Japan Should Quickly Ratify the Kyoto Protocol!
〜 Early action is beneficial to Japanese economy 〜
In July 2001 the Bonn Agreement was reached. Japan, which holds the key to bringing the Kyoto Protocol into
force, must ratify the protocol as soon as possible, and put into practice measures, which will result in substantial
reductions of greenhouse gases in order to meet the 6% reduction target. In spite of this, recently in Japan thereis opposition to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. In this paper we will point out the problems with thesearguments, and reconfirm the significance of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

1. Since 1990 Japan s CO2 emissions have increased in spite of decreased production
Since the Japanese bubble economy burst in the early 1990’s, even though
there has been approximately 1% average annual economic growth interms of GDP, CO2 emissions have risen by more than 9%. This trend ismuch different from that of the EU, which has kept CO2 emissions al-

35%
30%
25%
20%

Increase or decrease
in CO2 emissions
GDP growth
in real terms

15%
most level, even though it had an annual average growth rate of approxi10%
mately 1.5% (See Figure 1).
5%Since 1990, in the industrial sector, production in the steel and cement0%
industries has fallen by about 10%, and the number of automobiles proJapan
EU
USA
5
%
duced has decreased by more than 25% (See Figure 5 on page 3). NevFigure 1 1999 CO2 Emissions Volumes Compared to 1990
ertheless, CO2 emissions continue at the same levels. Industrial sector
efficiency (unit of energy consumption per index of industrial production) has deteriorated by more than 17% since 1990 (For thebuildings, households and services and transportation sectors see section 6).

2. Emissions increase since 1990 is due to inadequate countermeasures
Some people are of the opinion that because of emissions trends since 1990, the Kyoto Protocol is disadvantageous for Japan,
which has increased emissions since 1990, compared to the EU, which has decreased emissions during the same period. Thissituation reflects the amount of effort each country has made during this time period. For countries whose efforts were inadequate, doesn’t make sense to say they have a disadvantage in spite of insufficient effort.
This reasoning might be acceptable if global warming was not apparent in 1990. However, in 1990 scientists from the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) had already issued strong warnings about the threat of climate change and adopted
their first report urging countermeasures to be taken. In addition, Japan in the same year, had already adopted the “Action
Program to Arrest Global Warming”. Since 1990, the reason why Japan’s emissions have increased is most likely because thecountermeasures taken were inadequate.

3. Japan s future emissions projections are based on excessive estimates
Some people are of the opinion that in a business as usual (BAU) scenario, when no global warming countermeasures are taken into
consideration, Japan’s CO2 emissions will increase by about 20% by 2010. They argue that in order to meet the 6% reduction target,
Japan will have to reduce emissions by 26%, which puts the country in a much more difficult position than the EU which has a BAU
scenario which is level. However, the BAU scenario differs from country to country, and it is not really useful to compare thesescenarios. For instance, CO2 emissions in Japan’s BAU scenario are overestimated because the GDP growth rate (which was
calculated prior to the Kyoto Conference and inherits a 3% increase until 2000, and a 2% increase every year afterwards) and raw
materials production volumes are excessively estimated. A recent report by the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry(CRIEPI) considers the BAU scenario to be around 13%, which is much more reasonable than the 26% figure.

-1-

4. Since the 1970 s oil crisis, energy saving efforts has been similar for most countries
With regards to achievement of the Kyoto Protocol reduction target, which has a base year of 1990, some people are of the opinion
that Japanese industry made great efforts to reduce energy consumption from the time of the oil crisis until the year 1990, and thatfurther reductions will be impossible to achieve.

By looking at it this way, Europe and the United States
have made similar efforts, and therefore it is not correct
to claim as if Japan is the only country, which has madean effort to reduce energy consumption. It is importantthat all industries in all developed nations act now tomake further efforts in order to solve the problem ofglobal warming, in addition to their energy saving efforts prior to 1990.

