6 ms·

Japan to rule out coal-fired plants as international criticism rises

83 points by chdaniel 8y ago

abhinai 8y ago
So international criticism was a potent enough deterrent in this case that forced Japan to change their policy. It then makes me wonder why Japan hasn't made similar changes in their whaling policy after all the international criticism directed at them. Could it be that we are doing it wrong and when it comes to social issues, criticism is not an effective tool and an altogether different approach is needed?
- rurounijones 8y ago
  I am not sure it was international pressure; I think the difference is domestic pressure. The number of people in Japan that care about whaling is tiny. Same with nuclear. Domestic pressure to keep the plants closed was HUGE and therefore they stayed closed.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    > Same with nuclear. Domestic pressure to keep the plants closed was HUGE and therefore they stayed closed. And the price of everyone's electricity bill has doubled or tripled. Well done Japan.
  - Reason077 8y ago
    > "Domestic pressure to keep the plants closed was HUGE and therefore they stayed closed" Japan has restarted 9 of it's reactors since Fukushima, after completion of safety checks, seismic upgrades, and implementation of enhanced safety rules. Another 5 reactors have been approved for restart, and restart applications are pending for a further 11. One new reactor, Ōma, which can run on 100% MOX fuel, is under construction and expected to come online in 2021. Japan plans for 20-22% of it's power to be nuclear by 2030, similar to pre-Fukushima levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan
- fiblye 8y ago
  It could be that the world is doing it wrong by eating cows instead of whales. :) They're direct contributors to global warming and rainforests are being clear cut to make way for pastures. In contrast, the whales that Japan harvests, minke whales, aren't endangered, their consumption has negligible impact on the environment, and they're quite delicious. I grab whale sashimi whenever I see it at the supermarket and I keep a couple cans in my cupboard just in case I get a craving. I don't eat it often due to the risk of mercury accumulation, but I can't think of a good reason to not eat it every now and then. From an environmental standpoint, it's also preferable to fish, since trawling absolute destroys environments and nets as a whole end up killing a lot of "waste" fish and dolphins that people won't eat. Whaling is targeted and doesn't really have much collateral damage in comparison.
  - steve19 8y ago
    Whales are not fish, nor are they harvested like fish. “If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck into its stomach and being made to pull a butcher’s truck through the streets of London while it pours blood in the gutter, we shall have an idea of the present method of killing. The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop, for nobody would be able to stand it.” - Dr Harry Lillie, 1946. Lillie was a a surgeon and medical officer aboard British whaling ships in the Antarctic during the 1940s.
    - fiblye 8y ago
      >Whales are not fish, nor are they harvested like fish. And nowhere did I say that they are. Unlike fish, they're harvested in a way that doesn't result in wasteful and incredibly destructive bycatch. And frankly, it's hard to think of a form of butchering or mass-scale animal harvest that wasn't brutal in the 1940s. Factory farming today is a worse fate than most people can ever imagine hell to be, yet most of us (my hypocritical self included) are still providing financial support to it. Eating meat (at least as it is now) results in a death no matter how you go about it. The options we have are let an animal have a free life and suffer at the end, let an animal suffer its whole life then pop it in the brain to "stun it", or let it watch itself bleed out if you're going for halal/kosher food. Hunting and modern whaling are ironically more humane than most other methods of meat consumption we have.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  The headline has been chosen to strongly imply causality, but the author has made sure to not actually claim that. (Likewise, in the main text (my emphasis): "The policy initiative... follows criticism that Japan is reluctant to break with such power generation...") And of course, the author had complete freedom to choose a totally different potential cause to juxtapose with this policy change, and so could tell just about any story they wanted regardless of the facts.
