The Committee thanks the Taiwanese government for its continued focus on SDG White Paper issues, and we look forward to seeing those efforts bear fruit in the near future.
Given the emergence of electric vehicles and the importance of Taiwan’s retail and electronics industries, the Committee would like to focus on addressing their recycling needs. We also encourage the government to include both “carbon fees” and “carbon credits” in implementing carbon-reduction strategies and in making regulations more transparent and persuasive by utilizing public policy assessment tools. Such efforts would boost the government’s circular economy plan, part of the “5+2 Innovative Industries” program, for the world to witness.
Suggestion 1. Implement carbon-reduction strategies that include both “carbon fees” and “carbon credits.”
We recommend that the Taiwanese government put a price/value on carbon emissions to incentivize businesses and consumers to adopt more energy-efficient practices and reduce their carbon emissions. Imposition of a “carbon fee” can be a critical tool to accelerate the deployment of low-carbon technologies, products, services, and infrastructure, as well as to promote the green energy market. At the same time, we also recommend that the government offer “carbon credits” to companies that are engaged in providing solutions to challenging environmental issues, such as the recycling of EV batteries, solar panels, and certain industrial waste from strategically important industries. To develop such a policy, it can look to useful models already employed in the EU, South Korea, and several U.S. states. We believe a balanced approach employing both “carbon fees” and “carbon credits” can best achieve the carbon-reduction goal for Taiwan.
Suggestion 2: Hasten the introduction into Taiwan’s food market of containers made from recycled plastics.
Taiwan has a recycling rate of about 95% for PET bottles, the third highest rate in the world. But that high degree of recycling has not been of great help to the environment because proper use has not been made of the resulting “resources.”
We are gratified that some progress was made on this issue in February this year when the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) eased restrictions on the use of recycled plastic material in food utensils. However, it remains unclear whether the Taiwan Food and Drug Administration (TFDA) continues to regard utensils made with recycled plastic as “reused plastic” under Article 2 of the “Sanitation Standard for Utensils, Containers, and Packages.”
Although the TFDA made known during meetings with the Committee at the National Development Council last year that it is exploring the feasibility of allowing the importation or manufacture of plastic food containers using recycled plastic materials, we have not seen any concrete progress so far – and no member companies from the Committee have been invited for consultation on the issue.
While more and more foreign food industries are being encouraged by their governments to use recycled plastic materials such as rPET and rHDPE in food containers, Taiwan has been slow in following suit. So as to better promote Taiwan’s sustainability goals and avoid potential international trade hurdles, we urge the TFDA to hasten the adoption of regulations that set proper standards and review processes for local manufacturers and importers to follow.
Suggestion 3: Make regulations more transparent and persuasive by utilizing public policy assessment tools.
Starting in 2020, the Taiwan EPA has implemented a series of regulations prohibiting the use of disposable containers and utensils made from ALL types of material used for dining-in in department stores, shopping malls, and hypermarkets. The policy initiative was well-intentioned with the objective of reducing waste, but it ignored the fact that washing dishes will increase the consumption of water, currently a precious resource in Taiwan.
In banning disposable utensils made from all materials, Taiwan imposed a more comprehensive prohibition than most countries in the world, but the volume of waste that could be reduced through this measure was never estimated or quantified. Also, no public assessment was conducted as to whether the benefits derived by such waste reduction would outweigh the costs involved, such as the increased consumption of water and energy resources by the washing and drying of dishes.
We suggest that the government review its environmental-protection-related regulations using policy assessment tools such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), statistical surveys, and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to ensure that both policymakers and the public are aware of the benefits and costs involved. Using those tools will help make regulations more cost-efficient and more acceptable to consumers.
Suggestion 4: Establish a sustainable ecosystem for Li-ion battery recycling, clearance, and disposal (RCD) in Taiwan.
Under Article 15 of the Waste Disposal Act (WDA), importers and manufacturers of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries bear the responsibility for recycling, clearance, and disposal (RCD). Article 16 further stipulates that such responsibilities shall be met by reporting the import/manufacture volume to the authorities and paying the RCD fee, which in 2014 was raised from NT$19.5/kg to NT$39/kg.
Li-ion battery cells constitute the heart of the entire powertrain for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs). Given consumer’s concerns about the range of BEVs, manufacturers have tended to make bigger battery cells. Some can easily reach half a ton, leading to very high RCD fees (about NT$20,000 per BEV for just the battery).
The recycling and disposal of Li-ion batteries is not a fresh topic. The wide adoption of smart phones and portable PCs in Taiwan already triggered many discussions of this subject in the past. Yet due to the lack of investment in relevant technologies, very few full-service RCD providers exist in the market, leaving BEV importers with no choice but to export the spent batteries to other countries. (The recycling, clearance, and disposal functions each require a separate license. Recycling and clearance providers for Li-ion batteries can be found in Taiwan, but companies with disposal licenses are rare). As companies are paying RCD fees to the government, it is reasonable for them to expect the whole RCD service chain to be available.
