Rear Window | With a little help from Taishan

Severo Portela

Probably… they (the government) did not see it coming. But they (the government) would do better to start adapting to civil society’s growing awareness of the so-called green agenda. So much so that it was one of the main conclusions coming out of a survey that the government’s own environmental bureau held two months ago. Yes, sometimes awareness is just a ‘je ne sais quoi!’
Instead of the usual head-in-the-sand mode towards Central or Provincial Government level policies, the Green Environment Protection Association of Macau openly cried foul, voicing their concerns surrounding the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant under construction 80 km to the west of MSAR. To the concern of all living on the right bank of the Pearl River Delta, the bi-reactor has been marred by controversies related to alleged sub-standards both in structure and testing, as was reported by Factwire and the SCMP.
To call spade a spade, Sammie Lu, chairman of the green association, albeit raising concerns about the safety of the actual Taishan project, underlined that he is totally against nuclear power: “I oppose it, regardless of the standards… a nuclear power plan is like a powder keg – it can explode at any time. Accidents cannot be predicted”. Lu shares the basic anathema of nuclear as a costly and risky option, and the one that leaves behind an immoral legacy of dangerous waste. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and, even closer, the Fukushima disaster; all made their own cases.
Taishan will be the fourth Guangdong Nuclear Power Plant, after Ling Ao, Yangjiang and notorious Daya Bay, east of Hong Kong, and five more being planned – Shanwei and Shanguan – and proposed – Haijia, Hebaoduo and Heynam.
The Macau government could not hope to cope with the concerns voiced by grassroots GEPA or even the questions regarding the Factwire report and emergency measures. I should rephrase here: if not naïve, it was, at least, a much self-contained set of demands. The Executive issued a statement to advise that it had requested more information about the Taishan NPP.
So open was this window of opportunity, pro-democracy New Macau Association could not but elevate the environmental concerns to the political level. Scott Chiang and the leadership of the Macau democrats had all the room in the world to accuse the government of failing to address the safety issues and of neglecting the economy. Considering both aspects, the NMA evaluation of the Taishan plant is short and clear: the project is unwarranted and unacceptable.
However, wise democrats do not act these days out of bravado, as they probably did in the past whenever it would be advisable to make a good evaluation of Mainland interests. NMA president, Scott Chiang, was very clear: there is no reason to stop the construction.
That is to say… the case, from NMA’s perspective, is not about China, it is not about Guangdong Taishan NPP; the New Macau Association case is to demand the Macau Government to convince the Macau public that Taishan is safe, that there will be safety measures in place, and that there will be contingency plans.
In 1985, the Daya Bay nuclear facility became so divisive an issue that democrats of the time, like Martin Lee and Szeto Wah, managed to petition – on grounds of environmental issues and the rights of HK residents – against the building of the NPP signed by one million Hongkongers, circa one fifth of the population. Today, Hong Kong buys 70 percent of the Daya Bay output, and, in 2009, the supply contract was extended to 2034.