Japan in copenhagen fix the unfair kyoto burden sharing
Download
1 / 6

Japan in Copenhagen Fix the Unfair Kyoto Burden-Sharing! - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 108 Views
  • Uploaded on

Japan in Copenhagen Fix the Unfair Kyoto Burden-Sharing!. 5 May 2009 Anna Korppoo Senior Researcher The Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Negotiation position. No suggestion on emission reduction target – 7-15% reduction 1990-2020 most likely

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Japan in Copenhagen Fix the Unfair Kyoto Burden-Sharing!' - tiger-graves


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Japan in copenhagen fix the unfair kyoto burden sharing

Japan in CopenhagenFix the Unfair Kyoto Burden-Sharing!

5 May 2009

Anna Korppoo

Senior Researcher

The Finnish Institute of International Affairs


Negotiation position
Negotiation position

  • No suggestion on emission reduction target – 7-15% reduction 1990-2020 most likely

  • Kyoto burden sharing regarded as unfair to Japan: 1970-80s early action not taken into account – indicators as a basis for the next round

  • Sectoral approach: not to replace national targets – indicators, basis for technology transfer

  • Diversification of country groups: emerging economies to take binding intensity targets

  • Financing mitigation and adaptation in non-Annex I – commercial approach

  • Participation of the US and China crucial

  • 24 April: Draft Protocol text submitted


National conditions
National conditions

  • Economy:

    • Stagnation in 1990s, growth in 2000s

    • Export covers a large share of GDP

    • Structural change: from industry towards services, though industry still account for a high share of GDP compared to the OECD average

  • Energy:

    • Domestic energy resources limited

    • Carbon intensity: some nuclear capacity replaced with coal

    • Nuclear, energy efficiency as energy security choices

  • Emissions:

    • Strong growth, complying with Kyoto only through the flexible mechanisms

    • Majority of domestic growth from household and commercial sectors


Domestic policies and measures
Domestic policies and measures

  • Mostly based on voluntary action, forest sinks and the Kyoto mechanisms

  • Voluntary commitments by the industry (Keidanren) morally difficult to miss BUT intensity targets

  • Long tradition of successful voluntary standards

  • A significant share of measures awareness raising – impacts questioned

  • Several domestic emissions trading systems – no real emission caps – rather PR than economic instrument

  • Forest sinks based policies partly failing

  • Additional domestic measures in 2007 but remains unclear if enough for Kyoto compliance


Domestic debate
Domestic debate

  • Strong role of the industry in decision-making

  • National ’concensus’ that Japan can only come up with small additional reductions domestically as already energy efficient

  • Negative approach to market instruments – cap-and-trade, GHG tax and market-based energy prices unacceptable – rather awareness raising approach

  • Constant changes of government slow down policy formation – influence on China depends on each government’s relations with China

  • International competitiveness of industry, especially with China: carbon price to be introduced also in emerging economies

  • Debate on the international commitment ongoing – public hearings – outcome by June 2009 – ranging from +4% to -25% 1990-2020


Conclusion
Conclusion

  • Political, economic and technology leader – responsibility to act

  • International competitiveness a key factor which keeps Japan active – fear that the unfair burden sharing of Kyoto would be repeated

  • Unclear how important the impacts of climate change are as drivers of participation – public support to post-2012 pact

  • Views quite similar with the EU, depth of reduction commitment may differ – agree on sectoral approach and financial assistance to developing countries

  • Japan is onboard, however, good for others to understand the complexities of the position


ad