In 2020, the number of newly registered BEVs came to 6,243 units, doubled the level of the year before. Meanwhile, the number of electric two-wheelers also keeps growing – with 455,764 units registered in 2020 alone – thanks to continued government subsidies. Overall, the scale of the electric motor vehicle market is significant enough to sustain RCD businesses for Li-ion batteries. Therefore, the Committee would like to make the following recommendations:
- Devise a strategy – the earlier, the better – to promote the use of second-life batteries in Taiwan. While BEV batteries can usually last for up to eight years for powering an automobile, they would still be quite functional for energy storage purposes. For BEV importers to have to send still-valuable batteries to other countries is a waste, especially when there is demand for energy storage from regulated intensive energy users. The Committee urges the Ministry of Economic Affairs to come up with a plan to address this problem.
- Utilize the Recycling Fund to help build up domestic capacity for battery disposal. Since the EPA has been collecting high RCD fees from BEV importers, it should make use of the funds to cooperate with relevant government agencies and the private sector to complete the ecosystem for Li-ion battery RCD.
- Alongside domestic capacity building, also consider relaxing regulations that restrict Li-ion batteries from being exported to non-OECD countries (including China) if they have sufficient capacity for battery disposal.
Suggestion 5: Provide effective market incentives for greener products.
Recycling all plastic waste would be one of the most straightforward ways to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. As Taiwan plays a key role in the manufacturing supply chain for ICT products, it is crucial for the authorities to encourage the development of green technologies and work toward a circular economy. The Committee understands that the promotion of green products and technologies requires a well-designed environmental policy to effectively encourage behavioral changes and achieve environmental objectives without imposing excessive burdens on the economy.
To promote a circular economy, the EPA plans to give eco-labels to products that use Information Technology Equipment-derived Post-Consumer Recycled materials (ITE-PCR) and marine-waste recycled materials. To further achieve behavioral changes in government procurement and consumer purchases, the Committee recommends that the authorities provide incentives like carbon credits or carbon tax deductions to companies that purchase products with those eco-labels – or that include products with ITE-PCR eco-labels as environmentally preferable products for government procurement.
台灣美國商會永續發展委員會感謝台灣政府持續關注委員會的白皮書議題,我們期待在不久的將來可以看到努力的成效。
電動車是未來發展的趨勢,且台灣的零售商和電子產業也在全球扮演舉足輕重的角色,我們希望致力於解決這些產業的回收需求。委員會建議台灣政府善用「碳費用」和「碳信用」來實施減碳策略,利用公共政策評估工具,使法規更加透明和更具說服力。此將促進政府落實「5+2」創新產業循環經濟的規畫,讓全世界一同見證台灣在回收議題上努力的成果。
