Analyze

The first section of the presentation focuses on the use of artificial intelligence to improve manufacturing and reduce carbon emissions (see 2019 report). Formosa's efforts go back to 2017, when the company was one of five business that each invested NT$30million in the creation of Taiwan’s first AI Academy, initiated by scholars at Academia Sinica (see also Lin 2018). According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “[t]he academy has drawn faculty from scholarly institutions ranging from Taiwan’s major universities to foreign research institutes, Academia Sinica and the Industrial Technology Research Institute, as well as from the corporate sphere, with AI managers and entrepreneurs coming in to share their real-world AI experience.” Further, they state that by 2020, FPG had trained over 100 workers through courses offered by the academy.

Slides 37-55 outline FPG's current carbon capture system in Kaoshiung and its future plans for CCS systems in Mailiao, including an experimental system of biodegradable carbon capture. These initiatives, largely through Formosa Smart Energy Corp. also attempt to use AI models to regulate carbon capture for optimal production. 

See slides 40-42 for new initiatives on carbon capture. They list plans to build deep water carbon capture pits, being sited in Yunlin as of 9.2022.

The carbon capture system they have in place at Nanya seems to have reduced the amount of naptha necessary to manufacture butyl ether, a chemical used in solvents and pesticides, through reinjection of that carbon dioxide into source feedstocks (Enhanced Oil Recovery).

“國際碳捕捉技術發展

依據全球碳捕捉與封存研究所(Global CCS Institute, CCSI)最新發布之「2022年全球碳捕捉與

封存發展現況報告(The Global Status Of CCS 2022)」，⾄2022年全球共有30個⼤型CCS綜合

專案已經營運，其中有22個採⾏強制採油技術(Enhanced oil recovery, EOR)，利⽤⼆氧化碳灌

注⾄快枯竭的油氣⽥，獲取更多殘存油氣，以增加效益，其餘8個專案封存於陸地或海洋深層

鹽⽔層，顯示現階段應⽤仍以EOR技術為主，除可減少碳排外，更可增加獲利。

自動翻譯

 Capture Technology Development

According to the "2022 Global Carbon Capture and Storage Storage Development Status Report“ (The Global Status Of CCS 2022), by 2022 there will be 30 large CCS comprehensive

The projects are already in operation, and 22 of them adopt enhanced oil recovery (EOR), using carbon dioxide irrigation. Inject into the depleted oil and gas to obtain more residual oil and gas to increase efficiency, and the remaining 8 projects are sealed in land or deep ocean

The salt water layer shows that the current application is still dominated by EOR technology, which can not only reduce carbon emissions, but also increase profits.” (Slide 38)

Heavy reliance on technosolutions to reach emission reduction and climate goals. Shift from oil as fuel to oil as material. Cooperation between industry, academic, and technical research organizations to research new carbon capture systems. Longevity of the petrochemical industry within climate politics is a high priority for FPG, but also the efficiency of petrochemical inputs. Climate change action is being pursued, but more so in capture of carbon emitted and repurposed within chemical reactions, as opposed to omitted through reductions in production

This event was the City Council meeting for the City of Santa Ana on february 15th 2022. The meeting took place in the city of Santa Ana council chambers. This meeting was organized by the city and city council. The purpose of this event was to award community members, pass agenda items, and listen to community concerns.

Council members Phan, Penaloza, Lopez, Barcerra, Hernandez, and Mendoza were all present along with Mayor Sarmiento. It is important to note that during agenda item number 26 Councilmember Phan left the chambers due to a formal complaint filed against her. During public comments on agenda item 26 Council members Hernandez and Penaloza left for unexplained reasons and missed the majority of public comments. Councilmemebr Lopez was not present for MPNA comments and a few oteh republic comments. I think that Councilmembrs Hernandez and Penaloza leaving during public comments on thai matter indicates a lack of interest and support for community members.

The most notable speakers at this event were community members who talked during public comments, city council, and the Mayor.

