INTERVIEW: Hiroshi Kainuma/ Parties should debate what going 'nuclear-free' entails

In Japan's first national election since the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, almost all parties are espousing the abolition of nuclear energy—in pledges ranging from firm promises to vague ambitions.But one academic accuses them of a significant omission: No party has told voters exactly how they would achieve it.Hiroshi Kainuma is a junior researcher at Fukushima University's Fukushima Future Center for Regional Revitalization. He is the author of " 'Fukushima' theory--the birth of a nuclear village," a 2011 book based on a thesis he wrote as a graduate student of sociology at the University of Tokyo.The 28-year-old hails from Fukushima Prefecture. He says even before the disaster, people there, as elsewhere in rural Japan, were struggling with a slumping economy and limited access to health care and social support. And, he says, consultations on the future of nuclear power must take account of their interests.Excerpts from the interview follow:Question: Many parties are championing the abolition of nuclear power. What is your take on that?Answer: Parties have always conducted campaigns knowing that the general public wants to "reset" something. Examples from the past decade include postal reform and child-rearing allowances. The recent chorus of calls to abandon nuclear power is another. Each party heard it and promised to meet it, but omitted details of how they would achieve it. I am afraid that voters cannot tell if the parties have detailed blueprints for achieving it.Q: Which issues have parties failed to discuss?A: All parties, including the main opposition Liberal Democratic Party, agree that Japan should review its reliance on nuclear energy and promote renewables. But most of them have failed to work out how to get by until renewable energy is fully available. They have merely promised to promote renewable energy. This is because they want to avoid facing a rise in carbon dioxide emissions, an inevitable outcome if they pledge to get through the period relying on fossil fuels.I see deception there. They don't mention the trade deficits that would balloon as a result of increased imports of fossil fuels. Nor, for similar reasons, do they discuss the program to recycle spent nuclear fuel. We need to end the situation in which parties ignore challenges because they cannot agree on solutions and merely talk about performing a "reset" in society. Fundamental questions will remain unsolved if all that happens is they are repackaged.Q: What do you think are the questions posed by nuclear power?A: German sociologist Ulrich Beck says society used to distribute wealth and today it distributes risk. This is true also of nuclear power. The central government distributed risk to rural regions in exchange for alleviating poverty there, unconsciously imposing burdens on a vulnerable area.We must confront this. In order to engage in substantial debate, we need to create an environment in which a party can declare: "We will dispose of contaminated soil and wreckage with these steps … Although other parties are avoiding the question, we will take this approach."Q: How do people in Fukushima Prefecture see this election?A: They understand that there is nothing for them merely on the parties' platforms. It is as if they have been given a restaurant menu which contains nothing appetizing. So they will go back to a place they are familiar with.Q: On Dec. 4, four separate party leaders kicked off their campaigns for the Lower House election in Fukushima Prefecture, calling for the promotion of renewables.A: People would suffer again if they simply switched from dependence on one failed energy to another. They know that solar power plants or floating wind turbines would not create as many jobs as hoped and that they could prove a bad investment.People are fleeing Fukushima Prefecture, not because of fear of radiation, but because of a lack of jobs and the collapse of the health-care and welfare systems. Local communities were suffering from ailing industry, a declining birthrate and rapidly aging society long before the quake, tsunami and nuclear accident of March 2011. But politicians tried to address those difficulties with the logic of central government: either by pumping in money or encouraging free competition. These approaches only stalled finding solutions and meant the disasters, when they took place, had a more painful impact. The problems are still being ignored today.(This article is based on an interview by Mari Fujisaki.)