建議一:制定「碳費用」及「碳信用」之相關法規,以落實減碳策略
我們建議台灣政府應針對碳排放予以課稅或課徵「碳費用」,以敦促業者及消費者採行更具能源效率之措施來降低其碳排量。從加速導入低碳技術、產品、服務及基礎設施,到促進綠能巿場之發展,碳稅或「碳費用」乃是重要且不可或缺的手段。同時,我們也建議台灣政府提供「碳信用」給積極挑戰環保難題的優良企業,譬如能回收再利用鋰電池、大陽能板和一些對國家具有戰略價值產業所產生的事業廢棄物。目前歐盟、南韓與美國部分州都有推動「碳信用」的案例值得政府推動政策時參考。委員會相信善用「碳費用」及「碳信用」是最能有效落實減碳目標的策略。
建議二:儘快將用再生塑料製成的容器引入台灣食品市場
台灣的 PET 瓶回收率約為 95%,位居世界第三。然而,如此高度的回收率對環境保護沒有太大的實質幫助,因為台灣尚未能正確地使用此項「資源」。
今年二月,當行政院環境保護署(EPA)放寬了在食品用具中使用再生塑料材料的限制時,幫助這一問題取得了一些進展,我們甚感欣慰。但是,我們仍不清楚食品藥物管理署(TFDA)是否仍然根據「食品器具容器包裝衛生標準」第二條,將用再生塑料製成的塑膠食品容器視為「回收使用」的塑膠製食品容器,從而仍然禁止使用。
另外,儘管食藥署去年在國家發展委員會(NDC)的多次會議上表示,它正在探索,允許使用再生塑料材料進口,或製造塑料食品容器的可行性方案,但到目前為止,我們尚未看到任何具體進展,委員會的成員也未曾受邀就此問題進行磋商。
儘管越來越多的外國食品業者受到其政府的鼓勵,在食品容器中使用諸如 rPET 和 rHDPE 之類的再生塑料材料,但台灣在此方面行動卻尚未跟進。為了更好地促進台灣的永續發展目標並避免潛在的國際貿易障礙,我們敦促食藥署加快制定適當標準的法規,及可供審查本地製造商和進口商申請並遵循的評估程序。
建議三:利用公共政策評估工具,使法規更加透明和更具說服力
從 2020 年開始,環保署實施了一系列法規,禁止在百貨商店,大型購物中心和大型超市中用餐區使用「任何材料製成的一次性餐具及容器」。其政策之初衷在於以「廢棄物減量」作為目標,但它忽略了清洗餐具會增加水資源消耗的事實,且水資源是目前台灣最重要的資源之一。
透過禁止使用「所有材料」製成的免洗餐具,台灣較世界上大多數國家實施了更全面的禁用措施,但是通過此措施所能減少的廢棄物總量,卻從未公開估算或量化。另外,政府也未曾就 「廢棄物減量」產生的實際效益,是否超過實施此一禁用規定措施所衍生的成本(例如:因清洗和烘乾大量餐具而增加的水和能源消耗)進行公開的評估。
我們建議政府應使用多種政策評估工具,例如生命週期評估(LCA)、統計調查和法規衝擊影響分析(RIA),來審查環境保護相關法規的制定,以確保決策者和公眾都意識到其益處及所涉及的成本。使用這些工具將使法規更具成本效益,並為消費者所接受。
建議四:在台灣建立永續的鋰電池回收、清除、處理生態系
根據《廢棄物清理法》(WDA)第十五條規定,鋰電池的製造或輸入業者應負責回收、清除和處理廢棄鋰電池,稱之為責任業者。同法第十六條則規定,責任業者應申報營業量/進口量,向主管機關依公告費率繳納回收清除處理費,作為資源回收管理基金,而鋰電池之回收清除處理費率於 2014 年由每公斤 19.5 元提高至每公斤 39 元。
鋰電池有如驅動電動車(Battery Electric Vehicles)動力系統的心臟,而製造商傾向打造更大的電池,以彌補消費者的里程焦慮,這也是為什麼目前電動車的電池重量動輒超過半公噸,導致責任業者必須繳納高額的回收清除處理費(每輛車單就電池的部分即高達新台幣 2 萬元以上)。
鋰電池的回收和處理並非新議題,過去智慧型手機與可攜式電腦的高普及率,早已在國內引發相關的討論。然而,因為缺少對回收冶煉技術的投資,市場上合格的回收清除處理業者寥寥無幾,導致沒有在地處理的選項,電動車廠商只能將廢棄電池出口至其他國家。(從事回收、清除、處理等項目需要主管機關個別核發執照與許可,市場上常見鋰電池回收、清除的合格業者,但合格的鋰電池處理業者卻十分罕見)。由於責任業者必須繳交回收清除處理費給政府,自然也會期待在國內能夠有完整的鋰電池回收、清除、處理服務。
在 2020 年,電動小客車的新掛牌數為 2019 年的 2 倍,高達 6,243 輛。同時電動機車的數量也不斷地增長,受惠於政府持續的購車補貼,2020 年國內電動機車總掛牌數已達到 455,764 輛。如今整體電動汽機車的規模,已經逐漸足夠支持鋰電池的回收清除處理生態系,因此委員會提出以下建議:
- 儘速速研擬國內促進鋰電池梯次利用的策略
電動小客車的電池通常有約八年的使用壽命,這些電池即便不再適合用來驅動車輛,其仍具備正常的蓄電功能,可作為儲能設備使用。若電動車廠商不得不將這些有價值的電池出口至國外,著實浪費,尤其是國內受管制的「用電大戶」也有逐步設置儲能設備的需求。故經濟部應該研議建立鋰電池的儲能再利用模式。
- 運用回收基金建立國內鋰電池處理量能
有鑑於環保署已向電動車輸入業者收取高額回收清除處理費,委員會建議環保署妥善利用回收基金,並與相關公、私部門合作,建立國內(車用)鋰電池回收處理的量能,並建構完善的回收、清除、處理生態系。
- 國內建立鋰電池處理能力的過渡期間,政府應考慮放寬廢棄鋰電池不能出口至非 OECD 經濟體的限制(假使該經濟體已有能力處理車用鋰電池,例如中國大陸),畢竟出口至鄰近市場處理廢棄鋰電池,亦合乎環保及經濟效率的考量。
建議五:為綠色環保產品提供有效的市場購買誘因
回收再利用所有塑膠廢棄物會是減少溫室氣體排放最直接的方法之一。台灣在資通訊相關產品的製造業供應鏈中扮演著關鍵角色,因此政府對於發展綠色技術及循環經濟的鼓勵對環境保護至關重要。委員會也了解推廣綠色產品和技術的過程中需要完整配套的環保政策,以有效地鼓勵民眾改變消費行為,並在不會對經濟造成過多負擔的前提下實現環保目標。
為了促進循環經濟,環保署計畫對使用消費後電子廢塑膠(ITE-PCR)和海洋廢棄物的產品在驗證後給予環保標章。為了進一步實現政府採購和改變民眾的消費行為,委員會敦請政府,對購買此類環保標章產品的公司提供購買誘因,如碳權取得或碳稅/費減免,或將取得消費後電子廢塑膠標章產品,列為政府優先採購的環保產品。
Events Calendar
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
Living AmCham Taiwan Series:
與高雄市長陳其邁午餐會/ 參訪行程
Why Taiwan Is an Attractive Place to Invest
AmCham Taiwan & DC Dialogue
AmCham Taiwan
Phone: +886-2-2718-8226