Re: [tlug] A-bomb service

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Lewske Wada writes:
 > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote :
 > > One that the LDP and the MFA denied the existence of on many
 > > occasions?
 > 
 > I don't know what LDP is hiding.  But we've never ever allowed
 > nuclear weapons coming in.

The DPJ Japanese government has publicly acknowledged that the treaty
exists, and was considered valid.  That's permission.  A quick Google
doesn't show any actual statement that nukes were brought into Japan;
the U.S. as usual refuses to comment on matters of national security
and military strategy.  But I think the DPJ government pretty clearly
believes the U.S. exercised its treaty rights, because it says that
U.S. planes and ships do not bring in nukes "now".

Again, I think you should stop kidding yourself.  Idealistic goals
make for good politics (if not carried to extremes, eg, Fukushima
Mizuho), but denying facts does not.

 > > This is the first practical acknowledgement by one of the
 > > advanced countries that we should bear a large burden
 > 
 > Read some about Kyoto Protocol :

I'm aware of the Kyoto Protocol.  The treaty framework is OK, but many
of the base conditions were poorly chosen.  Although Japan managed to
get many countries to sign, that was at the cost of concessions
(choice of base year) that meant that Britain and the EU as a whole
had no net burden[1], and Germany and Russia ended up with *surpluses*
of carbon credits[2].  China and other developing countries were given
a long-term exemption, despite the near-sure bet that China would pass
the U.S. as the top emitter around now, and India would have already
passed Japan.  And it failed to get any commitment from the U.S.

Japan itself did indeed accept a substantial burden of cuts ... which
it would appear it is going to fail to meet; the trend from 1990 to
2007 was consistently *up*; by 2007 Japan was 8.7% higher than in
1990.  In 2008, there was a dramatic drop, but Japan was still 1.9%
*above* 1990 levels, meaning a nearly 8% deviation from its Kyoto
commitment.  And economic recovery is expected to cause Japan to
return to trend.  I wouldn't bet on Japan achieving (sustainable)
parity with 1990, let alone make the 6% cut it promised in Kyoto, by
2012.

Data from
http://blog.euromonitor.com/2010/04/japans-pledge-to-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-will-have-mixed-effects-on-the-economy.html
See also
http://www.kikonet.org/english/publication/archive/japansGHGemission_E.pdf
which describes ongoing fudging of reports in 2006.

In the face of that, I claim that Hatoyama's pledge was a big
(symbolic) deal, and if Japan even comes close to meeting it, that
puts an enormous amount of pressure on the U.S., China, and India to
clean up their acts.

Footnotes: 
[1]  Due to conversion of extremely dirty ex-Warsaw-Pact industry to
much more modern, efficient facilities with much smaller carbon footprint.

[2]  Germany due to the Warsaw Pact effect, and Russia due to economic
collapse. :-/