- benj111 8y ago
  Because when you entrench yourself into a position the defines who you are, it get very hard to change that position. See for example, climate change denialism, religious sectarianism, Brexit.
- pmart123 8y ago
  I don’t think it’s wrong, I just think it usually takes criticism plus an economic incentive. Hybrid cars didn’t have adoption until oil prices rose substantially. Airlines also adopted Boeing’s Dreamliner, which was made with lighter materials, during this same period. Now oil prices are low, but adoption of electric cars is increasing still. I think that an economic spark is typically a necessary catalyst for an alternative to emerge.
- mc32 8y ago
  I don’t think intl pressure made them do anything. They’re doing it because they want to (and PR-wise it looks good) They claim it was intl pressure but I’m not sure about that given: “Even today, about 30 projects remain, including facilities that will not be scrutinized for their impact on the environment due to their limited scope of power generation.” And in addition what the environment ministry says is more of guidance than law and METI has the final say. It seems to me they feel nuclear is a better solution to their power demand than coal.
- i_am_viet 8y ago
  Here are the numbers of whaling done by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_loc... It is interesting to me conversations of whaling usually involve Japan and vice versa, but no one mentions the other major participants.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    There's no good reason for it. It's also a good demonstration that common conceptions, even serious and derisive ones, rely on media and hearsay, not on fact.
- matz1 8y ago
  Well, I don't see whaling as wrong, I'm glad they didn't succumb to international pressure.
barney54 8y ago
Meanwhile, across the East China Sea, China is building 50 GW of coal generation. https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1R9003 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1R9003
- chdaniel 8y ago
  One at a time, let's hope
- fungi 8y ago
  anyone know the date on that article? there seems to be a spate of similar articles based on the greenpeace/sieara club satellite photo analysis report from september last year. has any of it been confirmed? edit: think this is the report ~> https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/boom-and-bust-2019/ https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/boom-a...
- vkou 8y ago
  The US has one third the population of China, and has been bringing up ~100GW of natural gas power plants/year over the past ten years. Which produce as much CO2 as 50 GW of coal power. Today, the US has has ~1300GW of coal, and ~1400GW of natural gas. China has ~1000GW of coal, and 700GW of natural gas. We are, quite literally, the pot pointing fingers at a kettle.
akg_67 8y ago
The decision may have more to do with plans to bring back online nuclear power generation capacity that was offline since 2011. Majority of coal-fired power generation capacity was already idle and being mothballed before 2011. Only reason a lot of coal-gen capacity was restarted after 2011 because there was no other option for producing electricity as nuclear power accounted for most of the supply.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Which illustrates perfectly well why the idea that wind and solar can deliver our base energy needs just isn't warranted. It's great as auxiliary powers but not an actual solution.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. Different countries have different resources available to them, and we don't know what they tried.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      We know that Germany who focused on using dolar has failed miserably and we know that france who focused on nuclear hasnt. No modern country get their main supply of energy from wind or solar but have to use coal and oil to make it work. And the countries who boast with using a lot of alternatives also have much higher consumption prices because they are subsidizing their politically based energy policy.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Proven 8y ago
Who are those morons working for, international climate fanatics and fraudsters or Japan's taxpayers?
TheTruth1234 8y ago
Japan couldn't care less about international criticism. They're as mercenary and as negligent as some of the worst countries in the world. But they do have Shibuya, and an interesting culture, which is very distracting from this core conclusion.