Inprovement Late

However, is it true that since the oil crisis, Japan is the only country that has made efforts to save energy? A comparison ofprimary energy consumption to overall GDP since the first oil crisis in 1973, shows that Japan has improved efficiency by almost
thirty percent, whereas other western countries (exclud< Primary energy (national total)
ing France) are about the same with improvement rates-60%
per GDP > Improvement rate
of between about 20 - 30%. When we look only at the< Industrial sector energy consumption
per GDP > Improvement rateindustrial sector, Japan, the United States, and European-50%
countries all have improvement rates of 40 – 50% (See-40%
Figure 2).
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%

France

EU

Italy

USA

GermanyJapan

UK

Figure2 Improvement Rate of Energy Consumption Per GDP From 1973 to 1990

CO2 Emission Amount/GDP ｜ CO2 Equivalent ton/million US$ ｜ Industrial Sector's energy consumption/GDP｜oil equivalent tons/10million US$

5. Japan s industrial sector energy efficiency is about the same as that of other countries
An international comparison of CO2 emission volumes
per GDP, confirms that Japan has high energy-efficiency.
However, just comparing industrial sector energy consumption will show that Japan’s energy efficiency is below that of the four largest European countries (See Figure 3). The reason for Japan’s total high efficiency rate isdue to higher efficiency in the transport and buildings,
households and services sectors compared to other European countries (See Figure 4 on the next page).

800
Total national CO2 emissions volumes

700

Industrial sector energy consumption
600
500
400
300
200

It is not correct to say that energy saving efforts by theindustrial sector has reached their physical limits and that

100
0
USA

EU

Japan

Germany

UK

France

Italy

Figure 3 Total National CO2 Emissions Volumes and Industrial Sector
Energy Consumption Per GDP

further energy saving efforts will be difficult to achieve.
If one takes into consideration that the Japanese economy
has been in a recession since 1990, there is a still room forincreased efficiency improvements.

Japan Should Not Wait For the US s Participation
Some people are against Japan ratifying the Kyoto Protocol because they feel that the US’s non-participation means that the
Kyoto Protocol will be ineffective. However it was agreed as a major premise that advanced nations must promote measures
to combat global warming, and it is unacceptable that Japan does not act until the US returns to the protocol. National
Institute for Environmental Studies has conducted a study about CO2 emission reduction effects which compares outcomesof a scenario in which Japan and the EU go in advance and take action now, to if they wait until the United States returns andthen take action. The findings show that it would be more effective to proceed with the Kyoto Protocol even without the
USa’s participation. Of course, the US is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and therefore it goes without sayingthat all efforts should be made to call for its return to the protocol.

-2-

6. Achieve buildings, households and services and transport sector reductions
by implementing appropriate policies
The reason why Japan’s overall energy efficiency is highis because energy efficiency of buildings, households
and services and transportation sectors is higher thanthat of the United States and various European countries (See Figure 4) . This is partially because of Japan’s
particular conditions, such as high population density,
warm climate, small houses which require less energy
for cooling and heating, and widespread passenger train
services.
However, since 1990, CO2 emissions in the buildings,
households and services and transportation sectors havedrastically increased due to utilization of larger size automobiles and other electric appliances. Therefore, appropriate measures to increase efficiency and reduce
emissions volumes, such as strengthening of energy saving regulations and implementation of various inducement policies, must be taken as soon as possible.

Italy

0.034

0.035

France

0.035

0.037

UK

0.036

Germany

0.038

0.035

Japan

0.040

0.028

EU

0.040

USA

0.046

0.02

Transportation
Sector0.049

Buildings, households
and services Sector

0.056
0.053
0.031

0.040

0.049

0.050

0.00

Industrial Sector

0.035

0.083
0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.062
0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

Energy Consumption Volume per GDP (Oil equivalent tons / US$ 1000)

Figure 4 Energy Consumption by Sectors Per GDP (1998)

7. The base year being in the height of the bubble period is advantageous for Japan
Some people believe that the base year of the
Kyoto Protocol (1990) is disadvantageous forJapan. However, 1990 falls at the peak of the
bubble economy, and in actuality, this works out
favorably for Japan. As of 1990, the Japanese
economy became stagnant, and manufacturingindustry production volumes have decreased(See Figure 5). For this reason, the 1990 baseyear is advantageous for Japan.
In 1988 Japan’s CO2 emissions were 6% lessthan 1990. This shows how fast CO2 emissions
were increasing during the bubble period.

Indices of Industrial
Production

1990

Crude Steel Production
Volume (1995=100)

1999

Cement Production
Volume (1million tons)
Automobile Production
Output 100,000 units
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Figure 5 Comparison of 1990 and 1999 Manufacturing Industry Production Volumes

The impact of global warming countermeasures on the economy
Some people feel that implementing measures to prevent global warming under the Kyoto Protocol will have a bad effect on
the Japanese economy (GDP).
According to calculations by environmental NGOs, the opposite is true. By implementing energy saving countermeasures,the industrial sector will be able to cut costs, and make a profit at the same time. Also, there are reports, which show that bydeveloping energy saving products companies will become more internationally competitive. Therefore it can be said thatprevention of global warming will lead to a sound Japanese economy.
Even in National Institute for Environmental Studies report, which does not take into consideration the positive benefits ofglobal warming countermeasures, the negative effect of these countermeasures is assumed to be very little; even in the eventthat the United States does not participate in the protocol. As consumers become more environmentally aware, companies,
which take the lead in developing products and equipment which prevent global warming will gain market share, and atechnically stronger Japanese manufacturing industry can be expected.

