By Climatico Contributor: Shira Honig

Negotiators work on an agreement late into the night, 10 December 2011. (Photo taken by the United Kingdom's Department of Energy and Climate Change)

The Durban conference on climate change ended on a much better note than many expected, but continued to delay the toughest questions for at least three years.

The final outcome of the conference, COP-17, is a two-page, breakthrough document called the “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” that commits all countries to a legally binding agreement to cut carbon emissions. The document satisfies the United States, who was looking for China and India to participate in a global agreement. Delays also work for the Obama administration, who as Politico reports, are looking to hold off on contentious details until after the 2012 election.

The document also meets China’s requirement of not joining a global treaty until 2020. India is also satisfied, having fought for the inclusion of the concept of equity between developed and developing countries in the Durban document, with strong backing from China.

The document even satisfies the European Union, who was willing to extend its current Kyoto Protocol commitments in exchange for a global agreement in force by 2020. In fact, there will be a second commitment period for Kyoto to remain in place as an interim agreement before the new deal is negotiated. The end of the second commitment period – either 2017 or 2020 – will be negotiated next year, at COP-18, in Qatar. Besides the EU, several other developed countries will also continue their Kyoto commitments.

While the creation of a “Kyoto II” is a win for developing countries, it is only a victory of sorts, given that the world’s largest emitters will not be participating in a legally binding agreement until 2020. Small island developing states in the Pacific, and other developing countries who were looking for an agreement at Durban, point out that this may be too late for them to avoid the worst of rising sea levels that threaten their existence.

One potential bright spot for the least developing countries is the agreement in Durban to set up a management and distribution body for the Green Climate Fund. No further details, however, were reached in the agreement.

Protests called a Global Day of Action, a march for action on climate change, in Durban, South Africa, on December 3, 2011. (Photo by: tcktcktck, Global Campaign for Climate Action)

By Climatico Contributor: Shira Honig

With the Durban climate change negotiations barely a week old, key countries are drawing their “red line” positions in the sand.

On one side of the line, where the Group of 77 (G77) + China and other developing countries firmly sit, is a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol that continues binding targets for current country signatories after the first period expires at the end of 2012 (excluding Canada, which has announced that it is pulling out of the treaty altogether). On the other is a European Union plan for a new global agreement with binding targets for all countries beginning in 2015 and in force by 2020.

Emerging today is the news that India has rejected the EU plan for a new treaty.

Leading up to Durban, the EU said it was willing to consider an extension of the current Kyoto Protocol commitments, in exchange for a broader international agreement to begin in 2015, with emerging economies under the same binding targets as western industrialized countries. Since the first day of the negotiations, Poland, who currently holds the revolving EU presidency, has clearly stated that a “Kyoto II” could be a part of a transition to a wider, post-Kyoto agreement.

Before India announced its opposition, China had already rejected the plan, saying that a new mandate before the Bali Roadmap was complete was “too much.” China, which so far has spoken on behalf of both the G77 and the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) – which has concerned some negotiators – remains firm in its opposition to binding cuts at the international level. It maintains that it is pressing ahead with ambitious national plans to cut emissions, increase energy efficiency and renewable production, and decrease deforestation.

India’s rejection of the EU plan brings the opposition level to three countries, including the United States. Like China, India maintains its current position of not committing to legally binding emissions cuts. The U.S. maintains its own position that China and India must accept legally binding cuts like other western countries. Only then would it consider a new treaty. In an interview, U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing deflected the issue, saying that until resistance from India and China to the EU plan abates, it is not prepared to take on legally binding obligations.

Meanwhile, in its own interviews, the EU has expressed frustration that its significant efforts to reduce emissions and provide climate finance – the most ambitious of western blocs and countries – have gone unrecognized. As in Copenhagen, where it was shut out of a final deal negotiated by the U.S. and the BASIC countries, it finds itself rejected again.

Without a move on these red-line positions from one country or another, a compromise deal is unlikely. Senior ministers and heads of state will join the negotiations on Dec. 6.

Water Pollution in China (Photo by Bert van Dijk)

It has taken a long time in China, but official policies finally aim to achieve a sustainable balance between environmental protection and economic growth in significant ways. Developments over the last several weeks and months include a draft proposal for new rules on fines for pollution, discussions of an environmental tax and increased environmental spending, new environmental standards on copper scrap imports, and the release last March of China’s 12^th Five-Year-Plan, which puts environmental concerns front and center, and seeks to slow down the astronomic growth so damaging to the country in the last two decades.

