1. Inconvenient Truth
（1）A drowning polar bear on a floating ice gorge in the Gulf of Alaska; glaciers collapsing at a stretch, raising a spray of water off Greenland; severe storms of a big hurricane blowing up the coast of Florida. These breath- taking scenes were shown from one minute to the next in the movie An Inconvenient Truth, produced by former US Vice President Al Gore. The spectators were strongly shocked by the visual experience.
Al Gore, leading a seminar in this movie, with full use of these images and various numeric data, is eloquently trying to demonstrate that global warming and other climate changes, which became evident after the late Twentieth century, are caused by fossil fuel based human activities. He passionately tells the audience that now is the time for all the people to face the panhuman issue of the global warming. An Inconvenient Truth, due not only to the film’s content, but also Al Gore‘s excellent performance, made a big hit at the box- office and won this year’s Academy Award.
(2) The Working Group I (Scientific Basis), II (Impact, Adaptation, Vulnerability) and III (Mitigation) of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was established by the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), adopted the IPCC Fourth Assignment Report in February, April and May of this year (2007), respectively. The IPCC consists of more than 2000 scientists and specialists. Their report is considered the most authoritative of the present moment, and supports the ideas in An Inconvenient Truth with scientific evidence.
The details of report will be published soon, and it isn’t necessary to spend time introducing the outline here. We’ll discuss points of the contents selectively. First, this report is remarkable in the following respect: it virtually concludes that, unlike the Third Assignment Report of 6 years ago, global warming is attributed to human activities. Hereafter, at any international negotiations about global warming, a disputation that there is no scientific basis or global warming will have no effect. Modeling and data are all more refined. Concerning the average temperature rise in the last 100 years of the world, they revised the information from 0.6±2 celciouse of the Third report to 0.74 celciouse.
The future prospects of the late 21st century are as follows: if the fossil fuel energy oriented high economic growth scenario occurs, a 4.0 celciouse temperature increase and a 26 to 59cm sea- level rise are predicted. Whereas if the sustainable development scenario had initiated on a global scale with the intention for de- materialized economy, it can be diminished to a 1.8 celciouse temperature increase and a 18 to 38cm sea- level rise. Even if there is no more increase of the atmospheric concentration of CO2, a 1- degree temperature increase is estimated by the end of 21st century. Also, the number of water shortage victims will increase by some 100 millions in the world.
If the sustainable development scenario doesn’t occur, the temperature will increase over 2- degrees. In this case, the number of flood victims will increase by multimillions each year along the littoral regions, 20 to 30 % of all species will be greatly threatened to extinction, and coral reef will become extinct. And all the other influences on agricultural crops, aquatic resources etc. in various areas of the world are indicated.
(3) Derived from the accumulation of knowledge by the IPCC, the EU put forward a post-Kyoto Protocol international framework. The goal is to reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 2020 to the targeted level of 20% comparison to the level of 1990. The UK and Germany have also declared that they will reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 50% and 60% of the level of 1990 by the mid- 21st century, with the point of de- carbon (low- carbon) society for the mind first time ever (with the scenario of de- materialized economically sustainable development). For the scientific reasons, a 2- degree temperature increase will cause irreparable adverse effects on human society and the ecosystem. For political/ economic reasons, because Europe is poor in energy and other resources, by establishing the energy & resource- saving technology and industry prior to the other regions, they are trying to take advantage of the market competition in the 21st century.
The USA is also interested in energy-saving technology considering the skyrocketing oil price, and has started to provide technical assistance for developing countries like China, India, etc. The trading of emissions quotas, which was launched in Europe, will soon be challenged by the carbon market, which will be put into practice. Global warming is now not only about the environment, but also issues of energy, new technology and new industrial development. Furthermore, it seems to be a moneymaking opportunity for investors.
2. The past of international society
(1) Due to prompt global industrialization after 1950, excessive amounts of fossil fuel have been burnt, emitting CO2 over the natural absorption amount of the earth (11 billion tons per year). Global warming had started already at that time, however, the international community started taking up this issue in the 1980s (the total CO2 emission in 1980 was 18.3 billion tons). At first, mainly scientists investigated the global warming issue. In 1988, IPCC was constituted, and the process of forming international treaties for global warming countermeasure began. Mainly the greenhouse gases were emitted by the developed countries at that time, therefore at first the international treaty was constructed in order for those developed countries to enforce the cutting measure. The developed countries were emitting 70% of the world’s greenhouse gases, the biggest emitting country, the USA, being responsible for 25% of it. Japan ranked fourth, emitting about 5 % of it. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was constituted in 1992, and the convention came into effect in 1994.
The framework is designed to achieve the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The developed and developing countries are to take their common but differentiated responsibilities and those developed countries are to take immediate actions in a flexible manner considering the priorities. But as the name suggests, the Framework Convention has meaning only in the making of international treaties for climate change, it doesn’t define specific rules of the countermeasure. It took another 5 years to adopt the Kyoto Protocol, which is to execute the principles of the convention.
