Reporting the “Global Warming Mid-term Goal” Opinion Exchange

• climate change
• earth conscious

By JoelJun 29th, 2009

Creative Commons, Some Rights Reserved, Image by azrainman

On April 20 just gone, the cabinet office opened an “opinion exchange
session regarding mid-term goals for global warming.”
Who was there? What was said?

This forum was opened in five locations countrywide. The Tokyo session featured the ministers for environment and economy, the chairman of the mid-term global warming investigative commission, the section head of the global environment section of the Federation of Economic Organizations (Keidanren), a representative form the Japan chamber of commerce and industry, and Climate Network representative Mr.Asaoka. Free participants like myself numbered 300.

Environment Minister Saito made opening remarks, noting that global warming is a “scientific fact beyond any doubt”, and giving his opinion that counter measures such as “immediate investment, followed by a sincere debate” were required, called for the lively opinions of participants.
Before reporting on the opinions offered, I’ll just sum up the mid-term global warming goals.

It’s necessary to look back at the Summit held in Toyako, Hokkaido in July last year to understand the mid-term goals. Prime Ministers and officials of 8 nations were signatory to the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) which aims to “halve the amount of worldwide gasses that cause global warming by 2050”. It’s a slightly confusing expression, but basically a goal was agreed upon to “halve the amount of worldwide gases that cause global warming by 2050”, and action pledged by all in order to actually achieve this goal. Such concrete action includes setting of mid-term goals at individual country level.
Following this, each G8 nation implemented setting mid-term goals. Already in Europe laws have been passed and will be enacted from next month that govern the achieving a 20% reduction compared with 1990.

In Japan, last July a government decision was passed, with the long-term target of “reducing greenhouse gasses by 60-80% of what they currently are by 2050.”Despite this, a mid-term target has still not been set, although there are currently 6 proposals to choose from, provided by the panel discussions of separate groups of the Mid-Term Investigative Commission.

Out of these 6 options, the most lenient target is for +4% on 1990, and the strictest is -25%. This calculates to a difference in carbon dioxide volume of 3.32 million tonnes. This amounts to 4 times the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by all domestic trees in one year.

some choices of mid-term goal

Having lent an ear to public opinion, the government will set its mid-term goal by June. The idea of this opinion session was to hear a wide range of opinions regarding choosing one of the six proposals.

Here is a list of materials that were given out.

1. Global CO2 Output
2. What is the “Mid-Term Target for countering global warming?”
3. The 6 proposals
4. Initiatives and Policies Required (1) Concept
5. Initiatives and Policies Required (2) Concrete Ideas
6. Analysis of economic impact of initiatives: (1) Economic Impact Mechanism
7. Analysis of economic impact of initiatives: (2) Results Analysis
8. Comparison with levels in other countries
9. The 6 proposals and their connection to the long-term goal
10. Public debate on the mid-term goal!

The above are from the heading list of presentation materials used by chairman Mr.Fukui formerly of Bank of Japan.

Something important missing from this list?

Yep, these materials have completely omitted the crucial impact of the greenhouse effect on the economy, society and the environment.

Mr.Fukui’s comments were available on footage uploaded on the governments Internet television portal.

“As members of the committee, we are united in the long term to cultivating the global economy, and for the lives of people on the earth to unfold alongside steady economic growth. Looking at the bigger picture, in response to very difficult global environmental constraints, with proper scientific proof and using the maximum potential of people’s efforts we need to make technological progress and then apply it to the lives of real people and in the corporate realm. Creating a steady groundwork in this way, we will also move towards ultimately achieving a large goal”

and

“While including the principle of impartiality, we are adding a number of proposals in order that Japan’s target becomes a globally balanced effort target. Questions that arise are how much effort can actually be made and also on which scale should global impartiality be seen? Using both questions as a basis for political discussion horizontally and vertically, we want to create a proposal which will form a foundation on which the government can work strategically and easily exhibit leadership in the global scene”
Keidanren followed with their opinion, and then the Japan Chamber of Commerce, and the common theme was international transparency, realistic scope for achievement, the influence on economy and employment, coming to the conclusion that a favorable mid-term goal would be +4% on 1990. Among the participants, who included people from the nuclear energy, oil, railway and manufacturing industries and also full-time housewives, the following opinion stood out. “Why should Japan have to make more effort when we have tried so hard up until now?”

However, when you consider the process up until the actual setting of mid-term targets from carbon dioxide emissions, what should be being debated is not “How much should be spent on global warming emissions” but in my opinion, “to what degree should global warming be mitigated?”

For example, the IPCC deems it necessary to limit temperature rise to within 2 degrees in order to minimize damage, and has warned that developed countries must achieve minus 25-40% on 1990 by the year 2020.

What will happen if this is not achieved?
According to the Stern Report published by lawyer Stern, the negative impact on the economy of global warming (lower food supply capacity, water resources depletion, floods, health damage, abnormal weather, environmental damage etc.) would range from 5% -20% of GDP. The report also suggests that if sufficient initiatives are implemented in the next ten or so years, the cost to world GDP can be limited to approx. 1%, although last year this was revised up to 2%. Dr.Stern has warned of the rapid pace at which global warming is taking place since his initial predictions, and advocated a stricter response.

Implementing global warming initiatives sooner rather than later will be much better for both the environment and the economy.
One of the panelists at the opinion exchange, climate network representative Asaoka Miho, is someone who has taken IPCC and Dr.Stern’s warning onboard. She raised the bar of the most stringent target by suggesting the goal of -25% on 1990 to be increased to over 30%.
Ms.Asaoka also pointed out that among the current proposals on offer, the positive effects of global warming on the environment (reduced energy costs, independence of energy, improvement in trade income and expenditure etc.) have not been properly evaluated, and that low-cost initiatives dealing with global warming have not yet been considered.
What was particularly interesting for me in Mr.Asai’s talk was that despite data showing that nearly 70% of domestic CO2 emissions emanate from power stations and factories the main focus of CO2 initiatives is on households and the transport sector. Actually, within the materials used at the session, concrete proposals for policy and initiatives revolve around the responsibility of the consumer, with no mention of reducing CO2 amount from industry.

Date provided by cabinet secretariat

From 1990 to 2006, Japan’s CO2 emissions rose some 11%. Given this, a mid-term target calling for 25% reduction on 1990 may be a little harsh, and I can see why there would be opinions running to the contrary.
But, why was the international framework created in the first place to tackle reducing volume of CO2 emissions? And to what end has Japan set such a harsh goal of “reducing greenhouse gases by 60%-80% by 2050”? If we don’t do this, will we indeed face a dangerous situation where climate change will make our current lifestyles completely untenable? If this is the case, we need to first set a target based on scientific proof, and in order to achieve this goal we need wide-ranging ideas for initiatives that go beyond just solar energy power generation, eco cars and low-energy houses.

The other day, the environment ministry announced “Aggregate results of survey relating to environmental consideration contract of local municipalities”. The previous year saw the passing of the environmental consideration contract law, requiring initiatives by local municipalities for constructing an economy and society with a low environmental burden. However in the results of this survey, only 27.7% of regional municipalities actually knew about the details of this law. Just 2.3% responded that they are setting a contract policy.
How about revising this law and enforcing initiatives among regional municipalities. And then, revising the environmental consideration contract law along similar lines, making the reduction of harmful gases compulsory and naming and shaming companies who fail to comply. Just doing this would weed out companies who do not show consideration for the environment, clearing a path for a big reduction in the volume of C02 unleashed by industry.

This article has been translated from the original Japanese post