The question, however, is whether these policies will achieve that balance. Together, they present a mixed view: on one hand, the 12^th Five-Year-Plan clearly shows environmental protection and renewable technology development have become high strategic goals, which will attract more funding and attention. At the same time, they remain couched within China’s myriad institutional challenges – most of which these policies are unlikely to solve.

New Environmental Standards and the Challenge of Legal Enforcement

Many rules on environmental standards currently exist in China, but not nearly as many are adequately enforced. The copper rules require certificates to indicate they are not hazardous. Since they were established in August, they have been piling up in ports as Chinese customs cracks down. Imports at specific locations, however, are much easier to address than widespread environmental non-compliance.

Enforcement of pollution in China is challenging for a variety of reasons, most of them institutional: data and monitoring challenges, budget constraints, weaknesses in the legal system, and endemic corruption at the local level. Wide geographical disparities, including differences in funding between urban and rural areas, present additional challenges.

The draft rules, if implemented, would end a longstanding weakness in Chinese environmental legislation regarding pollution time limits by introducing daily fines. Currently, time limits on pollution are undefined (or arbitrarily chosen by the central government), and the fine remains at a fixed rate rather than marginally increasing, as it does under the U.S. Clean Air Act, where fines can be issued of up to $25,000 per day for a maximum of 30 days. This can result in massive overall fines, a significant pollution deterrent.

The draft rules also seeks to address two other weaknesses in Chinese environmental law: a lack of transparency, and a lack of public participation and public interest litigation. Without the ability for the public to litigate against pollution, there is no incentive for state-owned enterprises to comply with the law, and without procedural rights, the text of a law – no matter how strong – has little meaning. Currently in China, with lawsuits rarely accepted and with environmental law a relatively new field, only a handful of all cases in the country are environmentally related. Without a strong legal system, however, even an official endorsement can only go so far.

These rules, combined with increased environmental spending, including increases in annual budgets, might be significant, depending on precisely what China plans to spend the money on. While what those plans are is not yet clear, the 12^th Five-Year Plan offers some guidance in this respect.

The 12^th Five-Year-Plan Emphasizes the Environment, but Implementation is Uncertain

China’s 12^th Five-Year-Plan contains much more emphasis on environmental policies than previous plans. It promises to invest massively in plug-in hybrid electric and pure electric vehicles; develop increased wind, hydro, nuclear, solar, biomass and geothermal energy, to the point where alternative energies reach 11.4% of total energy consumption by 2015, up from 8.3% in 2010; decrease water consumption by 30%; and increase forest cover by 1.3%. Many of these indicators, including its plan to reduce energy consumption and emissions per unit of GDP, it views as binding (as opposed to merely expected). Also notable is its plan to implement  cap and trade pilot programs, as well as its attention to the implementation of the 2008 Circular Economy Promotion Law, which defines the “circular economy” as “a generic term for the reducing, reusing and recycling activities conducted in the process of production, circulation and consumption.” Its goals are ambitious: to promote recycling at all levels, including the recycling of industrial waste, as well as to encourage low carbon and even zero emissions models.

Some of these policies, particularly in the investments into renewable energies, would be global game-changers if implemented successfully. Some researchers, however, note that even if China succeeds only halfway, the changes to global clean energy technology would be significant, with the country becoming  a price setter.

Implementation, however, remains uncertain. Research since March indicates significant challenges to both its lofty environmental and general policy goals, with one researcher pointing out that pollution targets are not enough without more emphasis on data collection. As is generally the case with China’s five year plans, implementation details are not addressed. Rather, those are found in more detailed policy documents drafted in between these plans, and are left to a large degree for local authorities. Yet local environmental protection bureaus face many challenges, not least being surrounded by (and often involved in) corruption within local enterprises and governments. For this and other reasons that are too lengthy to describe here, vague intentions to “strengthen the supervisions of law enforcement,” and other similar statements, remain an open question.

In addition, China’s central government has historically treated environmental policy with as much of a heavy hand as it treats its economy: for example, by its use of short-term campaigns that may close thousands of local polluting companies, but ultimately fail to address systemic institutional challenges; or by its clampdowns on protesters and arrests of high profile environmental activists. Most recently, it imposed electricity brown-outs in late 2010 in its push to meet energy intensity targets.

