copyright: Fukui Shinbun

Almost one month has passed after Yukio Hatoyama, the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), was appointed as Prime Minister of Japan in September 16. According to a public opinion poll carried out by Yomiuri Shinbun in September 17, 75 percent of its respondents supported the ‘Hatoyama’ cabinet, the second highest figure after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s cabinet, since Yomiuri started carrying out its popularity surveys in 1978.  Further, surprisingly, the opinion poll showed that 74 percent supported the proposal of DPJ to reduce emissions of Japan by 25 percent by 2020, compared to the 1990 level. Thus, it could be argued that most Japanese expected Yukio Hatoyama to dramatically advance its climate change policy. But has he really changed Japan’s climate change policy that dramatically?

The most dramatic change that Hatoyama has achieved lies in his declaration that Japan would seek to cut its emissions by 25 percent by 2020 as the mid-term target compared to the 1990 level. As the target of the previous Government led by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito was 8 percent, this is a great advance for Japanese climate change policy.

Then, in order to materialize the target, on October 7, the cabinet committee on climate change established two work teams; one to estimate the costs to achieve the target; the other to identify concrete measures of the ‘Hatoyama Initiative’ to support developing countries announced at the United Nations Summit on Climate Change (New York) on September 22. Then, the former team, ‘the team concerning the achievement of the mid-term target’, held its first meeting in October 14. At the meeting, it was decided that a specialist group would be established under the team for estimating costs to achieve the mid-term target, and an interim report on cost estimation would be produced in this month and a final report would be produced in December before COP15 in Copenhagen.

These two may be all that New Prime Minister has achieved for climate change policy so far. Then, has he changed Japan’s climate change policy dramatically? It seems that he has dramatically changed it because he has proposed ambitious target. However, the seemingly ambitious ’25 percent’ includes reductions from buying carbon credits, GHG absorption by forests and plants, etc., as well as the domestic reductions. At the first meeting of the team concerning the achievement of the mid-term target, it was suggested as one plan that cost estimation would be carried out for the following three patterns; among the 25 percent reductions, (1) 10 percent will be reduced domestically; (2) 15 percent will be reduced domestically; and (3) all of them will be reduced domestically. If the total amount of domestic reductions is 10 percent or even 15 percent, it must be rather disappointing.

Thus, it should be said that he has not changed Japan’s climate change policy dramatically so far. However, the birth of the Hatoyama cabinet has clearly increased environmental concerns and made industry motivated to become greener. It is highly expected that new Prime Minister, with greener people and industry, will change climate change policy dramatically or concretely propose radical climate change policy before COP15 in December so that he can be considered as one of the greenest leaders of the world again as in the United Nations Summit on Climate Change in New York.

(c)yomiuri online

The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won 308 of the 480 seats though the ruling bloc of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito got only 140 seats in the Lower House election on Sunday. This is a landslide victory for DPJ, as DPJ had only 115 seats while the ruling bloc had 331 seats before the election. It can be called ‘revolution’ because LDP was out of power for only 11 months (1993-1994) and was always the largest party.

Then, the question is ‘can the new government led by DPJ reduce GHG emissions more than the Government led by LDP/New Komeito for the greener future?’

As climate change issues were not sufficiently discussed during an election campaign period because other topics such as employment and social welfare were main issues, it is difficult to answer the question.

However, as shown in the previous post, as far as climate change issues are concerned, DPJ is more ambitious and environmental groups and environmentalists normally support DPJ. Indeed, DPJ proposes stricter mid-term targets than the Government in its manifesto. Namely, DPJ promises to cut GHG emissions reductions by 30 percent below the 2005 level by 2020 though the government’s target is 15 percent. Before the Government chose this target, the Economic bloc (e.g. the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Nippon Keidanren) proposed 4% while the Environment bloc (e.g. the Ministry of the Environment and environmental NGOs) suggested 20-30%. Thus, the LDP’s proposal is a compromise but the DPJ’s proposal is clearly the one proposed by the environment bloc.