Many public comments were made on this matter with many written letters sent to the council which were not read during the meeting. The most notable public comments were made by the director of OCEJ, executive director of MPNA, attorney with the environmental law clinic at UCI,

Consensus amongst most commenters was that the city should not be moving forward with the GPU until they conduct better community engagement and address the EIJ in more detail. 

After public comments the mayor started off the council comments by saying he was not prepared to move forward on the city plan. He did however say that he would like to move forward with the general plan by the next meeting. He explained how the council immediately stopped pushing the general plan when they received a letter from the attorney general telling the city they must engage with the community on EIJ concerns. He also pointed to how after this letter the council held hundreds of meetings with EJ groups. After saying these things he said that in all this time there has not been enough movement and at this point the EJ groups are delaying the city plan which has been nearly 7 years in the making. He finished by saying that the EJ groups are hurting the communities that they want to protect and that there will be one more meeting and we are done.

Council-member Bacerra said we need to pass the plan tonight and that two more weeks will not do anything. He said that the EJ groups keep demanding to move the goal post further and are not offering any solutions, all they want is more time.

Council-member Penaloza agreed with Bacerra’s statements and further stressed how the council has held hundreds of meetings. He stated that in all of these meetings all the EJ groups wanted was more time and when given the time they offered no solutions to EIJ.

Council-member Lopez did not want the plan to move forward. She cited lead pollution data sources to show how the city needs to do more in regard to the GPU. She said tha too many of her constituents have concerns over EJ in the city plan so she does not want the GPU to move forward.

Council-member Hernandez did not say a lot other than agreeing that the plan is taking too long and should be moved forward.

Council-member Mendoza agreed with Lopez in saying that the general plan does not cover enough EJ problems and said the plan should not move forward.

After these statements Council-member Penaloza then tried to present a notion to pass the general plan. Bacerra then said he would want to make some amendments first before passing the plan which was done on the spot. Most amendments changed some language in the GPU EJ section. The most notable amendment was the adding of a permanent EJ staffer on the city staff. After these amendments were made Penaloza attempted to pass the notion which failed with a 3-3 vote. Council-members Lopez, Mendoza and Mayor Sarminto voted against the notion. 

The mayor stated the amendments were hastily put on the GPU and that the council needed to wait 30 days before passing the plan. With this the Mayor attempted to pass a notion giving EJ groups 30 days to come up with bullet points on what they wanted passed. This notion also failed with a 3-3 vote. Council-members Hernandez, Bacerra, and Penaloza voted against it.

This resulted in the agenda item to be later discussed at the next town council meeting.

Groups referred to by Councilmembers and the Mayor were Madison Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA), Orange County Environmental Justice (OCEJ), and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). EJ groups such as MPNA and OCEj were mentioned by council members to explain which groups they have worked with. The mayor called out these groups to identify the EJ group that must provide the council with bullet points on their concerns. The mayor also referenced UCI to explain his disappointment in the school and said that he would expect better from the institution.

Meetings with these EJ groups were also mentioned heavily from council members Bacerra, Pendaloza, and Mayor Sarmiento. The point of referencing these meetings was to show council has held hundreds of meetings with EJ groups and still have not been offered any solutions or given any ideas for what the city plan update (CPU) should have in its EJ section.

The concept of environmental justice was the most discussed concept.

Mayor Sarmiento said the city can not engage with all 330,000 citizens in Santa Ana when it comes to EJ concerns. This was in response to community comments saying that the city needed to better engage the city. They said that a poll that reached less than 1% of the population and was not in Spanish was not enough.

The city council meeting showed me which council-members were for or against EJ groups further delaying the plan in order to put in policies that would improve EJ in Santa Ana. It showed how the City Council as a whole is prepared to be done with the process of the GPU. Some council members however are more willing to give EJ groups time to send finishing touches to the council whereas some members want to pass the GPU as soon as possible.