Couple days ago, soon-to-be Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio announced an aggressive stance on combating climate change. He is vying to cut CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020 respect to 1990 levels. This is a huge departure from the 8% levels that the now defunct Liberal Democratic Party was proposing. The United States on the other hand, is only proposing a 4% cut (via the House Bill). The U.N. scientific panel advises even deeper cuts (25~40%) for rich countries. Hatoyama looks to be a big proponent of doing something about the environment. The goal is for Japan to be the leader of energy efficiency and conservation.
It will be difficult for Hatoyama achieve this goal, as business lobby groups will be furious to keep these cuts to a minimum. There are major political obstacles as well; the biggest worries are “developing” countries like China and India, as they may not adhere to the cuts proposed by the U.N. and other rich countries. Moreover, there are a lot of worries if the cap-an
d-trade system would not only plunge the domestic economy, but it may lead to transfer funds to foreign countries which enables them to pollute even more.
Another concern is the media. Environmental issues are covered very weakly in the major newspapers. There’s a recent trend especially by the conservative media outlets to give opinion space to climate change deniers. The framing of the debate is turning into a believers vs deniers polarization with the intention of being fair. However, the actual debate among the experts on this issue is not whether anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real, but it is on the causes of AGW and its corresponding magnitude of its effects. When the debate is framed in the mass media like it is now, uninformed readers will have the false interpretation that the science is not more or less settled.
Hatoyama will have to deal with the largely conservative press (at least on AGW) and will need to strongly reframe the debate portraying actual scientific discussion. I think a lot of the “fair” framing that is done in the media is largely due to the cultural objection to adding restrictions to business and their own lifestyles. The major opinion makers come from the baby-boomer era where resource and financial restrictions weren’t as prevalent, and culturally, the opinions made by the denier scientists are more palatable. For example, this article Nakagawa Nobuhiro is symbolic of conservative opinion on AGW and Democratic Party of Japan’s policy.
Excuse me if I may mention that it is unsure whether DPJ will exist in 2020. In addition, there are increasing research results that refute the human causes of global warming [then links to Itoh Kiminori's opinion article]. …
I believe it is advisable to wait and see what the governments of the U.S. and China does with their CO2 cuts. I don’t think it is too late to propose Japan’s plan then.
Mr. Nakagawa links to Itoh Kiminori and declares that there are research results showing AGW is false. Of course Prof. Itoh has never published a refereed article on climate science, and the linked article mentions his opinion (IMO nitpicking) on climate change. The second paragraph he mentions that Japan should take a “wait-and-see” approach instead of a “lead-and-influence” approach. This latter point is just a healthy difference opinion, but the former point is plain disinformation. I am not accusing Mr. Nakagawa of fudging the facts (like the *cough*Republicans*cough*), but he seems to have a cultural bias against AGW that is clouding his opinion.
In general, being against AGW is culturally more palatable for anyone. Once you disregard the effects of CO2, it opens up people to have more freedom to do stuff, like eating Kobe beef. However, science cannot be disregarded, and hopefully we have more articles that mention the scientific debate more accurately. Currently, people like Prof. Kiminori are seen as revolutionaries, and media will cover him disproportionately to achieve ratings/readership.
It is valuable to look at all sides of the problems and exaggerations; and I see opinions like the above valuable. But if I were to trust a scientists opinion, I will trust the expert. There are some scientists to be careful of: Tsuchida Atsushi, Takeda Kunihiko, Akasofu Shunichi and Itoh Kiminori. The last two of which are very accomplished scientists in their own respective fields. But none of them have published a refereed article on climate science, yet has a large voice in the public sphere. Accomplished scientists tend to be more individualistic IMO, and it is even a bigger cultural hurdle to accept what the majority believes in. More opinions need to be based on the experts such as: Asuka Jyusen and Emori Seita..
Hopefully the media won’t be polarizing as the healthcare debate in the U.S. Nobody would be opposed to the 25% cut if it were easy. The process is to reach the goal requires a complicated and nuanced national effort to maximize environmental benefits while minimizing costs. The media will play a large part of this.
Some good climate change blogs by experts: 環境問題補完計画, Climate Progress and Real Climate.
[...] AGW (anthropogenic global warming) side and the skeptic side. Not surprisingly as mentioned in a previous blog post, the researchers that focus on climate change matters (Asuka and Emori) are on the AGW side and the [...]