politics

At G-7, Japan's energy plan is not all that green

39 Comments
By ELAINE KURTENBACH

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

As always, AP's Elaine Kurtenbach gives us a well researched piece worthy of high-calibre journalism.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Japan's nuclear power plants are not exempted from tsunamis , earthquakes, volcanoes, and typhoons. The country is sitting on the edge of an active tectonic zone and direct paths for north bound typhoons. These natural disasters can happen anytime in and near Japan. Especially the first three, they are very hard to predict. Even exact forecast can not spare the nuclear plants from avoidance of disasters. When they happen, all human structures are subject to destruction. Earthquake and tsunami 2011 showed the case in point: the power plant built near the convergent zone of super fault lines was severely damaged resulting huge suffering of the people. Vast sea areas were contaminated, and sea lives became radioactive. It would be wise for Japan to stay away from nuclear energy.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Japan is stuck between a rock and a hard place filling it's energy needs.

One the one had it already has trouble producing enough power and has a serous financial problem coming in the near future due to the aging population which makes the expensive switch to renewable energy less attractive.

One the other hand Global Warming is a fact and Japan will be among the nations most affected by raising sea levels and an increase in storms.

My opinion is it's time to tighten our belts and invest in sustainable energy now. We are already on course to lose two meters off all the coasts in the world by 2100 and there is a very real danger of Global Warming hitting critical mass and becoming unstoppable at which point we have a much bigger problem then the value of the Yen on the international market.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The answer to Japan's energy needs is conservation, not exploitation.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Biggest load of rubbish I have read in a long time. There has been zero "globala warming" now known as climate change, since 1998. We are now in a period of global cooling. Mankind and his actions have no effect on climate change, which is a natural phenomenon. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, nor is it evil. The evil is the people who are trying to demonise CO2. "Zero emissions" is totally impossible without killing off every living thing on the planet, since we all breathe out CO2. CO 2 is plant food, and is good for the planet, indeed, it is the lifeblood of the planet. Man made "global warming/coimate change/climate whatever is just one big scam. Its the bifpggest scam in the history of mankind. Mankind cannot control weather, or climate. The climate changes naturally, in cycles, just like the seasons. Japan has no need to "reduce emissions," nor does any other country. Talk of "zero emissions" is just mindless drivel. The corrupt scientists, politicians and environmental groups promoting and propagating this fraud shoild be arrested. The brainwashing by the mass media on this subject, which does not allow any dissent, must stop.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

There has been zero "globala warming" now known as climate change, since 1998.

..Meanwhile, in the real world, global warming/climate changes continues.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

The Group of Seven host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has indicated she supports a pledge of eventual zero carbon emissions. Japan favors coal, gas and nuclear power over green energy

Abe plans to explain to fellow leaders its target of a 26% reduction from 2013 levels of carbon emissions by 2030.

So typical. Japan is always having to "explain" its position on many global issues, because it is simply out-of-step with the rest of the world. And all the explanations, rationalizations, justifications, and excuses don't change that fact. Japan believes on leading from the rear.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

At G-7, Japan's energy plan is not all that green

Bloody embarrassment.

With all the solar gain, wind, wave, hydro and geothermal resources we could easily lead the world on renewable tech and implementation.

Wake up, Abe, this is your chance to shine.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Japan could be the provider of green technology and expertise, there are tons of engineers ready to get going, they are only held back by the paper bags that control the country.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

so called Green policies are guaranteed to increase CO2 emissions by being the most inefficient/expensive plans- the US has decrease those emissions by using gas. Hilarious comparisons- France who ditched the green nuclear power for coal.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

replacing nuclear is the correct course of action. One cannot compare +30,000 years of radioactive waste to anything else in existence. The mistake is choosing coal and other fossil fuels, even fossil gas ("natural"). The trick is making a new infrastructure to take in all the different types of renewables and putting into building code law. Like we did for plumbing for homes. Geothermal should be mandatory like they did in Sweden and elsewhere. Everything helps.

