• EMORI Seita
  Vice Director, Institute for Future Initiatives/Professor, Institute for Future Initiatives

One of the greatest challenges facing humanity is climate change, a phenomenon that can be defined as a disease of civilization, caused by the increase in greenhouse gases resulting from human activities. Because climate change threatens the survival of this civilization, it is in the best interest of all nations to take action to stop it. Put simply, halting climate change will require humanity to transition to a “next civilization” that does not rely on fossil fuels. Achieving this will require the cooperation of all countries.

Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, adopted in 1992, the governance of climate change issues has been negotiated and decided through an intergovernmental process, primarily involving political leaders and government officials from each country. In recent years, a diverse range of non-state actors such as businesses, civil society organizations, local governments and the media have increasingly influenced climate negotiations, as evidenced by their participation in the Conference of the Parties (COP). At the same time, these actors have implemented actions on a parallel track, separate from the intergovernmental process.

Nonetheless, the policy decisions made by a country's government (such as its stance in international negotiations and the incorporation of international agreements into domestic policy) directly affect its citizens. This channel of government is probably the most important way for citizens to have their views reflected (if the country is a democratic state). Many individuals on the planet are engaged in collective, humanity-scale decisions about how to “stop” climate change (in terms of approach, speed, means, and financing) through these and other channels (even if this engagement is often difficult to perceive).

Here, it is essential to consolidate and refer to the findings of experts in various fields related to climate change in order to make rational decisions, a role performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, while the scientific basis for climate change is undisputed, experts differ on how to assess the risks and how best to respond. It is important to remember that “experts” are not in a position to present society with the only one “correct answer” to stop climate change.

In the transition of complex social systems, there are generally those who benefit from the change (winners) and those who are disadvantaged by it (losers). If the transition results in a large number of extreme losers, their resistance is likely to impede the transition. Even if the transition can be moved forward, leaving these people behind would defeat the purpose. Therefore, to facilitate the transition, it is necessary to coordinate various interests at different levels, create a sense of satisfaction, and build trust to make it possible. This is a process that takes time, and it seems that this is what is happening now around the world.

In 2018, for example, the “yellow vest movement” anti-government protests in France began in response to an increase in fuel taxes. Similarly, recent protests by farmers in many European countries have targeted, among other things, government regulations on agriculture that were implemented as a measure to combat climate change. Japan has also seen numerous protests against the rampant development of mega solar power plants in rural areas, a side-effect of the feed-in tariff (FIT) for renewable energy that began in 2012.

The way policy decisions are made varies from country to country. In Japan, however, climate policy appears to be largely decided by technical experts and bureaucrats, partly because climate change is rarely adopted as a campaign issue in elections. In particular, it seems to me that energy policy, which is closely intertwined with climate policy, is heavily shaped by the perspectives of economic bureaucrats and the traditional industrial sector. This foundation was shaken by the “national debate” on energy and environmental alternatives held by the then Democratic Party of Japan government in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in 2011. In retrospect, however, it appears to have been more of a temporary ripple than a significant shift.

After a critical review of Japan's climate and energy policies, the Emori Project of the ELSI program concluded that the traditional energy policy principle of S+3E (Safety, Energy security, Economic efficiency, and Environment) should be expanded to incorporate a broader sense of “Equity,” evolving into S+4E. In addition, recognizing that discussions in conventional government councils tend to be biased toward the “economy”, the project suggested the potential for fostering more diverse perspectives through innovative selection of discussion venues and participants.

As noted above, incorporating a broader range of voices into the discussion on how to “stop” climate change may pose challenges in reconciling differing opinions in certain aspects. However, mitigating the risk of backlash may ultimately facilitate a smoother transition. Above all, we hope it will reduce the number of “losers” who are disadvantaged without being able to speak out.

However, there are still concerns that Japan's climate policy will not move much beyond a largely bureaucratic response to external pressure, even if the format of the discussions changes somewhat. The solution to this conundrum will require a change in the current situation in Japan, where the majority of the population has little interest in climate change policies.

Essay All Discours