The Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso has announced it’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions target — “I have decided to aim at a 15 percent reduction from 2005,” Aso told a news conference. This is a reduction of 8 percent compared to the international baseline year of 1990. Japan’s Kyoto target is a reduction of 6 percent compared to 1990 levels over the commitment period 2008-12. Japan’s 2020 target therefore translates to a 2 percent reduction compared to it’s Kyoto target.
When asked about Aso’s target, Yvo do Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCCC said “I think for the first time in two and a half years on this job, I don’t know what to say”. Activists unveiled a giant photo of “George W. Aso” and honoured Japan as “special fossil of the day”.
How should other countries respond to this proposed target? They certainly should not accept it. This suggests that any proposed agreement needs a higher target for Japan, whether it signs on or not. In order for an international environmental agreement to stop climate change from being a prisoner’s dilemma, there needs to be credible punishments for non-compliance or non-participation with an agreement. Japan imports large amounts of coal, both for steel making and electricity generation. Japan is Australia’s largest coal customer; Australia is Japan’s largest coal supplier. In 2007-08, 46 percent of Australian coal exports went to Japan. In 2005, 57 percent of Japanese coal imports were from Australia. The emissions from a years worth of Australian coal exports to Japan would be equal to roughly 290 million tons of carbon dioxide.
If Australia wants to do something constructive about Japan’s weak target, Australia should either levy a carbon tax on coal exports to Japan, or stop exporting coal to Japan. The other main exporters of coal to Japan are Indonesia and China. If Australia could get these countries to do the same thing, that would be a powerful incentive for Japan to get its act together. Australia may not have to actually do this, the threat to do so, if it is credible, could be enough.
Coal and Safety, no. 28, March 2006
June 27, 2009 at 2:02 am
Why do you want to reduce CO2 output in the first place? Bear in mind that all scientific evidence tells us that extra CO2 is good for the biosphere and no scientific evidence says otherwise.
So what are your motives in this racket>
June 27, 2009 at 12:10 pm
graemebird, there is overwhelming evidence that climate change will be bad for the biosphere. See for example Thomas et al., 2004, “Extinction risk from climate change”, Nature, 427, pp. 145-148.
September 7, 2009 at 9:40 am
Pete,
I wonder if you’ve had a chance to check out the new Japanese government’s targets?
During the campaign they claimed a medium term (2020) target of 30 percent reduction from 2005 baseline. They had a long term target too, but I can’t see any meaning in 2050 targets.
Since the DPJ now forms the government, any chance they’re going to stick to these goals?
September 7, 2009 at 11:33 am
Hi Dominic,
I heard that during the campaign, the DPJ proposed a 25 percent reduction on 1990 levels. This is much better than most proposals from Annex I countries and is very good news. I don’t know a great deal about Japanese domestic politics, so don’t know how likely it will be that it translates into an international commitment. If it does, that would significantly increase the likelihood of a good outcome at Copenhagen.
When comparing Japanese targets to those of other countries, such as Australia, it is of course important to keep in mind that different countries have different per-capita emissions. Australia’s per-capita emissions are much higher than those of Japan.