Japan CO2 hits record

[TV-VCR 14]

Japan CO2 hits record

Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:17am EST

---

By Risa Maeda

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's greenhouse gas emissions rose to a record high in the year to March, putting the world's fifth-largest carbon dioxide producer at risk of an embarrassing failure to achieve its Kyoto target over the next four years.

The increase of 2.3 percent last year, largely due to the closure of Japan's biggest nuclear power plant after an earthquake, will ratchet up the pressure for it to give up its efforts to control emissions through voluntary measures and adopt tougher limits on industry like the European Union and Australia.

With developing countries already questioning Tokyo's political will to rein in emissions and top CO2 polluters China, the United States and India free from Kyoto's 2008-2012 targets, Japan's actions will be seen as a milestone as governments struggle to agree on a successor to the protocol next year.

Emissions rose to 1.371 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent in the Japanese fiscal year through March, after a 1.3 percent decline the previous year, Ministry of the Environment data showed on Wednesday.

Analysts said immediate action was called for if Japan was to cut emissions by the estimated 13.5 percent needed to hit its 2008-2012 target under Kyoto of just under 1.2 billion tons, down 6 percent from 1990 levels.

"We immediately need a set of effective policies to drive a change towards a more climate-friendly society," Tetsunari Iida, executive director of Tokyo's Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies (ISEP), an environment policy NGO.

Unlike the European Union, Japan has been reluctant to set a mandatory cap or a carbon tax on companies' emissions. Steelmakers and other manufacturers resist such caps, saying they would hurt their products' worldwide competitiveness.

The task of cutting emissions may grow even harder with the world tilting toward what may be its worst recession in decades, one that may divert governments' focus away from climate change and the trillions of investment dollars required to stem it.

Although Japan is set to review next year its current measures, based on voluntary pledges on emission cuts across major industries, that could be too late, analysts said.

For a graphic of Japan's CO2 emissions, click on: here

EXTRA CREDITS

A rise was widely expected after the world's biggest nuclear plant, run by Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), had to suspend operations following a July 2007 earthquake, forcing utilities to meet demand by burning more coal, oil and natural gas, all of which emit far more greenhouse gases.

The plant is expected to remain shut until beyond next March.

While Japan's utilities have stepped up their buying of U.N. carbon offsets, Wednesday's data suggests they may have to buy more if Japan is to meet its global pledge, potentially driving up global carbon credit prices.

While Tokyo has worked hard to drive utilities toward cleaner forms of energy, it has also struggled to convince power companies facing tough times to hasten investments in new nuclear power stations with low emissions.

The government also faces public distrust about Japan's scandal-plagued nuclear industry, including safety fears over the numerous earthquakes the country suffers each year.

On Tuesday, J-Power said it had delayed the start of a major new nuclear unit by two years, the latest in a string of delays to new projects.

Yet long term strategies are key to resolving the problem, analysts say.

"There will be no reduction in carbon emissions until there are viable ways of replacing energy supply and energy growth with large-scale renewables," said climate change expert Barry Brook, of the University of Adelaide in Australia.

"That is where the focus of international action should now be."

Iida said the fact that two new coal plants were being built in Japan underscored the need for sterner government action.

The world's efforts to carve out a pact to follow Kyoto should intensify ahead of a key meeting in Copenhagen next December that negotiators have set as a deadline for establishing a post-2012 framework.

But the debate comes at a difficult time, with developed nations heading into recession, which may help curb emissions by reducing power demand, but also risks distracting from the longer-term task and fostering a return to cheaper carbon energy.

The world needs to invest $26 trillion in energy infrastructure by 2030 just to maintain fossil-based energy supply, the International Energy Agency said last week.

OUTLOOK UNCERTAIN

Tokyo has set companies and households a private-sector emissions target, to be met by voluntary steps, of 1.254 billion metric tons, which will be offset by a further 68 million tons a year by government spending on domestic forest conservation and credits from investing in clean technology in poorer countries.

The key to Japan's voluntary program is the electric power industry, which has pledged to cut CO2 emissions to an average of 0.34 kg per kilowatt hour a year through to 2012.

But in the year to March that figure stood at 0.453 kg due to the closure of TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant.

Even if the power industry met its voluntary target last year, Japan's emissions would still have exceeded its target, the environment ministry said.

(Additional reporting by Miho Yoshikawa and Osamu Tsukimori in Tokyo and David Fogarty in Singapore; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

quote>

[Micah 16]

Haha... Kyoto Agreement... haha

[fukuda 351]

It's hard to be an industrial power and be clean at the same time, eh?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Micah Haha... Kyoto Agreement... haha quote>

Would be pretty embarrassing (and ironic) if Japan failed to meet that, wouldn't it?

[Haljackey 17,270]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Micah Haha... Kyoto Agreement... haha quote>

Would be pretty embarrassing (and ironic) if Japan failed to meet that, wouldn't it?quote>

Well, it still has until 2012 to franticly try and cut down emissions, but with the way things are going, I am doubtful.  Maybe Japan wants get their emissions up now so they can do whatever they need to do before they "have" to lower them.

Kyoto sounded like such a nice thing.  How come it's not working???

[your_adress_here 11]

Well, there's a first time for everything.

[Muck308 55]

Good luck, Japan. You're gonna need it.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: haljackey

Kyoto sounded like such a nice thing.  How come it's not working??? quote>

Because the current is towards emissions increasing. Decreasing them requires swimming upstream, so to speak.

Why? Well, because the world's population is growing. Fundamentally, that means more people constantly sucking in oxygen and blowing out carbon dioxide, though I don't think that contribution is even factored into these kinds of protocols and goals.

But it also means more people that need to have food grown to feed, electricity generated to power, goods shipped to provide, cars driven to transport... and on and on. Since 1990, technologies overall have gotten "greener" but the problem is that even if the per capita emission rate drops the overall emission rate (which is really what matters) can still be going up if the population growth negates that. 5 million people creating 10 tons of CO₂ each will still overall generate more emissions than 3 million people creating 15 tons each (50 miliion tons versus 45 million).

The really inconvenient truth here is that we're not practically going to get CO₂ emissions to drop unless we can make the world's population level out or, even better, start to go down. And you can't really do that without being oppressive. People have a right to reproduce as much as they want. And so long as that right is protected, cutting emissions is going to be a very uphill battle.

This then brings me back to my old adage about how "there's a positive aspect to everything, no exceptions", and pointing out that murder is good for the environment. Seems rather cruel and soulless to say such a thing, but from an emotionless and purely logical standpoint (something I excel at having), it's absolutely true. Every person that dies is one less person respirating and using up resources. Now, I'm not advocating that we go and start killing people to help the environment, but it is nevertheless interesting food for thought.

[hamsterTK 93]

except Japan has a shrinking population due to low birthrates and a aging population.

I think it's just what the article described, the country's 1960's era nuclear power grid is reaching a watershed moment where old plants are closing and today's levels of NIMBYism and anti-nuke "enviromentalists" are keeping new ones from opening. So filling the gap is fossil-fuel power like coal.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Hm, Kyoto was nothing but a bit of over-hyped legislation that failed to take in account world population growth rates... I mean, c'mon, coming back to 1990 levels in 2012?

Not possible without making serious cutbacks of some sort.

I blame the environmentalists who try and force this sort of stuff onto us without providing solutions for how we can reduce emissions (eg. building cleaner power plants)... do they all want us to go back to living in caves killing animals for food with flint spears?

Well, I've always said you can't trust people who smell funny and have beards.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Herodotus 2]

To bad there is no solid evidence saying that there is any link between CO2 emissions and global warming......

I mean sure you can find a study saying there is a link, but you could just as easlily find a study saying there isn't. You know the funny thing is, the environmentalists don't want to tell you is that all the other planets are warming up in the solar system to. If you look back way into history and study the Chinese records on sun spots, it gets really hot when there are lots of sun spots and really cold when their aren't any. Right know the sun spots are disappearing, you know what that means?????????? It's going to get cold, very very very cold.

Let me end with one question though??????

Would you like to wear a toga or grow grapes in Scotland and England during the winter?????????