(2) The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 after political compromises. It set the target of giving reduction rates of the greenhouse gases the force of law, establishing the reduction rates for the EU at 8%, the US at 7%, and Japan at 6% of the rates of 1990 within the 5 years from 2008 to 2012. It also defined the Kyoto Mechanism. To take note, The Kyoto Protocol set the commitment period until 2012. So, the reduction target rate has to be discussed further among the contracting countries.
Also, when the Protocol was negotiated, the details of the policy were not worked out therefore the operational specificity needed to be established. It took another 4 years to agree on it (Marrakesh agreements 2001).
As a result, by February 2005 when the force of the Kyoto Protocol was inaugurated, the biggest CO2 emitting nation, the USA, withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, because of its adverse effects on the US economy and because it is not fair in terms of the reduction obligations that the developing countries are not imposed to. Australia too didn’t ratify it. Because of this, the contracting developed countries of the Kyoto Protocol cover only about 30% of the amount of CO2 emission in the world. Therefore, even if the Kyoto Protocol was implemented according to the targets, it won‘t be effective enough to prevent global warming.
On one hand, the developing countries accuse the developed countries of not respecting the Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, since the early 2000s, the industrialization of China, India, etc. have been accelerated rapidly as the consumption of fossil fuels in these countries has been increasing at a great rate. This, coupled with the low energy efficiency, has caused the amount of CO2 emissions to severely increase. By 2025, the total emissions of developing countries will exceed that of the developed countries. By around 2030, the CO2 emissions of China will exceed that of US and will be the biggest in the world.
But, at the international negotiation table, these countries won’t compromise their insistence that the developing countries, which have less CO2 emission amounts per capita, will not undertake the obligations of reduction unless the developed countries fulfill their responsibilities. With this reason, the developing countries ask for the financial and technical assistance from the developed countries, and international negotiations become more complicated between those two interests.
3. Japan’s approach
(1) The Japanese government interpreted the ultimate objective of the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the “stabilization of the level of green house effect gas”. So, aiming at “stabilization” (±0), when the convention was negotiated, the action program to arrest the global warming was formulated in 1990 with acceptance on this point. However, at the Kyoto Protocol negotiation in 1997, Japan proposed a 2% reduction; since the EU insisted on a 15% reduction across the board of ANNEX-I. In the end, without establishing a uniform rate, Japan’s reduction rate turned out to be 6 %, as mentioned above.
Based on the rate of 1990, Japan’s reduction rate was settled on 6%, contrasted with 8% for the EU. It was an unexpectedly severe agreement for Japan. After experiencing Oil Shocks in 1974 and 1979, Japan made tremendous effort to change its energy resources and to improve energy technologies in the next 10 years. Japan’s energy efficiency (compared to GDP) was the best in the world at the base year of 1990 (Japan 1: USA 2.5: Germany 1.5). So, during the depression after the bubble economy, it was said that making a 6% reduction is like wringing water out of a dry towel.?
But, this was the only international treaty that was given the name of Japan, Kyoto, and Japan has strategically contributed to make improvements for the global environmental problems interenationally. In 1998, the government established the Outline for Promotion Effects to Prevent Global Warming, enacted the Law Concerning the Promotion of the Measure to Cope with Global Warming and revised the Law Regarding the Rationalization of Energy Use. In 2002, after the adoption of Marrakesh Accords, the ground rules for administering the Kyoto Protocol of the year before, the revision of the Outline for Promotion Effects and the system improvement toward meeting the goal of the Kyoto Protocol were done, and the Protocol was ratified.?
In our country, before putting the Kyoto Protocol into effect, due to the revision of the Law Regarding the Rationalization of Energy Use, the fuel efficiency of automobiles and the heat efficiency of home electric appliances, etc. have been improved. Also, the enterprises affiliated with the Japan Federation of Economic Organizations have made voluntary efforts. Putting the Protocol into effect, the plan for accomplishing objectives of the Kyoto Protocol was formulated instead of the previous outline for Promotion Effects to Prevent Global Warming. Toward the goal of 6% reduction for the first commitment period, starting in 2008, more than 200 measures were set.
In reality, however, Japan’s emissions of the greenhouse gases (90% with CO2) have been consistently increasing since 1990. The total amount of emissions in 1990 was 1.261 billion tons, whereas in 2005, it grew to 1.36 billion tons, increasing by 7.8%. Looking at this in terms of CO2, in 2005, as compared to 1990, the industrial sector such as factories reduced 5.5%, the transportation sector such as automobiles increased 18.1%, the others sectors of the office and commerce increased 44.5%, the household sector increased 36.7%, and the energy conversion sector such as the electric power plants increased 15.7%. The reduction in the industrial sector may be affected by overseas advancement of the heavy manufacturing industry; however, it cannot be missed to point out that the voluntary efforts made by the industrial arena have been achieving an effect.