83 points by chdaniel 8y ago

So international criticism was a potent enough deterrent in this case that forced Japan to change their policy. It then makes me wonder why Japan hasn't made similar changes in their whaling policy after all the international criticism directed at them. Could it be that we are doing it wrong and when it comes to social issues, criticism is not an effective tool and an altogether different approach is needed?

rurounijones 8y ago
I am not sure it was international pressure; I think the difference is domestic pressure. The number of people in Japan that care about whaling is tiny. Same with nuclear. Domestic pressure to keep the plants closed was HUGE and therefore they stayed closed.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > Same with nuclear. Domestic pressure to keep the plants closed was HUGE and therefore they stayed closed. And the price of everyone's electricity bill has doubled or tripled. Well done Japan.
- Reason077 8y ago
  > "Domestic pressure to keep the plants closed was HUGE and therefore they stayed closed" Japan has restarted 9 of it's reactors since Fukushima, after completion of safety checks, seismic upgrades, and implementation of enhanced safety rules. Another 5 reactors have been approved for restart, and restart applications are pending for a further 11. One new reactor, Ōma, which can run on 100% MOX fuel, is under construction and expected to come online in 2021. Japan plans for 20-22% of it's power to be nuclear by 2030, similar to pre-Fukushima levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan
fiblye 8y ago
It could be that the world is doing it wrong by eating cows instead of whales. :) They're direct contributors to global warming and rainforests are being clear cut to make way for pastures. In contrast, the whales that Japan harvests, minke whales, aren't endangered, their consumption has negligible impact on the environment, and they're quite delicious. I grab whale sashimi whenever I see it at the supermarket and I keep a couple cans in my cupboard just in case I get a craving. I don't eat it often due to the risk of mercury accumulation, but I can't think of a good reason to not eat it every now and then. From an environmental standpoint, it's also preferable to fish, since trawling absolute destroys environments and nets as a whole end up killing a lot of "waste" fish and dolphins that people won't eat. Whaling is targeted and doesn't really have much collateral damage in comparison.
- steve19 8y ago
  Whales are not fish, nor are they harvested like fish. “If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck into its stomach and being made to pull a butcher’s truck through the streets of London while it pours blood in the gutter, we shall have an idea of the present method of killing. The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop, for nobody would be able to stand it.” - Dr Harry Lillie, 1946. Lillie was a a surgeon and medical officer aboard British whaling ships in the Antarctic during the 1940s.
  - fiblye 8y ago
    >Whales are not fish, nor are they harvested like fish. And nowhere did I say that they are. Unlike fish, they're harvested in a way that doesn't result in wasteful and incredibly destructive bycatch. And frankly, it's hard to think of a form of butchering or mass-scale animal harvest that wasn't brutal in the 1940s. Factory farming today is a worse fate than most people can ever imagine hell to be, yet most of us (my hypocritical self included) are still providing financial support to it. Eating meat (at least as it is now) results in a death no matter how you go about it. The options we have are let an animal have a free life and suffer at the end, let an animal suffer its whole life then pop it in the brain to "stun it", or let it watch itself bleed out if you're going for halal/kosher food. Hunting and modern whaling are ironically more humane than most other methods of meat consumption we have.
jessriedel 8y ago
The headline has been chosen to strongly imply causality, but the author has made sure to not actually claim that. (Likewise, in the main text (my emphasis): "The policy initiative... follows criticism that Japan is reluctant to break with such power generation...") And of course, the author had complete freedom to choose a totally different potential cause to juxtapose with this policy change, and so could tell just about any story they wanted regardless of the facts.
benj111 8y ago
Because when you entrench yourself into a position the defines who you are, it get very hard to change that position. See for example, climate change denialism, religious sectarianism, Brexit.
pmart123 8y ago
I don’t think it’s wrong, I just think it usually takes criticism plus an economic incentive. Hybrid cars didn’t have adoption until oil prices rose substantially. Airlines also adopted Boeing’s Dreamliner, which was made with lighter materials, during this same period. Now oil prices are low, but adoption of electric cars is increasing still. I think that an economic spark is typically a necessary catalyst for an alternative to emerge.
mc32 8y ago
I don’t think intl pressure made them do anything. They’re doing it because they want to (and PR-wise it looks good) They claim it was intl pressure but I’m not sure about that given: “Even today, about 30 projects remain, including facilities that will not be scrutinized for their impact on the environment due to their limited scope of power generation.” And in addition what the environment ministry says is more of guidance than law and METI has the final say. It seems to me they feel nuclear is a better solution to their power demand than coal.
i_am_viet 8y ago
Here are the numbers of whaling done by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling#Whaling_catches_by_loc... It is interesting to me conversations of whaling usually involve Japan and vice versa, but no one mentions the other major participants.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  There's no good reason for it. It's also a good demonstration that common conceptions, even serious and derisive ones, rely on media and hearsay, not on fact.
matz1 8y ago
Well, I don't see whaling as wrong, I'm glad they didn't succumb to international pressure.

barney54 8y ago

Meanwhile, across the East China Sea, China is building 50 GW of coal generation. https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1R9003 https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1R9003

chdaniel 8y ago
One at a time, let's hope
fungi 8y ago
anyone know the date on that article? there seems to be a spate of similar articles based on the greenpeace/sieara club satellite photo analysis report from september last year. has any of it been confirmed? edit: think this is the report ~> https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/boom-and-bust-2019/ https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/boom-a...
vkou 8y ago
The US has one third the population of China, and has been bringing up ~100GW of natural gas power plants/year over the past ten years. Which produce as much CO2 as 50 GW of coal power. Today, the US has has ~1300GW of coal, and ~1400GW of natural gas. China has ~1000GW of coal, and 700GW of natural gas. We are, quite literally, the pot pointing fingers at a kettle.

akg_67 8y ago

The decision may have more to do with plans to bring back online nuclear power generation capacity that was offline since 2011. Majority of coal-fired power generation capacity was already idle and being mothballed before 2011. Only reason a lot of coal-gen capacity was restarted after 2011 because there was no other option for producing electricity as nuclear power accounted for most of the supply.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ThomPete 8y ago
Which illustrates perfectly well why the idea that wind and solar can deliver our base energy needs just isn't warranted. It's great as auxiliary powers but not an actual solution.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. Different countries have different resources available to them, and we don't know what they tried.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    We know that Germany who focused on using dolar has failed miserably and we know that france who focused on nuclear hasnt. No modern country get their main supply of energy from wind or solar but have to use coal and oil to make it work. And the countries who boast with using a lot of alternatives also have much higher consumption prices because they are subsidizing their politically based energy policy.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Proven 8y ago

Who are those morons working for, international climate fanatics and fraudsters or Japan's taxpayers?

TheTruth1234 8y ago

Japan couldn't care less about international criticism. They're as mercenary and as negligent as some of the worst countries in the world. But they do have Shibuya, and an interesting culture, which is very distracting from this core conclusion.