(because that's what the Romans did)

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Herodotus To bad there is no solid evidence saying that there is any link between CO2 emissions and global warming......

I mean sure you can find a study saying there is a link, but you could just as easlily find a study saying there isn't. quote>

What you mean is that there's no solid proof (and true, there isn't). There's plenty of evidence.

You know the funny thing is, the environmentalists don't want to tell you is that all the other planets are warming up in the solar system to. quote>

Really now? First I've heard this. Either provide a citation to back up your statement or I'm not going to believe it.

If you look back way into history and study the Chinese records on sun spots, it gets really hot when there are lots of sun spots and really cold when their aren't any. Right know the sun spots are disappearing, you know what that means?????????? It's going to get cold, very very very cold. quote>

The number of sunspots goes up and down on a natural cycle of about 11 years.

Sunspots have been shown to have a correlation with terrestrial weather - more severe weather tends to happen when there's more of them, and the overall temperature increases slightly. Slightly. Saying "really hot" and "really cold" is a gross exaggeration. There are many more important factors which control the weather.

However, the key flaw with your argument is this: this year (2008) was a minimum in that 11 year cycle. We're currently in the cold, calm part of the cycle, not the hot, active part.

Let me end with one question though??????

Would you like to wear a toga or grow grapes in Scotland and England during the winter?????????

(because that's what the Romans did)quote>

Weather patterns do vary with time. It's not hard to believe that at times in the past the British Isles were cooler or warmer, especially since latitude is not the key factor in controlling the temperature there. Even today, those areas are pretty warm considering how far north they are. What wars them up is the fact that they've got a warm ocean current (known as the Gulf Stream) pointed right at them. Something like that can easily fluctuate over time. It gets stronger, Britannia warms up. It weakens, Britannia cools down.

Remember, global warming is a global issue (it's even in the name!). You can't look at trends in just one region and draw conclusions based solely on that. You have to look at the overall trend everywhere.

[hamsterTK 93]

Yawn...nobody reads the article or has any clue.

First off, think about Japan. It's not they were ever the model of enviromentalism. Ever heard of Minamata disease? How about the basic plot line for Godzilla?...

The Kyoto protocol was a really big deal for them, don't think then it isn't workable.

[nihonkaranws 88]

Argh..... I hear you Fukuda. My country is going insane!

[gml_josea 2]

[sarcasm]Ooh, wah, those evil environmentalists want us all to live in a world capable of sustaining us. Boo hoo. I want my children to grow up malnourished and diseased so that they die young. That is the way to go![/sarcasm] There are plenty of solutions offered, but the private sector does not like them because it reduces their profit. They can't be billionaires and don't want to be millionaires. The drive is not for us to lives in caves and hunt with spears, the idea is to make us operate under more sustainable circumstances and ensure that our progeny are not left with a disastrous mess impossible to repair.quote>

Like what? Drowning us in solar panels? Destrying landscapes with wind turbines? There's one modern marvel called Nuclear power, the thing is that enviromentalists are all "oh no nuclear!" and stop any project that involves building a new reactor because they think that they will suddenly explode or the waste is too dangerous. Damn it, in the 21st century we can make extremely safe reactors, and with reprocessing waste is minimal. I'm not against recycling, making things more efficient and reducing resource consumption, but enviromentalists go overboard, they just want to revert industrial revolution back to the dark ages.

[Odainsaker 2,134]

I don't know of too many people who want the nuclear waste stored near them.  Or even stored in their own state (see Yucca Mountain), let alone transported through their areas.  Oh well, for now we will just leave it scattered in undersupervised facilities and exposed storage yards all over the nation.

Forget the China Syndrome...to scare us today we might consider what similar pollution figures would show for non-Kyoto signers like the PRC, India, Russia, or gosh, even the U.S.

Oh, speaking of China, this week's Science journal highlights research which links the rise and fall of China's old dynasties to the strength of monsoons, which in turn link to temperature.  The leadership in Beijing best start paying attention.