We just need to upgrade and stop choosing old polluting technologies. Even if technologies are not 100% green now, over time they will improve. But going backwards is not an option anymore.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Ah, he and his supporters will just fall back on the inevitable "It's a domestic issue. They are just attacking our culture!" when they get criticized.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Economically the countries that prepare themselves and others to go green will have more opportunities than those who are only in it for the multinational lawyers fees. Where Japan sits will be up to Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pre-emptive action seems impossible in a country that is radically indifferent to nature and the Earth as a whole, and sees opportunity for yet more civil engineering projects as the disaster intensifies.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan's nuclear power plants are not exempted from tsunamis , earthquakes, volcanoes, and typhoons.

Out of all of these the one that can be prepared for is the typhoons. Okinawa has a long history of dealing with them and they are more of a nuisance than anything else.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I guess the best way ahead for green is to have more livestock farms like sheep, pig, cows to produce significant biogas and biomass. Wonder how much energy can be extracted from tremor of earthquake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We are now in a period of global cooling

Man, u really need to read more. Only 1 or less than 1 percent of scientists believe climate change is a hoax,,but an overwhelming pool of climatologists or natural scientists and even social scientists already settled with the idea that climate change is happening..

I'm wondering what papers/books u read or whether u get ur info only from the media.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

At the end of the day, these targets will be guaranteed to be false platitudes and it will be business as usual - misguideded priorities of economic growth.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Take apart one's idealistic goals and get one's feet firmly on the ground with a vision of not oneself only but our host country's position, situation and circumstances within the entire global relationships economically, politically, socially, etc. and you can even include education as well. However, the key to all this is what people need in each country and to what extent they are willing to change their ways in terms of the type of energy and how much they want to use.

Nice to prevent disasters by stopping harmful energy sources such as nuclear and coal, but lives depend on certain amount of energy regardless of the source. Each country at different levels of technological development has different resources available. Each country has a population that can or may be able to use some or all of the different kind of energy resources effectively. Some may not.

While it is nice, ideologically and idealistically to set standards and goals and commit to standards and levels, however calculated, each country can only strive toward that goal. Even if a country resorts to absolute power, such as what the USA is or has been trying to do for the past 6 years and what China has been doing for many years, it is difficult for compliance and for enforcement.

But, most important is that each country comes up with their own formula within their own population and make a reasonable effort to achieve a certain level of that commitment. No international community can dictate and enforce a level at which that country cannot survive.

That means, we as citizens with limited information, data, knowledge, etc. can only opine. And if we want to be active; actually get the facts and data, work with those who know and have the ability to affect change, then propose some meaningful alternative that the government may be able to consider.

For one, not so secure but practical idea brought forth by a high school student, was to eliminate the contaminated radio active material from the last disaster. He proposed after much research of his own that an economically, politically, socially, and even environmentally reasonable alternative is to confine all the material to one of the offshore islands now contested by, Korea, China, and Russia and seal it off. That island will be inaccessible for hundreds of years. And for the time being it can be a reservoir for contaminated material.

Of course that does not take into consideration where a rogue or a military state of group getting a hold of some of the materials for inhumane reasons. It does, however, free up and open up the real estate on which people already live on and can continue to use.

However, we must all try to play our part in saving our environment which sustains all of us.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Group of Seven host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, has indicated she supports a pledge of eventual zero carbon emissions.

Meanwhile Germany continues to increase its burning of coal and construction of plants. Talk is cheap, just follow the money.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Japanese officials defend their plan as comparable to or even exceeding the goals set by other major economies."

Yeah, sorry Toyoda and Co., but no one outside of Japan is going to buy this kind of 'logic' that you always try to shovel on the people at home.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Japan is one of the cleanest country of the the world. Also, if you compare to 1970s, the air quality is way better because Japan has made improvements on it.

I have lived in other countries and I can tell for sure that none of them had good air quality as Japan has.

One of the things that Japan has made that many countries like the USA/ SK/ Argentina, and Peru should do is investing in efficient recycle process and lower the amount of garbage that people make.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I have lived in other countries and I can tell for sure that none of them had good air quality as Japan has.

I have to strongly disagree. Have you ever noticed how Japan doesn't get those deep blue skies on clear days that you see in other countries? How the sky is still a little greyish, and not as deep a blue? That's the pollution in the air. Japan doesn't have particularly great air quality.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The low hanging energy fruit as it were would be homes and businesses; insulation, conservation, solar and low gain geothermal could reduce the bulk of their energy needs, easily handling heating and cooling. Neighbourhoods and towns for biogas/biomass recycling and composting. Industrial use in towns where geothermal is easily accessible at high gain geothermal, hot springs and such. They can go for co-generation and put their excess back into the grid. Electrical load would still be natural gas with a mix of solar and molten salt or pumped storage for consistency given all the mountains in Japan. Who knows really, it can be a multitude of things. No shortage of opportunities to try!

