為何不說清楚 非核的代價

There're two kinds of policy-making, one being a politician version, the other civil servant's

為何不說清楚 非核的代價 | 評論 | 聯合新聞網

http://goo.gl/W0AGbf

​I used to introduce a very credibly funny BBC TV series 'Yes, Minister'. In one of the

series, there were very farciful and ironical conversation on how government policy

was made. In a nutshell, it boiled down to there were 2 versions of policies, one being

what touted by the politician, which always were vague, false, twisted, and trying to hide the

truth, and other being the civil servant's, which aimed to do everything possible to 

​would move heaven and earth not to do what they're told. 

Specifically, a "brave" decision was one that would lose you votes, whereas a "courageous" 

one was one that would lose you the election.

​james​

This is such a key point I couldn't help lift it from XpCourageValue

On the subject of courage, there was a set of comedy programmes in the UK called Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. The minister, Jim Hacker, was a mediocre politician whose permanent secretary, Sir Humphrey, was the bane of his life. The PS was a civil servant who saw his job as maintaining the status quo. Occasionally someone with a good idea would talk to Jim, who would then formulate a policy which Sir Humphrey would have to implement. Of course, since that would change the status quo, Sir Humphrey would move heaven and earth not to do what he was told. Jim would override all Sir Humphrey's objections. The PS would always get his way in the end: he described the new policy as courageous!

So the interaction would go something like:

• Jim Hacker: So I fully plan to do X ...
• Sir Humphrey: How very courageous Minister.
• Jim Hacker: Oh dear ... is it, why? (backs down)

Specifically, a "brave" decision was one that would lose you votes, whereas a "courageous" one was one that would lose you the election.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: I foresee all sorts of of unforeseen problems. 
Jim Hacker: Such as? 
Sir Humphrey Appleby: If I could foresee them, they wouldn't be unforeseen. 

Sir Humphrey Appleby: If local authorities don't send us the statistics that we ask for, then government figures will be a nonsense. 
James Hacker: Why? 
Sir Humphrey Appleby: They will be incomplete. 
James Hacker: But government figures are a nonsense anyway. 
Bernard Woolley: I think Sir Humphrey want to ensure they are a complete nonsense. 

​For Jevon's benefit; ​

，日本政府停用核電的政策，導致貿易逆差大幅增加，而不得不重新啟動核電。我們的主要競爭對手韓國卅二％電力來自低成本的核能，二○三○年比重將達六十％，到那時台灣成為非核家園，兩國能源成本已差一大截，談何競爭！

四、非核必然增加排碳：若以燃氣取代核能，每年增加的排碳量約一千萬噸；以燒煤代核，更要多排碳約四千萬噸。台灣排碳總量每年約三億噸，約七成來自於能源生產。台灣人均排碳量每年約十一噸，名列世界前茅，超越日韓，甚至大陸。如果新政府政策不做大幅修正，國民生活方式不做徹底改變，非核勢必增加排碳，我們對世界減碳承諾又如何交代？

其他還有缺電風險、國家安全等諸多項目，不勝枚舉。多年來台灣民粹文化盛行，政治人物投機取巧，假藉民主正義為名，將能源政策訴諸政治手段處理，選後必須面對現實。政治人物如果選前未做誠實揭露，愚矇選民，選後政策反覆，不僅將會導致國內政治鬥爭惡化，更要承擔公民集體訴訟法律責任的風險！倘若如此，台灣二千三百萬全體人民皆為輸家！