Without a doubt, China is clearly focused on a sustainable direction. It may well be that that focus will lead the world, as in the case of renewable energy. Without addressing structural challenges, however, sustainability is not guaranteed.

What about the market? (Source: Financial Times)

As part of the latest budget the UK government announced its intention to introduce a price floor for the emissions market. It is hoped that this move will encourage low carbon investment by disincentivising regulated entities from emitting at current levels.

How this proposed unilateral measure will interact with the EU ETS remains to be seen. The purpose of emissions trading is to give polluters the discretion to decide whether to buy more EU emissions allowances (EUAs) in the market or invest in greener technologies, depending on which avenue is more cost-efficient. Having to pay a pre-set price for EUAs effectively removes this choice and distorts the emissions market as the cost-benefit calculation has already been performed by the regulator.

A tax by any other name…

The effect of the carbon price floor would be akin to that of a tax on emissions, since it would guarantee a minimum price level which UK polluters would have to pay to the government irrespective of the real market price of EUAs. It has not yet been clarified how this would operate in conjunction with trading under the EU ETS; one option would be to require polluters to make up the difference between the market price and the minimum set price. This would provide the UK with a hybrid tax-trade approach to emissions reductions, whilst the other EU Member States remain wedded to the EU ETS only.

A key advantage of a carbon tax over a trading system is the guarantee that the revenues from the former accrue to the national government rather than to polluters. This makes it more likely (at least in theory) that the money will be spent on low carbon initiatives rather than simply being reinvested in the polluters’ business or helping to boost their profits. The flipside is that regulated entities do not enjoy the cost-balancing flexibility associated with emissions trading. A proposed EU-level carbon tax was in fact rejected by industry in the 1990s.

Design issues

A cap-and-tax system could work well to reduce emissions if appropriately designed. Specifically, the price would have to be set at a level which is neither excessively high (so as not to seriously stall productivity) nor woefully low (which would be of little help in motivating polluters to reduce their emissions).

Of course, the price level would also have to take into account the fluctuations in the emissions market and would thus have to be crafted in a way which allows for any requisite adjustments.

What hope is there left for the market?

The proposed hybrid system makes the regulator’s job easier as it removes the uncertainty associated with fluctuations in the market price of CO2, which has recently fallen to around €12/tonne. This has been caused by overallocation of EUAs to polluters and decreased levels of productivity due to the difficult economic climate.

On the other hand, the whole point of having a market in emissions is that the price level is left to be freely valued by supply and demand, as with conventional markets. A cap-and-tax system would enable the UK government to artificially manipulate the price of EUAs and thus unilaterally interfere in the EU-wide emissions market as national environmental policy dictates. This is concerning as it undermines the very notion of market freedom on which the EU ETS is premised.

Either one or the other

Paradoxical as it may seem, if the EU emissions market is to function effectively, some level of price volatility is in fact desirable in order to incentivise entities engaged in emissions trading for investment rather than compliance purposes to take part. Tying the EU-wide price of carbon to Member State national environmental policy sends out the wrong signals as it strongly suggests that the market may not be genuinely free.

The UK government may be rightly concerned about the adequacy of the market price for carbon as a tool of environmental policy aimed at achieving emissions reductions. However, it cannot have it both ways without significantly diverging from the uniformity of the EU ETS.

Debates are underway in the United States as contenders seek the Republican party nomination to challenge Barack Obama in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Last week’s debate was the first for Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose front-runner status appeared to take a slip to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney following controversial remarks on social security. All eyes will be on the two rivals again as the candidates face off tonight at the “Tea Party Republican Debate” in Tampa. While the media have focused on the candidates’ positions on social security, job creation and the economy, environmental policy has featured prominently as well, with most of the candidates attacking the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) role as the country’s environmental regulator.

Most prominent is the view that environmental protection and regulation prevents job creation, as articulated by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a letter to Republican Party members calling to fight 10 “job-destroying regulations.” Seven out of those 10 are EPA rules. U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann and Perry have both referred to the EPA as a “job killer,” while Romney has said that regulation is holding the economy back. Former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman and businessman Herman Cain, as well as Perry, say no new regulations should be passed in this economy because they will hurt job creation.

In time for tonight’s debate, we briefly summarize each candidate’s current positions and past records on the environment.