[fukuda 351]

This is what our nuclear cemeteries look like, giant hollow cubes with walls several meters thick of concrete, a cemetery like this one can process (well, bury) the nuclear waste of hundreds of years of production, drowned in concrete. The white buidlings are in fact huge sealed overhead crane structures that move over rails and avoid any radiation to be leaked in the disposal process. It's safe and takes relatively small place

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Odainsaker

Oh, speaking of China, this week's Science journal highlights research which links the rise and fall of China's old dynasties to the strength of monsoons, which in turn link to temperature.  The leadership in Beijing best start paying attention.

quote>

Uh huh. Hate to sound like a broken record, but it is always important to remember than correlation does not imply causation.

Now, it does seem to make sense that there could be a link between drought and political upheaval (unhappy citizens find a way to blame their government and overthrow it). But just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's true.

Anyways, on the matter of Nuclear power:

It does seem like a more sensible and more practical alternative to fossil fuels than solar, wind, etc. Storage of the waste shouldn't be that much if an issue. How about encasing it in heavy concrete with lead aggregate and then, instead of trying to find sites on land to store it, just dump it in the middle of the ocean? I dare somebody to make a NIMBY complaint then. And I dare someone to worry about a future civilization that doesn't know what it is stumbling across it when it's sitting in Davy Jones' Locker under three miles of water.

But (and this is an important but), nuclear power is neither a renewable nor a perpetual resource. Just as there is finite amount of oil, coal, etc. on Earth, there is also a finite amount of uranium on Earth. And only a small fraction of it is fissionable ₂₃₅U. Most of it is ₂₃₈U. Once all the fissionable uranium has been spent, that's it. No more nuclear power.

It does have the political advantage over oil that significant deposits of it are not present in the Middle East, however.

[TV-VCR 14]

Nuclear power is safe as long you have intelligent and reliable people working with it.  Which is why I really hate organizations like greenpeace. For the love of...

Duke: It's technically finite, but the Earth can still replenish it over time. But like oil, coal, and others, it takes a staggeringly long amount of time. Not going against your point though, I agree. Just until we can develop the ultimate power source, nuclear - along with solar, wind, and hydro - are excellent sources of power.

[Duke87 1,070]

^True. At this point in time, going back to nuclear is the best option. It can't be the last thing, but it makes a great next thing. Meanwhile photovoltaic cell technology would have to get more efficient and cheaper, so we can use it more. Wind and hydroelectric, despite being emission free, still have negative environmental impacts.The noise and vibrations from windmills disturbs birds. Hydroelectric dams block rivers, preventing fish from migrating past them, killing fish which stray into the turbines, and lowering silt levels downstream by inducing settlement behind then. Tidal plants prevent tidal flats from exposing at low tide, making them inhospitable to creatures that like to live there and removing a food source for seagulls and other animals that feed on stuff there.

So, unless we can manage to make a practical fusion reactor, the future, really long term, is ultimately going to have to be solar. It's currently the only means of getting energy that's completely clean, completely harmless, and will never run out.

[Hahayoudied 3]

Solar panel factories emit deadly, toxic wastes. Now, there was a local enviornmentalist group that I knew before disbanning that opposed all sources of power except for oil, coal, and gas.

[fukuda 351]

And the amazingly huge amounts of steel and other materials to build ultrahuge solar farms, years and years of worlwide production....

[Duke87 1,070]

I never said anything about solar farms. Practically, that would be a huge waste of land.

No, the futuristic way with solar panels would be to have them on the roof of every building. Roofs are usually dead, unused space. That would make use of it. Would also have the added efficiency of having the power be generated very locally. No energy loss from transmitting it long distances.

Solar panel factories emit deadly, toxic wastes.quote>

So do tons of other types of factories, but that's never stopped anyone.

Really, the key with industrial effluent is that it needs to be properly managed and disposed of. Not that it needs to not be created in the first place. That's unavoidable.

But, you know, seal it and properly dispose of it in a hazmat landfill instead of just dumping it in the local river. Toxic waste is completely harmless so long as it doesn't get out into the environment. Problems arise not from it existing but rather from organisms getting exposed to it.

[Zezug 6]

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0521-energy.html link to infromation about U.S. C02 emissions, saw someone mention that it would interesting to compare and here ya go.