At the national level there is confusion about tariffs on semiconductors and trade deals with foreign countries. But as Arizona awaits more Taiwanese semiconductor investment, one thing is predictable: endless complaints about the burden of local regulations on Taiwanese companies.
The two of us advocate for sustainable, environmentally responsible semiconductor manufacturing in our respective countries, and in both places we see a similar dynamic. Corporate leaders and their political allies grumble about onerous bureaucracy and call for greater efforts to fast-track productive capacity.
Our experience in the US and Taiwan suggests a warning: building massive semiconductor factories without adequate accountability and public disclosure can threaten the health of local communities and the long-term viability of the high-tech projects themselves. Indeed, the time and money spent protecting public health and natural resources are the very definition of a good investment.
In Phoenix, where the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) is investing $165 billion in a massive manufacturing hub (the largest foreign direct investment in US history), recent media coverage warns that US regulations are slowing progress, claiming it takes “18,000 rules” to build a chip factory on US soil compared to Taiwan.
The claim is misleading at best. Taiwanese regulations are just as protective as those in the US and are crucial to protecting communities near chip plants from harm. In Taiwan, as in the US, building new semiconductor manufacturing facilities brings massive risks to communities, requiring firms like TSMC to navigate a complex array of central and local government permits.
But the experience in Taiwan is also a warning to Valley residents of what may lie ahead, according to data from Po-Jen’s organization, the Environmental Rights Foundation. TSMC’s most advanced process – manufacturing the two nanometer chip – uses over 8 billion kWh/year of energy, about a third of Phoenix’s total electricity consumption. It requires 26 million gallons of water a day, 9% of Phoenix’s potable water supply. And it generates 2,000 tons of waste daily, which exceeds the daily municipal waste volume of the city of Phoenix. Is the Valley ready for the extreme resource demands of advanced chip manufacturing?
In both Taiwan and the US, TSMC promises to recycle 90% of its water, which is likely more critical in Phoenix, where the rainfall is one tenth that of rainy Taiwan. But growing demand outstrips recycling, as smaller and faster chips require more water to produce. The company’s own sustainability reports document increasing water used to make each silicon wafer, year over year, alongside empty promises to reduce water use.
And then there are toxics. Wastewater discharges from semiconductor production brim with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) compounds (also known as the toxic “forever chemicals,”) which are highly persistent and travel easily through rivers, streams, and drinking water sources. Because PFAS chemicals break down very slowly, the compounds accumulate in human bodies, wildlife, and the environment, and even low-level exposure has been linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and pathologies of childhood development. But neither US nor Taiwanese law limits the release of PFAS into the water supply or even requires monitoring, so the public can understand the toxins that might enter the water supply.
Wherever they are sited, chip factories require huge amounts of energy, consume vast quantities of fresh water, and use highly toxic chemicals that require safe procedures and careful monitoring to avoid polluting the air, water, and land.
But in both countries, the pressures of global competitiveness are sidelining the needs of local communities. Just recently, despite numerous concerns raised at planning and city council meetings, the City of Phoenix pushed ahead with TSMC’s Northpark project, leaving Stetson Valley residents’ concerns unaddressed. At the federal level, the US exempted CHIPS Act recipients from federal environmental review, while in Taiwan, the government has permitted TSMC to bypass the full environmental review process, weakening environmental protections and intensifying competition for scarce irrigation water between farmers and semiconductor manufacturers.
To be sure, environmental compliance costs time and money. But using up scarce natural resources or endangering public health is no way to make a profit. We’re not worried about TSMC’s bottom line: the company’s profit margins approach 60%. Global corporations can afford to protect our air, water, and public health while manufacturing cutting-edge chips.
Ultimately, whether in Phoenix or Hsinchu, the lesson is the same: bypassing environmental procedures to fast-track industrial expansion does not eliminate risks—it merely defers them, often at the expense of local ecological stability and the project’s own long-term viability. It falls on workers, neighbors, and community leaders to hold corporations accountable and demand that our elected representatives do the same.