Rick Perry
Rick Perry has a record of controversial statements. He has compared himself to Galileo because he feels “out-voted” for his belief that climate science is not yet “settled,” and has defended his comment that the 2010 BP oil spill was an “act of God.” His record, however, is consistent with his views: he has fought the EPA for years from Texas, and is currently leading a lawsuit against its greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

Michele Bachmann
Michele Bachmann may have not featured as prominently in the last Republican debate as did Perry or Romney, but has made many headlines with her controversial views. She has said she would repeal some environmental regulations and close down the EPA except for conservation, a statement which fits with her view that climate change is a “hoax” but does not make sense given that other departments are designed to deal with conservation, such as the Department of the Interior. A believer in small government, her record indicates she is against public investment in renewable energy.

Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney’s statements on the environment tend to be more moderate than the other candidates. For example, he supports some regulation for safety reasons while allowing for more domestic production of all energy sources, from oil to nuclear (he also supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Romney is the only candidate other than Huntsman who has consistently accepted climate change. He does not, however, believe that greenhouse gas should be regulated by the EPA, as was decided in the landmark 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts vs. EPA.  In 2004, he supported an emissions reduction plan for Massachusetts, but in 2006, decided not to support a similar plan because of high costs.

Jon Huntsman
Jon Huntsman is the strongest environmental advocate in the group. He famously tweeted that he believes in the scientists on climate change, he signed Utah into the Western Climate Initiative as the state’s former governor, and he is the only candidate who supported cap-and-trade policies to limit carbon emissions. These actions, however, as well as his moderate positions on other issues, have not helped his candidacy, which may be dying. He now says cap-and-trade has not worked and that he would wait until the economy improves before supporting it again.

Herman Cain
Herman Cain supports a mix of energy sources, from fossil-fuel based to renewables such as wind. He also, however, supports expanded offshore drilling areas, including in the ANWR. Like Bachmann and Ron Paul, he doesn’t believe in climate change and did not support the Lieberman-Warner bill on cap-and-trade legislation.  He wants to give regulatory powers to independent groups that include oil company leaders.

Ron Paul
Ron Paul supports all kinds of energy production, including offshore drilling and renewables, but prefers tax incentives over subsidies. He believes in measures to reduce pollution, such as energy efficient vehicles, but he is against federal government regulation of the oil industry. Paul voted against cap and trade, both because he is against regulation and also because he believes it would cause jobs to move away from America.  Like Bachmann and Gingrich, he would dismantle the EPA, preferring that environmental protection and solutions occur through private property rights, the courts, and private enterprise.

Rick Santorum
Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum dismisses climate change as “junk science.” He has consistently voted against an increase in renewable energy and regulations for cleaner air, and has supported a limit increase on mercury emissions from power plants.

Newt Gingrich
The environmental views of former speaker Newt Gingrich are mixed. While he spoke out against the Waxman-Markey climate bill and currently opposes EPA regulation of carbon, he has also supported programs that reduce carbon emissions, including providing incentives for carbon sequestration technology development. His latest statements include his desire to shut down the EPA and rename it the Environmental Solutions Agency.

Is the opposition to the EPA by most of these candidates genuine or part of the Tea Party script designed to appeal to voters and distinguish them from their peers, as some speculate?

Whether a political or economic calculation, or a combination thereof, some experts believe that such controversial statements will not win the nomination, especially following the Tea Party’s heavily criticized, stringent views during the debt ceiling debate. If that is so, a candidate such as Romney may have a stronger chance of winning the leadership than Perry, despite criticisms from Tea Party loyalists or others – unless, that is, Perry’s job-killing statements grow in popularity. As a follow up to this question, I will look more in depth at the link between environmental regulation and job creation in my next article.

While Ontario’s ambitious feed-in-tariff (FIT) policy is being put to the test by domestic and international opposition, including a challenge from Japan, Japan has just achieved a major breakthrough for its own FIT policy as it continues to recover from the tsunami and nuclear disaster this past March. Both examples will have implications for renewable energy policies and trade worldwide.

Currently in place in more than 40 countries – most notably in Germany, whose early leadership made it the world’s leading solar power – FIT policies boost initial development in renewable technologies by providing developers with above-market rates guaranteed over a long-term contract, usually 15-20 years. When designed well, they deliver long-term emissions reductions while providing a stable rate of return for clean-tech developers and reasonable costs for the consumer. When costs are not controlled over time, however, an FIT can be doomed to follow the example of Spain, whose program created a rush of solar development that ultimately led to a bust.