Although there seems a big difference between them, the difference might not be so big because 15 percent is the total amount of ‘domestic’ reductions of GHG gas emissions while 30 percent is the total amount of reductions achieved by reducing domestic GHG gas emissions as well as buying carbon credits, GHG absorption by forests and plants, and etc.  Nonetheless, according to an anonymous highly-ranked official of the Ministry of the Environment, ‘the DPJ’s targets are clearly stricter.’ Katsuya Okada, the Secretary-General of DPJ, emphasizes, ‘by setting ambitious targets, we want to take an initiative in international negotiation on climate change.’ In order to achieve the targets, DPJ has considered introduction of a wide range of measures, such as a domestic emissions trading system and a global warming tax, though Japanese industries have been strongly against these measures.

The DPJ’s proposal has been severely criticized mainly by LDP and industries as infeasible and unrealistic, again as told in the previous post. For instance, Akihiro Sawa, a senior researcher at the 21st century public policy institute, a thinktank established by Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation), criticized the proposal because of three reasons.  First, according to Sawa, DPJ has not clarified how much the costs to achieve its proposed targets will be. While LDP clarified that the costs will be 76,000 yen per year per household, DPJ has not. Second, he argued that though a domestic emissions trading system and a global warming tax (environmental tax) cannot be introduced at the same time in terms of policy objectives and policy effects, DPJ considers introducing both. Third, he maintained that, although DPJ insists that Japan will be highly evaluated by the world and take an initiative in international negotiation on climate change by setting the mid-term targets as 30%, the world would not evaluate Japan so highly because developing countries such as India and China required industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions more.

Further, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry pointed out that if Japan is to achieve the mid-term targets of DPJ, it would cost more than 190 trillion yen for ten years, leading to critical economic damages to the Japanese economy, while the Government’s targets would require approximately 62 trillion yen. Moreover, Tetsuo Saito, Minister for the Environment, criticized that though DPJ proposes stricter targets in its manifesto, DPJ inconsistently proposes  to make highway charges free, which would lead to increases in CO2 emissions from automobiles.

Thus, it is now unclear whether the new government led by DPJ can reduce GHG emissions more than the Government led by LDP/New Komeito for the greener future. However, one thing that is clear is that DPJ will attempt to reduce GHG emissions more than the Government whether its attempt will be successful or not.

On 22 July, Shoji Muneoka, the chairman of the Japan Iron and Steal Foundation (JISF), at its regular press conference criticized the largest opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) because its mid-term target of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions by 2020 is not realistic.

Compared to the current government led by the coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito, DPJ proposes a surprisingly ambitious proposal for global warming. Indeed, while the Government’s mid-term target of GHG emissions reductions by 2020 is to cut them by 15 percent below the 2005 levels, DPJ proposes 30 percent.

It is now highly probable that DPJ will gain a majority in the next election for the House of Representatives on 30 August and a government led by DPJ will be established for the first time.

Consequently, major economic groups have recently been seriously aware of its proposal and demanding reconsideration for DPJ.
Muneoka claimed that though the mid-term target of the Government is severe enough for industries, it is hardly understandable that DPJ proposes twice as strict a mid-term target as the Government’s target. He further points out that achieving the DPJ’s mid-term target would generate 800,000 to 1,200,000 of the employed and it is thus necessary for DPJ to show a proposal that carefully considers impacts upon Japanese economy and people.
Similarly, the Economic Association of Japan currently criticized that a proposal of DPJ is idealistic and DPJ should understand the economic situations. Further, on 17 July, Shosuke Mori, the chairman of the Federation of Electirc Power Companies of Japan, at the summer seminar of the Japan Association of Corporate Executives, claimed its proposal is unrealistic saying ‘DPJ should make clear impacts of its climate change proposal on economy and people.