On the other hand, the office and household sectors with wide varieties of demands increased the CO2 emission (basically, an increase in Energy Use). It may be affected by the diffusion of IT devices and the change of lifestyle (Westernization), but for these arenas, any noticeable legal regulations or economical measures like taxations haven’t been made. For the transportation sector too, besides the fuel efficiency regulation, no meaningful measures have been made. Through the revision of the plan for accomplishing objectives, drastic additional measures will be taken, but the compliance with a 6% reduction goal for the first commitment period from 2008 to 2012 is not easy. The government repeatedly promised to accomplish the goal of the Kyoto Protocol at the international conventions. But the introduction of social systems, such as economic approaches like the taxation, which has already been introduced to EU countries (the assigned emission amount, the requiring of reducing the emission amount, etc.) has still been strongly resisted. So, a concrete blueprint of realistic 6% reduction has not yet been drawn.?
(2) Prime Minister Mr. Abe, on May 24th 2007, made a speech entitled the “Invitation to the ‘Cool Earth 50'” regarding the climate change problems at the international exchange convention held by Nihon Keizai Shinbun. In this speech he proposed as follows: regarding the Kyoto Protocol, Japan will make a full- scale effort with the entire nation, in order to achieve the absolute goal of 6% reduction; concerning the post- Kyoto Protocol, all the major greenhouse gas emitting countries of the world, including the U.S, China, India etc., should join and establish flexible and various frameworks considering the situations of each country. For the long- term goal, the emission amounts of the whole world should be reduced to half the current amount by 2050. Prime Minister Mr. Abe might have made this policy speech taking into consideration the G8 of this June in Germany and the one next year in Japan.?
But, in this speech, in order to control the rise of global temperature within 2 celciouse degrees, it is unclear how it will relate to the EU, which states that the goal of 20% reduction should be established among all the developed countries equally by 2020 in comparison to 1990. Also,?considering the past assertions of U.S., it is questionable whether there is an actual concrete comprehensive measure to be shared by U.S, China and India.
At any rate, it is a great progress that the Prime Minister showed a certain direction. But compared to the rapidity of structural changes toward a low- carbon society (the energy- saving society) by the governments and enterprises of the other countries such as the EU, the U.S, China, etc., our narrow minded domestic business world and public opinion without a long term strategy seem to have resistance to the burden of expense in order to solve the poverty of future generations and developing countries.
4. Why NPO
I have practiced the law of pollution nuisance, environmental law and environmental policy for a long time. While having been involved in the policy-makings of the central council of public nuisance and the central environmental council, I have started knowing that the global warming issue is worsening seriously worldwide. Global warming is not visible like air pollution, water contamination or the destruction of nature. Another thing, the cause of global warming is related to all the human activities of the energy and industrial consumptions. Therefore, despite the seriousness of it, global warming countermeasures are difficult to be accepted by both enterprises and consumers because it’s perceived as the immediate restriction of human activities. Economists say ‘win- win’ however, the investment for global warming will achieve the desired effect on a long- term basis that the investors of today won’t receive the benefit within one’s life time. Suppose that investors aim at success for themselves, then, the next generation will not win at all. Fundamentally, the market economy cannot solve global environmental issues.
So, since a few years back, I have started to think that, in order for the future generations of Japan, which doesn’t have energy resources or metals, to survive, while facing the unprecedented social structural transformation of a declining birthrate & an aging population, as well as the climate change due to global warming, our generations need to act beyond the specific areas of social science or natural science, and business men & women or governmental officers. And we must do what we can do now utilizing the abilities of each individual.
It is the responsibility of our generation and the elders who invited the situation now to do what we can do for our future generation. Besides, I started this NPO from my frustration that something has to be done now. Luckily, having the support of Mr. Shinji Fukukawa, Mr. Youichi Kaya, and Mr. Masahisa Naito and so on, the NPO Japan Climate Policy Center launched in October 2005, but has been inactive since we have to begin with fund- raising. We have just started asking for affiliates. From autumn of 2006, the workshop of international undertaking for the post- Kyoto Protocol framework has been organized with Professor Nao Otsuka of Waseda University as the project’s general manager. Beginning this year, our research investigations will get into full swing. There are so many things to do, but we will gather and analyze the domestic and international information about the climate change policy, and offer information and policy alternatives for Japanese policy makers, industries and citizens. We will clearly present Japan’s direction of assertions and grounds for the climate policy to the major country governments and policy makers.
Published by ‘Shosai no Mado #566 ’ (Jul.Aug. 2007), Yuhikaku, Tokyo
Written by Akio MORISHIMA : The Administrative Director of the JCPC, The Professor emeritus at Nagoya University
Translated by Ayano ORIDE & Blake MORRIS Jul. 30th, 2007