Ontario’s FIT Program Faces Many Challenges

The Green Energy Act (GEA) was passed in 2009 in Ontario, Canada, by the Liberal Party as a way to position the province as a long-term renewable energy leader while phasing out coal, spurring clean-tech investment and boosting the economy by creating jobs through domestic content requirements. The Act’s FIT program covers biomass, biogas, landfill gas, on-shore wind, solar photovoltaics (PV) and waterpower. So far, it has created 13,000 jobs and attracted $20 billion in private-sector investment.

Two years later, however, it is facing three international challenges. First, in a dispute initiated under the World Trade Organization (WTO) last year, Japan is calling the Act’s domestic content requirements a prohibited subsidy that discriminates against imported products and violates key elements of international trade law. Europe likewise objects to the domestic requirements in its own complaint it initiated in the WTO last month. The third challenge comes from Mesa Power Group, owned by T. Boone Pickens, who filed a compaint in July under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), alleging that Ontario made last-minute, discriminatory changes to its FIT rules, preventing the company from winning contracts for two wind projects it was hoping to build in the province.

The Act also faces significant domestic opposition in Ontario. Some of the opposition comes from communities fighting the construction of wind turbines in their neighborhoods. Some of it comes from a $7 billion deal made in 2010 between the Ontario government and South Korean-owned Samsung, which has sparked anger and which oddly dismisses Ontario’s own goal of promoting local over foreign companies.

Much opposition comes from the Act’s purported role in rising household energy bills. Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, in advance of a provincial election in October, has promised to cancel the FIT program and the Samsung contract, hoping he can oust the Liberals on the perception that the Act’s rising costs hurt the economy. Yet as Pembina Institute shows, the rising prices are due to such factors as the introduction of smart metering and the much-needed replacement of aging infrastructure – and prices would rise even without renewable investment. Others note that prices are expected to fall in the long-term.

As Japan Challenges Ontario’s FIT, it Passes its Own

Meanwhile, as the composition of the Ontario-Japan WTO dispute panel got underway, Japan passed a renewable energy FIT law that will go into effect next July. Some details of the policy remain undecided, but the tariff will cover solar PV, wind, biomass, geothermal and small hydroelectric generation. An overall review will occur every three years, and tariffs and contract terms will be reviewed annually.

Given the long-standing political strength of the nuclear industry in Japan, the measure would not have passed if it weren’t for the Fukushima disaster, as well as the controversies surrounding the government’s handling of it. The powerful but heavily criticized Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) will not be responsible for implementing the FIT system; rather, that responsibility will go to a special parliamentary committee.

The law reflects the large shift in public opinion on nuclear energy since the tsunami and disaster at Fukushima, as well as the pressure government officials have been under to phase out atomic power. While it may be considered a victory for long-silenced renewable energy supporters, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda is attempting to convince a fearful public that Japan’s precarious position cannot be overcome without any nuclear in the mix.

Implications – and Questions – From Both Cases

The implications of these related examples are likely to be significant. For example, Japan’s new policy could help it recover its leadership in solar PV technology, along with Germany, and place it in competition with China, which last month established its own solar FIT program. (In another parallel example, China’s wind FIT program is currently being challenged by the United States for its support of domestic wind turbine manufacturers, considered also to be an illegal protective subsidy).

It is not certain, however, that Japan’s policy, if successful, will affect other countries’ nuclear policies, given that each country’s nuclear energy needs and capacities are different.  It is also not certain whether Japan will implement its own domestic requirements as part of its FIT policy, but this is unlikely while its own case against Ontario remains open.

With regard to Ontario, it is unclear whether its FIT program is more at risk from the three international challenges or from domestic opposition. Certainly, however, a repeal of the Act would render the WTO and NAFTA challenges moot, leaving the protective subsidy question unanswered.

Since the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster in Japan, things have continued to get worse for nuclear world-wide.

In the past months, Germany and Switzerland decided to phase-out their nuclear power infrastructure by 2022.  Just this past week, Italy passed a referendum outlawing the return of nuclear power.  Yet, France continues to hold strong and shows no sign of changed policies concerning the country’s generation of nuclear power.

And now the worst drought in at least 35 years (according to the French farming unions) is threatening France’s complex nuclear reactor network.  France gets 78.8 % of the country’s electricity from 59 operating nuclear reactors; this is the highest percentage in the world.  As 44 of the 59 reactors are cooled by river water (the rest are located on the coast), the drought conditions seriously threaten energy supply.

