Categories
Japan Kyoto Protocol

June 3,  2002 – Japan ratifies Kyoto Protocol

On this day June 3, 2002

Japan ratifies Kyoto – followed in 2013 by a slashing of ambition.

http://treealerts.org/type/alerts/2013/11/international-frustration-as-japanese-slash-climate-ambition/

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 373ppm.  As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that Japan had suggested something called “pledge and review” in mid-1991 as a way of breaking the logjam around American intransigence on a climate treaty, and then Japan must have stuck its hand up at some point in 95 to say, “hey, we will host the third COP,” knowing that the third COP would be the consequential one where the Berlin mandate was supposed to reach its apotheosis. So the Japanese had been heavily involved, as you’d expect a middle power to be. I don’t know why it took the Japanese Diet five years from the end or four and a half years from the end of December 97 through to June of 2002 to ratify. So I will look that up. It’s a little bit interesting, because you’d assume they’d want to force the pace, but there will have been, of course, fierce fights within the Japanese government, within Japanese elites over the costs of doing this. 

Remember, the Japanese economy was already quite energy efficient thanks to the aftermath of the first Oil Shock,, and therefore there wasn’t lots of “low hanging fruit” and therefore actual emission reductions were going to be perhaps a bit more expensive. There was also the question of, did you try and do more nuclear? Was there much scope for renewables, etc, etc. 

The specific context was that by this point, the Americans under Dick Cheney and his mascot, George W Bush, had very publicly pulled out of Kyoto. They had done that in March of 2001, and the Japanese must have known that Australia was not going to ratify. So maybe they held off in order to try and re inject some momentum. I don’t know that is speculation…

What I think we can learn is this: Your ignorance is the volume of a sphere, your knowledge the surface area.

What happened next: The Kyoto Protocol languished for a couple of years, but then, because the Russians wanted membership of the World Trade Organisation, the Europeans were able to persuade them to ratify Kyoto, which had no real costs for Russia. And so in early 2005 the Kyoto Protocol became international law, which meant that there would be a negotiation process for a sequel to Kyoto, which meant the Americans and the Australians especially had a problem.

Climate Policy

Volume 1, Issue 3, September 2001, Pages 343-362

Japanese ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

Hiroshi Matsumura

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-3062(01)00023-7Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper discusses Japan’s quantitative Kyoto target in the context of the country’s socio-economic and political background and its desire to express international leadership. Japan’s initial negotiating target was developed as a compromise between domestic industrial considerations and its international ambitions, and was strengthened further under the pressures to achieve success at Kyoto.

The original projections relied heavily upon nuclear expansion that will not be realized. Though economic stagnation has helped emissions to decline from their mid-1990s peak, it has also reduced the attention devoted to climate change and the willingness to bear costs, and Japan’s commitment remains daunting. Japanese bureaucrats and diplomats are called to work closer together and in an integrated manner in order to develop a new, more realistic policy package for achieving their target. This report analyses various scenarios for additional policies for Japan, including fuel switching, carbon taxation and emissions trading, and concludes that the introduction of gas in the context of energy market liberalization is a key possibility. It also considers the sink and the nuclear energy issues both of high importance for the country.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

June 1, 2011 – Japanese office workers into short sleeves to save the planet

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 3, 1970 – US Senator suggests World Ecology Unit – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 1989 – Liberal Party to outflank Labor on #climate?!

June 3, 1994 – Greenpeace warns of climate time bomb

June 3, 1996 – Business Council of Australia versus even the idea of a carbon tax – All Our Yesterdays

June 3, 2010 – Merchants of Doubt published

Categories
Australia

June 2, 2012 – RIP Deni Greene

On this day June 2nd, 2012 Deni Greene died.

Greene had done some of the early economic modelling (1990) about how Australia could cut emissions and better off. The work was ignored, and then swamped by corporate bullshit…

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was 394ppm.  As of 2026, when this post was published, it is 430ppm. This matters because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the more heat gets trapped. The more heat, the more extreme weather events. You can make it more complicated than that if you want, but really, it’s not. Fwiw, I have a tattoo of the Keeling Curve on my left forearm.

The broader context for this was that  Deni Greene had come to Australia at some point in the 70s or 80s as an economist and in the battles over the economic responses to the greenhouse effect, as it was then called, in 1989-91 did a lot of economic modelling, especially around energy efficiency, to show that it would be possible and in fact beneficial, to take strong action. The pro-coal ministries were not impressed, partly, I think, because of the argument, probably also because she was, in fact, only a woman. 

And by 91 PricewaterhouseCoopers had been commissioned to release or to produce a whole bunch of other reports, and the modelling wars were underway. 

What I think we can learn is this: it’s now almost 40 years of failure on climate change, and we seem to have learned nothing, and we seem to be incapable of learning anything, if at the micro, meso or macro level. But pretty soon, we will be learning – and the lesson today is how to die.  

What happened next:  I don’t know what Greene did with the rest of her life, after the early 90s, but it must have been pretty painful to watch all the shit unfold, but that is what happens to people, isn’t it,

Vale Deni Greene – consumer representative

The Bob Brown Foundation has set up the ‘Deni Greene’ awards, btw.

On this topic, you might like these other posts on All Our Yesterdays

March 3, 1990 – ” “A greenhouse energy strategy : sustainable energy development for Australia” launched … ignored #auspol

September 5, 1990 – Australian Environment Minister promises deep carbon cuts – “easy”…

October 4, 1990 – “Verdict on our efficiency: we must try harder”

References

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

You can see the chronological list of All Our Yesterdays “on this day” posts here.

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

If you want to get involved, let me know.

If you want to invite me on your podcast, that would boost my ego and probably improve the currently pitiful hit-rate on this site (the two are not-unrelated).

Also on this day: 

June 2, 1986 – US Senators get going on climate

June 2, 1977 – Australian scientists SCOPE the climate problem – All Our Yesterdays

June 2, 1989 – “James Hansen versus the World” – good article on actual #climate consensus let down by title

June 2, 2002 – Low carbon spaces, eh… SDC RIP – All Our Yesterdays

June 2, 2005 – Climate change will not, in fact, be Terminated – All Our Yesterdays