-3-8. Is the theory about special circumstances
for the UK and Germany being advantageous for the EU really true?
Some people feel that the UK and Germany have “special circumstances” and therefore the Kyoto Protocol is more advantageous
for the EU than for Japan. These “special circumstances” can be explained as follows.
The UK’s “special circumstance” refers to a fuel shift away from coal to natural gas, which began in about 1990. This fuel shift,along with energy saving measures resulted in an 8% emissions reduction by 1998. Some people point out that the aim of thispolicy was not to prevent global warming. However, the UK has agreed to reductions of 12.5%. This target is more than doublethat of Japan, and aims to return CO2 emissions to 1947 levels. In 1990, average CO2 emissions from all fossil fuels per unit wereabout the same in the UK and Japan, (See Figure 6) and there was sufficient room for Japan to make a similar fuel shift during thissame time period.
The “special circumstance” of Germany is that since German unification, efficiency improvements from industries in the former East
Germany has made emission reductions easier to achieve. However, it should be noted that Germany has accepted a reduction target of 21%, which is more than 3.5 times Japan’s reduction target,
and will reduce emissions volumes to 1960’s levels. Moreover,Germany has invested enormous amounts of capital into the rehabilitation of the former East German region, and the political andsocial cost of domestic reconciliation has also been high.

1998
1990

UK

Japan

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

Fossil fuel average CO2 emissions coefficient [g-CO2 / Mega Jules]

Figure 6 Comparison of Fossil Fuel Consumption in Britain and Japan(1990 and 1998) (Fuel average CO2 Emissions Coefficient)

The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and the achievement of its reduction targets are an important first stepin building a society, which prevents global warming. Japanﾕs ratification will not only ensure entry into forceof the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 - thereby advancing international measures to prevent global warming - but it
will also speed up the implementation of domestic global warming countermeasures. Global warming countermeasures are also indispensable for shifting to an environmentally friendly economy, and will bring about
beneficial results for Japan. Climate change is occurring as we speak. Time is limited; Japan should ratify
the Kyoto Protocol as soon as possible.
Explanation: With regards to GDP data(a) Figures 2, 3, 4 energy and GDP data were taken from “Energy Balance of OECD Countries”. This book uses unified values for 1990 rates (pricesof goods, and exchange rates). Furthermore, by using purchasing power currency values rather than simple foreign exchange rates, Japan’s GDP
becomes relatively smaller than other major advanced countries, so energy and CO2 volume per GDP becomes larger (gets worse).
(b) In this type of comparison, it should be noted that “per GDP” refers to national economic figures. It should be taken into consideration thateach country’s industrial composition and natural conditions differ.

Footnotes(1) Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) “Effect on Japanese Economy and Energy Demand Due to Environmental
Tax Implementation” (September.2001)(2) National Institute for Environmental Studies, AIM Project Team “The Effects of Global Warming Prevention as a result of Entry Into Forceof the Kyoto Protocol” (June 8, 2001)(3) Kiko Network “Policies and Measures to Achieve 6% Reductions - From an Environmental NGO Perspective” (October 29, 2000)(4) WWF Japan “Will Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol Bring About Economic Loss?” Yasuhiro Murota and Kae Takase (July 6, 2001)(5) National Institute for Environmental Studies, AIM Project Team “The Effects to GDP of the year of 2010 as a result of Entry Into Force ofthe Kyoto Protocol” (June 8, 2001)(6) With regards to the UK and Germany’s “special circumstances”, the information is taken from a summary of a think tank drafted report,
commissioned by the German government. According to the report, the UK and German reduction volumes by the year 2000 have surpassed
the reduction volumes of these countries’ “special circumstances”. The summary was submitted as reference materials to the Central Environmental Council Domestic Institutions Subcommittee (October 19.2001 Reference Material 4)

Kiko Network (Tokyo Office);
Nishikawa Bldg. 2F, 2-7-3 Koji-machi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo, JAPAN 102-0083
TEL:+81-(3)-3263-9210/FAX:+81-(3)-3263-9463 /E-mail:kikotko@jca.apc.org-4-