At their press conference, the Japanese delegation were complaining that some countries hadn’t take a fair share of the burden under the Kyoto Protocol. I asked the obvious question – ‘which ones?’
The panel started giggling like naughty schoolboys and I fully expected them to refuse to respond. But not all. Admitting he might get himself into trouble, Counsellor Oe, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, proved quite happy to name names.
First, in his sights Russia. Russia’s greenhouse gases are down by around 30% on the 1990 Kyoto baseline, ‘not because of effort, but because of the collapse of their economy.’ Their target under Kyoto is only 0%, however.
Then, he had a pop at the European Community. Most of its reduction is down to two countries: Germany, whose total has been dragged down by former East Germany, and the United Kingdom, which already planned to switch from coal to natural gases.
That irks the Japanese is that they must make a six percent reduction, while the Europeans must only meet eight percent. The Europeans claim to be going to meet their target. The Japanese are twelve percentage points of course.
The Japanese also disagree with the EU on the kind of long term goal the world should be pursuing. The EU wants to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees, but the Japanese don’t believe this makes sense.
In May, Yasuo Fakuda, the Japanese PM, proposed a global target to cut emissions in half by 2050. This is the centrepiece of his Cool Earth 50 initiative.
Why focus on emissions rather than temperatures or greenhouse gas concentrations? Deputy Director General Yatsu of the Ministry of the Environment:
[quote]We can directly control emissions, but there is uncertainty about the relationship between emissions and concentrations, and further uncertainty about the relationship between global atmospheric concentration and temperatures.[/quote]
As a follow-up, I wondered whether the Japanese were committed to mandatory targets or whether, as in the early 90s, they were ganging up with the Americans for a voluntary ‘pledge and review’ approach.
The short answer: maybe, maybe not. The longer one, Counsellor Oe again:
[quote] We are assessing various options regarding short and mid-term goals. We are still discussing what kind of formula would be appropriate.[/quote]
The Japanese also share common ground with the Americans on developing country participation in future agreements. They’re not interested in a deal unless China, India and the US itself are also prepared to play ball.