Indeed, the DPJ’s proposal cannot be seen as realistic. In order to achieve this ambitious target, for example, DPJ insists on the creation of a global warming tax. However, DPJ decided not to clarify contents of the tax in its manifesto because there has been a conflicting idea on its contents within DPJ, some proposing the creation of carbon tax and others suggesting increase in consumption tax. Both plans seem difficult for DPJ because labour unions, the mainstay of support for DPJ, can hardly support carbon tax as it would be a heavy burden for the economy and because DPJ promises not to raise the consumption tax rate for four years.

In addition, though, DPJ mostly neglects negative impacts placed on people and economy by its mid-term target because economic growth stimulated by environmental investment, it insists, can avoid them. Consequently, the DPJ’s proposal for global warming in the election is much more stringent than the proposal of LDP as LDP takes carefully into consideration negative effects of its proposal. DPJ tends to propose attractive proposals for everyone without showing their negative effects. For instance, while DPJ proposes such an ambitious target for GHG emissions reductions, it contradictorily promises to make highway charges free, which might lead to increase in CO2 emissions from automobiles.

Though the DPJ’s ambitious proposal for GHG emissions reductions is surely welcomed, DPJ should concretely clarify ways to achieve it and its negative effects on people and economy.

©Sankei

On 10 June, Taro Aso, Prime Minister of Japan, pledged that Japan would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020 (8 percent below the 1990 levels). He expected that, achieving this mid-term target would lead to greenhouse gas emissions reductions approximately by 25 percent by 2030 and then by 70 percent by 2050.

Japan had six plans for the mid-term target, ranging from 4 percent reductions below the 2005 levels to 30 percent reductions.  The mid-term target came from one of the six plans, 14 percent reductions below the 2005 levels. This plan has been reinforced by another one percent because the Komei party, comprising the ruling coalition with the liberal democratic party, and the Ministry of the Environment, strongly demanded a more ambitious target.

One of the main reasons for this choice is that the Japanese people favour the 14 percent reductions plan. On 24 May 2009, Cabinet Secretariat showed the results of the ‘public opinion poll concerning the mid-term target for global warming’. According to the results, 45.4 percent of the respondents were for the 14 percent reductions plan: 15.3 percent for the 4 percent reductions plan; 13.5 percent for the 21 percent reductions plan; and 4.9 percent for the 30 percent reductions plan. Although the respondents were shown how much each household had to pay to reduce greenhouse gases by 14 percent  (i.e. 80,000 yen in a year), most of the respondents chose this target. Aso said in his mail magazine on 11 June that he deeply respected the good sense of his people. If the Japanese people favoured a less ambitious target, he could not have made this decision despite strong industrial oppositions. Indeed, generally, the Japanese industry very strongly demanded that Japan had to choose a 4 percent reductions plan. In addition, though the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry demanded a target that would not severely damage the Japanese economy, it compromised to accept the 14 percent reductions plan because it said that 14 percent reductions would be possible with the introduction of most updated technologies.This may be another important reason that Aso chose this target.

Although Japan chose the ambitious target, it is apparently difficult for Japan to achieve it. Though Japan ambitiously vowed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent below the 1990 levels by 2012 under the Kyoto protocol agreement , Japan has been unable to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and it would possibly fail to achieve it, mainly because the Japanese Government has been highly concerned with protecting the industry from suffering costs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is questionable whether the Government can persuade the industry to reduce dramatically greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the more stringent mid-term target though it has failed to do so to achieve the Kyoto protocol agreement.

Finally, it should be emphasized that the Government must consider how the mid-term target influence the most vulnerable segments of the society including the poor, the handicapped, children and the elderly, which has been almost totally neglected in the discussion of the mid-term target. Because achieving the mid-term target clearly requires a wide range of ‘changes’ in the society, the Government has to be concerned with influences of the target placed onto them. Although the mid-term target has been finally set, there are a number of difficult and complicated issues that Japan has to start to work out for achieving the target.