Ultimately that first 30%-50% will be the easiest and just a matter of the action of trying. The real work will be in the other 30-50%. But no one can get there if you can't move on the easy stuff

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Burning garbage is much better than burying garbage because it contaminates the groundwater and the soil itself. Even bodies are not buried because it make possible to spread disease.

I dont see any problem in burning garbage. We should eliminate garbage anyway or lower the amount of garbage by making recycling.

Now, about air quality, I just mentioned about China to explain you that it is not Japan's fault for bad air quality. It just happened that time. Generally, Japan has good air quality. You just need to check those sources I provided to you.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Burning garbage is much better than burying garbage because it contaminates the groundwater and the soil itself

Whether that's true or not, it doesn't change the fact that Japan's skies are polluted from burning garbage.

I dont see any problem in burning garbage.

Then you have to deal with skies that are not as clear - meaning that Japan's skies will not be as clear as other countries'.

I just mentioned about China to explain you that it is not Japan's fault for bad air quality.

Except for the fact that Japan burns garbage.

Generally, Japan has good air quality.

Not really. If it did, you would see the deep blue skies that are seen in other countries.

You just need to check those sources I provided to you.

Two photoshopped images, and an article that sites no scientific studies whatsoever? Sorry, get me some real sources please.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

*cites

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"..Meanwhile, in the real world, global warming/climate changes continues."

Yes, the global climate changes. But global warming (AGW) is falsehood. The recent "Warming Pause/Hiatus Debunked" research paper has already been debunked as it also relies on heavily massaged data.

Regarding the instabilities that solar and windpower introduce, this is a very real and serious problem for power grids as Hawaii has discovered.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

But global warming (AGW) is falsehood.

...Meanwhile, in the real world, global warming/climate change is real.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Frederic Bastiat: The recent "Warming Pause/Hiatus Debunked" research paper has already been debunked as it also relies on heavily massaged data.

When I noticed the blurbs on this new paper showing up on Google News, with articles such as NYT's an hour or two old, trumpeting the restoration of global warming and the downfall of the hiatus, I jumped over to http://www.wattsupwiththat.com and found three or four articles on the front page already debunking the hiatus' debunking.

Here's one item from WUWT I particularly noticed: a significant portion of the bias the new paper restores to the global warming figures comes from this factor: Historical ocean water temperature data from ships and from buoys differ by a bit, with the ships' figures a bit higher. The new papers' authors calculated some numbers based on the difference between buoy figures and figures from ships that happened to be near them at the time of sampling.

A buoy is sitting in the cold ocean, gotten rid of the heat it brought with it when dropped off the boat several or whatever years ago, no people on board generating heat, no engines on board generating heat, no friction effects from speeding through the water, no heat brought along with it from wherever it traveled at typical ship speeds. Measuring water temperature is actually part of its mission, not like the ships, who are just reading water intake temperatures to supply engine controllers and the bridge with data. (Caveat: All these are my own guesses at factors, I didn't read the articles enough to see to find this part.) You'd expect the buoys' figures to be more correct than the ships.

But guess what the authors did with their new bias? They ADDED it to the global warming numbers, bumping the numbers up!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Don't know where you live but suggest you should think of moving to Kobe City, plenty of clean air and deep blue skies.

I've traveled all over Japan (I've been to 3/4 of the prefectures), including Kobe, and with the exception of Hokkaido, I've never seen as blue skies anywhere as I have in other developed nations.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I second zichi. The big cities, meh. Where I live the sky is blue, deep blue.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I guess we have a difference of opinion. Maybe the UK has even gloomier skies than Japan overall.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Japan looking pretty nice compared to China, on the realtime pollution map. About like Europe or USA.

Is Kagoshima getting polluted from their volcano? It's the only orange box on Japan. China is mostly red or orange boxes with a few purple (such as Suzhou).

http://aqicn.org/map/#@g/35.5206/123.2453/6z

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan should relocate all nuclear plants away from farmlands and away from city but because this is impossible resigning from nuclear energy is next best solution..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites