in China.

I always find things like this interesting because it reminds us of the fact that the lines we draw on a map don't really exist. The dust from the storms is causing problems in Korea and Taiwan. I do worry a little that this will cause health risks in Taiwan (and China) like the dust of the Sahara is doing to islanders (and coral) in the Caribbean.

Waste, consumption, and bleach: why no chopstick tax in Taiwan

Another one of my environmental complaints concerning life in Taiwan has to do with the stacks of chopsticks you see in every restaurant and night market. I doubt that many people think twice about taking them, but if you take a moment and think about the cost of disposing of your utensils every time you eat.*

What I don't understand is why Taiwan doesn't implement some sort of chopstick tax like China did a while back. I bought a pair of chopstickls pretty soon after I arrived here for this reason. They are metal chopsticks that I keep in my bag at all times. I did this for two reasons, though: the aforementioned and a comment Fanfan made a while back that sometimes the chopsticks you get in restaurants are used chopsticks that have simply been bleached to look clean.

No thanks.

*It's not at all uncommon for someone to eat every meal in a restaurant here. I've heard, even, that a lot of people don't even have kitchens.

Could someone relay this message to the Taiwanese Office of Environment Protection

So, I've voiced my problems with the Taiwanese trash/recycling collection system, and I've resigned myself to the acceptance thereof as a truism of life in Taiwan. I've grown used to the trash that piles up on my balcony waiting for the moment that I can find some way of disposing of it in a way that is conforming with my environmental morals and my desire to by a good patron to my host nation.

Unfortunately, the latter is eroding, because my neighbors are starting to look at me funny when I start crying even time I go to the mailbox. They don't understand what I'm saying, but they can feel it in their hearts when they hear me beat my fists on the metal cubby hole and cry out to God.

"Why, oh Lord, must I bear this burden of luxury apartment advertisements, political pamphlets, and you know what that I can't read because it's in Chinese."

They can feel it, I'm sure, as they shuffle their children back into the apartment, so as not to let them see what is the face of a crumbling foreign man(-ish), broken by the shear weight of paradox.

"Paradox?" you ask. Okay, maybe contradiction? Perhaps that's better. You see, what I don't understand is, if Taiwan is so dead set on becoming a green country by 2020, then why don't they start by taking one simple step: take a hint from les parisiens.

In Paris, I had the same problem. Constant advertisements for things I either didn't have the money or the desire to buy. Fortunately, there was a recylcing bin right next to the boîtes aux lettres, into which all the merde was immediately deposited. Then, to my surprise, one day, I opened my mailbox to find that the mayor's office had a new program to stop the wasteful practices of plumbers and restaurants who put pamphlets in mailboxs only to be thrown away by people like me. It was just a simple green sticker that said "Stop Pub" ("pub" is short for publicité, or publicity). If I'm not mistaken, there was a number you could call, and if you were to recieve junk in your mailbox you were to report the evil-doer to this bureau and the business would have to pay a fine or something like that.

In any case, I don't see why the same thing wouldn't work here. If the government is so intent on reducing waste, it needs to cut out this wasteful paper orgy that takes place in my mailbox everyday. All the government would have to do is provide stickers to put on mailboxes that say, "I don't want any of your crap, and if you give it to me, you're going to pay."

Is that too much to ask?