Japan slashes climate reduction target amid nuclear shutdown

[muriel_volestrangler]

Japan is to significantly slash its greenhouse gas reduction target in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

It will now aim to achieve a 2020 target of 3.8% below 2005 levels.

This replaces a previous commitment to reduce emissions by 25% from 1990 levels.
...
The move was announced in Tokyo by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga. The new target represents a 3% rise over 1990s emissions levels, a comprehensive turnaround from the 25% reduction target.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24952155

[GliderGuider]

1. So it goes... nt

[madokie]

2. Relying on nuclear to get there was going to be a hard sell

since Fukushima went all hay wire on them.
Nuclear is plain and simply too dangerous as this catastrophe clearly shows. On paper it's the cats meow but in reality not so much.
If you ask me we've wasted a lot of time, like 60 plus years, trying to lipstick that ugly pig.

[NickB79]

3. That is a huge shift

Does this put to rest the idea that Japan was about to go on a renewables building spree large enough to make a significant impact in the next decade?

They're basically admitting "Yeah, we're gonna be burning a lot more fossil fuel for a LOOONG time to come, guys."

[kristopher]

4. "Does this put to rest..."? No, it doesn't even speak to that issue.

It is more a reflection of how spending on nuclear for carbon reduction is a strategy fraught with peril than any statement about renewables at all. This was promulgated by the same pronuclear block that is now trying to justify restarting their nuclear fleet in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

The critics of nuclear power (AKA those who want to pursue renewable development) have no input into this policy so it doesn't reflect a path that reflects the pursuit of renewables. The goal is a reflection of a nuclear or nothing mentality predicting continued use of existing fossil assets while waging a sustained battle against public opinion to reopen nuclear.

On the flip side, there has been a new and potentially significant change in the Japanese political landscape as one of the most influential "elder statesmen" of the ruling party has called the current Prime Minister Abe onto the carpet for his pronuclear stance.

See also
Koizumi: It's up to Abe to make the move toward a nuclear-free society
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201311120095

Still the maverick, anti-nuclear Koizumi baffles LDP leaders, utilities
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201311130068

Mentor Koizumi shows protege Abe how to reboot
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/11/15/commentary/mentor-koizumi-shows-protege-abe-how-to-reboot/#.UoaaJigyHdk

[NickB79]

5. So, you think the Japanese ARE going to build enough renewables

In the next decade to make a significant impact on their carbon emissions, despite the fact they pretty much just stated that they're going to fall far, far short of their pre-Fukushima emission goals?

Japan has been compared extensively to Germany since Fukushima as the next heavily industrialized nation to go big into wind/solar as they abandon nuclear. The ramp-up in fossil fuel consumption has repeatedly been addressed as a "temporary blip" on the way to their renewables utopia, and nothing to get our shorts in a bunch over.

I've asked more than once here on DU just how many years constitutes a "temporary blip". This press release just solidifies my fear that it will be measured in decades, not just years, seeing how far off they'll be on their carbon goals.

[kristopher]

6. I don't know what they are going to do.

But the document you cited as evidence of a failure for renewable energy was no such thing. It is, however, one more item on a long list of why nuclear energy is a bad investment for decarbonizing the world.

If we build 5000 more reactors and a major economic/population center is taken out by a Chernobyl/Fukushima level event what do you think it would do to the climate value of that investment?