The French government has established a committee to monitor the electricity supply with regards to river flow.  Any reduction on the part of France in nuclear energy production could affect large parts of Europe.  France is the world’s largest net energy exporter; 18 percent of the energy generated by France is exported to Great Britain, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands at present.

In the wake of Fukushima there has been public criticism over the extent to which France depends upon nuclear energy sources.  There is a push to extend towards other renewable energy sources, especially wind in the coming years. (see more HERE).  But, the French government continues to promote nuclear as a “dependable energy source,” but the strong potential effects from the current drought threaten that argument.  French Minister for European Affairs, Laurent Wauquiez, continues to depend France’s faith in nuclear generation; he cites economic and ecological advantages.  Ignoring the motivating arguments for Germany’s decision to follow the precautionary principle regarding nuclear, Wauquiez only notes that “electric power now costs two times more than that in France.”

The French government is aware that the nuclear debate will be a major issue during the 2012 presidential campaign.  About half of the nuclear reactors in France are older than 25 years and are coming online for replacement.  Thus, should France decide to do so, it is a prime time to switch direction in energy generation methodology.  In many ways, the direction will depend on the severity of the current drought on France’s ability to generate nuclear power reliably.

Coauthored by Paige Andrews and Marie Karaisl.

Zeilitzheim church with Grafenrheinfeld nuclear power plant in distance (image by: Barock Schloss).

In a drastic reversal of policy, Germany has announced that it will shut down all of its nuclear reactors by 2022 in the wake of the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan.

After the initial announcement, the government last week discussed the detailed drafts for the laws with the heads of Germany’s 16 states who successfully pushed for a step-by-step shut down between 2015 and 2022. As of June 3^rd, eight of Germany’s oldest nuclear reactors will remain permanently shut, with seven having been closed temporarily in March following the Japan earthquake and tsunami and another out of use due to technical issues. For the remaining nine reactors a fixed date will be set for their shut-down in the years 2015, 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2022. In order to hedge against possible blackouts especially during cold winter months, a “cold reserve” will be provided in the form of gas and coal, rather than, as previously thought, in the form of a nuclear power plant on stand-by.

The decision to close the reactors by Chancellor Angela Merkel is an about-turn of an unpopular decision only months earlier to extend the life of nuclear stations despite majority opposition. Prior to the three month shut down of Germany’s oldest plants, atomic energy made up nearly a quarter of the country’s power.

Again, this new decision is met by hefty critique coming from the opposition parties and industry and even from within the ruling coalition’s own ranks. The main opposition parties, the social democrats (SPD) and the Green Party fear not only loopholes that could ultimately reverse or water down the decision, but also warn of the short and long run consequences the decision could have on competitiveness and the economy, worries that are shared by some representatives  of the ruling coalition. More specifically, there are worries that the necessary government interventions to boost renewable energy generation in order to avoid the substitution of clean nuclear energy with “dirty” conventional sources, will reverse the liberalization of the energy market to the detriment of economy and consumers.

In fact, this quick exit from nuclear power, even if technologically possible, is likely to be very costly. In order to compensate for nuclear energy that provides 22% of Germany’s electricity, the government will need to financially incentivize large scale investments in renewable energies, costs that will ultimately be borne by industry and the consumer. Moreover, nuclear energy providers such as Vattenfall, RWE and Eon are claiming compensation for the losses they will incur due to the premature shut-down of their plants. Yet, the legal basis for these claims will only be analyzed once the respective laws have been passed in parliament.

So far, Germany’s citizens seem to support the move. Demonstrations against nuclear energy took place this past weekend across Germany, attended by tens of thousands of people, yet the question is whether people are actually fully aware of the costs and the technical, political and even environmental difficulties that the successful exit from nuclear power imply?

Considering this, it is of no surprise that Klaus Ernst of the socialist party Die Linke calls for a referendum that will allow consumers and tax payers to more actively participate in the decision making. Although, this idea has not been taken up by the ruling coalition, a referendum in favor of a quick exit could bolster the legitimacy of the project, once the costs become apparent.

According to schedule, the draft strategy and respective laws to exit nuclear power will be presented in the German parliament (Bundestag) today, Thursday June 9.

Naoto Kan at G8 summit in France (image source: @ANN News)

My previous article mentioned that it is now very difficult to pursue the current Japan’s energy strategies highly depending on nuclear energy because its ‘safety myth’ collapsed as a result of Chernobyl-level radioactive leak from the Fukushima nuclear plant. Further, reducing GHG emissions by 25% by 2020 seems infeasible because its global warming strategies are similarly focusing on nuclear energy. Then,  in order to suffice the present/future energy demand and achieve the mid-term GHG reduction target,  Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, seeks to replace nuclear energy by renewable energy especially solar power and his favourite wind power.

As a result, on May 25th, Kan at the OECD in Paris addressed that Japan will install solar panels onto ’10,000′ houses. However, this proposition is not the official Government’s policy proposition but just his idea off-hand. Even his cabinet members including the Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry, Banri Kaieda, mainly responsible for energy issues, came to know it after he suddenly made this proposition in Paris. Unsurprisingly, Kaieda was very frustrated saying ‘I came to know it through the media. I was not told’. Further, Kansei Nakano, National public safety commission chairman, criticized ‘as a member of Kan’s cabinet, I want to share information and concerns with Kan before Kan proposes something’. As Kan was severely criticized by his cabinet members, on May 31st, he finally apologize for his inappropriate behaviour.

Though his proposition might have been welcomed for those for solar power, it is therefore unclear whether Japan will actually pursue solar power. Moreover, it should be pointed that the main world-wide concern may not be Japan’s future energy strategies but resolution of the current nuclear accident, as clearly indicated at G8 summit again in France. The Japanese Government must  solve the accident as soon as it can and disclose any information that it obtains during dealing with the accident. This is the main responsibility for Japan to fulfill as information on the accident will be utilized for other nations that have nuclear power plants and Kan should be strongly aware of this responsibility.

Fukushima plant in Japan (image source: @Asahi Shinbun)

On June 6th, according to Jiji press, Japan is likely to abandon its mid-term GHG reduction target.

On March 12th, the earthquake and Tsunami attacked the Fukushima nuclear power plant and serious radioactive leak has been taking place since then in Japan. Both electric power companies and the Japanese Government eloquently insisted on the ‘perfect safety’ of nuclear power plants from natural disasters such as earthquake, Tsunami and typhoon for a long time. However, the ‘safety myth’ was too easily broken by the ‘March 12th’ disaster. Consequently, though no governors in the prefectures which own large nuclear power plants suggest closing nuclear power plants, they strongly insist that nuclear power plants which do not currently operate due to regular inspection must not start to operate again until appropriate safety measures are to be implemented. Further, Naoto Kan, Prime Minister of Japan, ordered Chubu electric power company to stop the operation of the Hamaoka nuclear power plant as the plant is located in the possible area within which the Tokai earthquake will be originated from.

This situation clearly indicates that Japanese strategies for global warming will fail or possibly already have failed. In September 2010, the former prime minister, Kunio Hatoyama, proudly announced that the mid-term GHG reduction target of Japan is 25%. One of the main strategies to achieve this is ‘switch from thermal energy to nuclear energy’. That is, in order to reduce GHG emissions dramatically, the Government plans to raise the ratio of nuclear energy in the electricity supply from 30% in 2005 to 53% in 2030 by building or rebuilding more than 14 nuclear power plants.  It is now apparent that this plan is unachievable, leading to the expected increase in the amount of GHG emissions by 166 million tons or 13%, compared to the 1990 level. It may be still theoretically possible to achieve the target by replacing thermal energy by renewable energy. However, this may be practically difficult because renewable energy is unstable in electricity supply and costly, which is often strongly proposed by industries especially Nippon Keidanren. Though a Scandinavian model is sometimes proposed by some citizens’ groups to promote renewable energy, the model cannot be applied to Japan which has many metropolitan cities such as Tokyo and Osaka; the Tokyo metropolitan area owns about 34,394 thousand people, while the Copenhagen metropolitan area has 1,870 thousand people. Further, insufficient human resources to advance renewable energy, in political, business and academic sectors,  are devastating in Japan.

Though Kan has not made it clear to abandon the mid-term target, Jiji Press discloses that though the target was to be included in the bill for the basic law for prevention of global warming which has been sent to the Diet, it is to be deleted from the bill. Although such a ‘backward’ decision of Japan will be internationally criticized, Japan needs to accept it because its plan and strategies are seriously flawed.