Japan promises 25% cuts in emissions

Posted by saunvedan - 15 September 2009 at 10:20am - Comments

Yukio Hatoyama - sticking to his pre-election pledge on emissions cuts

Two positive developments recently - the EU has called for an international ban on the trade of the endangered Atlantic bluefin tuna - and the Japanese Prime Minister announces his plans to cut carbon emissions 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

More on the tuna elsewhere on the blog, but let's look at what's going on in Japan. A new government has just been elected, and the new Japanese prime minister is a welcome change from the previous one, who had promised just 8% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Despite pressure from the usual corporate suspects Yukio Hatoyama, unlike many other politicians, stood by his election promises and stuck to his plans to cut Japanese emissions dramatically. This is significant news as Japan is the world's fifth biggest polluter and is the first developed nation to openly commit to large cuts in emissions by 2020.

With the EU and Japan both announcing plans for significant cuts, the US is left looking increasingly isolated among the developed countries. Even if the Waxman bill to cut emissions is passed, it will still mandate only around 4% in equivalent cuts. The EU has promised to 20% cuts by 2020 and by 30% if other nations agree to similar targets.

Greenpeace believes that emissions cuts by developed countries should be at the higher end of the range suggested by the UN as necessary to bring climate change under control - around 40% by 2020.

Japan's proposal comes with a caveat - the 25% cut is conditional on all major polluters also agreeing to make cuts. So for once, the caveat might actually help put pressure on others to join Japan in setting ambitious targets, and to seriously evaluate their environmental commitment.

The Copenhagen summit in December this year has been referred to as the 'last chance to save the planet'. Japan's announcement is exactly the kind of bold thinking I'd like to see coming from all the major polluters.

Maybe the U.S. doesn't get carried away with these crackpot ideas because many of our citizens can see the ruse here. This entire global warming (now cooling) cause with its carbon emissions component is a political hoax to confiscate money. It really becomes obvious when the country goes through a recession. All of a sudden people have to make decisions on what gets money and what does not. Global warming slides way down the scale. Gee, I wonder why? Half the scientists in the world do not buy this global warming idea... why should we spend billions of dollars on this? online casino

If your case was stronger George, you probably wouldn't feel compelled to state totally made up figures like "Half the scientists in the world do not buy this global warming idea", when a simple trawl through the published research would show you that simply isn't true.

The vast majority of climate scientists, plus leading academic bodies like your own National Acadamy of Science, the Russian Acadamy of Science, and the Royal Society here in the UK are all in broad agreement that global warming is happening, and that it includes a significant manmade component.

From your tone, it's the "spending billions of dollars" bit that you really object to. Can I ask you whether you felt the same way about the billions spent by the Bush administration destroying Iraq (a country which had nothing at all to do with the 9/11 outrage) - much of which went into the coffers of Dick Cheyney's Halliburton Corporation?

Spending money on renewable energy would significantly reduce Ameica's dependence on imported fossil fuels, and could even make the need for insane militaristic aventures in search of new sources of oil redundant in the long term.

Fortunately you now have a President who understands the need to address the US's disasterous addiction to fossil fuels, and who looks as though he may even be going to do something about it, at long last.

Have a nice day, y'all.

Maybe the U.S. doesn't get carried away with these crackpot ideas because many of our citizens can see the ruse here. This entire global warming (now cooling) cause with its carbon emissions component is a political hoax to confiscate money. It really becomes obvious when the country goes through a recession. All of a sudden people have to make decisions on what gets money and what does not. Global warming slides way down the scale. Gee, I wonder why? Half the scientists in the world do not buy this global warming idea... why should we spend billions of dollars on this? online casino

If your case was stronger George, you probably wouldn't feel compelled to state totally made up figures like "Half the scientists in the world do not buy this global warming idea", when a simple trawl through the published research would show you that simply isn't true. The vast majority of climate scientists, plus leading academic bodies like your own National Acadamy of Science, the Russian Acadamy of Science, and the Royal Society here in the UK are all in broad agreement that global warming is happening, and that it includes a significant manmade component. From your tone, it's the "spending billions of dollars" bit that you really object to. Can I ask you whether you felt the same way about the billions spent by the Bush administration destroying Iraq (a country which had nothing at all to do with the 9/11 outrage) - much of which went into the coffers of Dick Cheyney's Halliburton Corporation? Spending money on renewable energy would significantly reduce Ameica's dependence on imported fossil fuels, and could even make the need for insane militaristic aventures in search of new sources of oil redundant in the long term. Fortunately you now have a President who understands the need to address the US's disasterous addiction to fossil fuels, and who looks as though he may even be going to do something about it, at long last. Have a nice day, y'all.

Follow Greenpeace UK