The government recently decided to establish a nuclear safety agency under the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Although its effects remain unclear with the subsequent change in prime ministers, the decision was seen by many as a positive step toward transforming the institutional framework behind Japan's nuclear power policy, which has always been controlled by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
The government recently decided to establish a nuclear safety agency under the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Although its effects remain unclear with the subsequent change in prime ministers, the decision was seen by many as a positive step toward transforming the institutional framework behind Japan's nuclear power policy, which has always been controlled by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
It should be remembered, however, that nuclear power is not the only form of energy used in the nation. Even though the new safety agency would be under the environmental portfolio, other energy-related policies would still be controlled by METI, and therefore handled in the context of industrial promotion. And the government has given no indication that energy policy will be reconsidered in the greater context of the human environment.
Since the March 11 disasters, discourse in Japan has focused on reconstruction and recovery from the disaster. But energy policy in the 21st century must be placed within the broader context of climate change, which will continue to be a major constraint on energy use for the next hundred years or more.
In debates over climate policy in Japan, there is a tendency to focus on the government's declared 25-percent emission reduction target by 2020, which serves a core component of the post-Kyoto Protocol debate in Japan. This may be because business and industry stakeholders are mainly concerned about short-term costs and benefits, and politicians are concerned about the next election. Since the Fukushima disaster, debate has centered on whether the target can be met without nuclear power.
Importantly, Japan has already made a commitment to large and long-term emission reductions of 60 to 80 percent by 2050. This is a commitment to reduce the risks of the catastrophic effects of climate change. Studies on low-carbon scenarios show that both supply-side and demand-side efforts are necessary, and the large-scale introduction of renewable energies is one essential part of the solution.
Japanese energy policy, driven primarily by economic, trade and industrial concerns, has made scant progress toward the long-term "de-carbonization" of our economy let alone nuclear safety. Indeed, last year's Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) environmental performance review of Japan pointed out that Japan lags behind other OECD countries in terms of introducing economic instruments such as national emission trading or carbon taxes. Meanwhile, the global renewable energy market has grown, while Japan's share of the renewables market -- such as patents and the production of solar cells -- has declined dramatically. Japan should consider introducing a national carbon tax, for example, with revenues used to develop low carbon technologies. But MOE, which might be expected to play a leadership role within the government for such initiatives, is not in the position to do so because energy issues are under the jurisdiction of METI.
Britain has established the Department of Energy and Climate Change, a sign that the country sees energy policy and climate change in the same context. In Germany, the share of renewables has increased by around 10 percent in the past 10 years, and the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety shares its responsibilities on energy policy with the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology. But Japan's approach has been to leave energy policy under the jurisdiction of METI, and put climate policy under MOE, with the expectation that the two would coordinate their affairs. The reality, however, is that METI and its Agency for Natural Resources and Energy have monopolized and dominated energy policy, due to their historical and financial superiority. Japan's climate change negotiations reveal these dynamics. For example, when Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in 2009 toughened the country's declared 2020 emission reduction target from 8 to 25 percent (from 1990 levels), most of its negotiating positions did not change accordingly, due to the power dynamics among the relevant ministries.
One way forward for Japan may be to change the balance of power between METI and MOE on energy policy, by giving more authority to the MOE. To start with, renewables, for example, could come under the MOE. Another approach may be to integrate energy policy with low-carbon policy by creating a new ministry for the environment and energy, somewhat like what has been done in Britain. Even feed-in-tariffs for renewables to connect to the power grid, which just passed the Diet, will really work only if introduced based on a balance of climate and energy policy -- otherwise, real change will not come.
The nuclear disaster Japan experienced in Fukushima after the earthquake and tsunami should never have happened. But it revealed fundamental problems in the Japanese approach to energy and climate. The recovery process poses a rare opportunity to make fundamental changes that will better equip Japan for the future.
* * *
Norichika Kanie is an associate professor at Tokyo Institute of Technology and a research fellow at the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies.