The research article "Climate policies after Fukushima: three views" was published in Climate Policy in 2013 by a group of authors, named Jim Skea, Stefan Lechtenbohmer, Jusen Asuka [p.1]. The article has studied several major changes in energy and climate policy direction in three major economies, Japan, the UK and Germany after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in 2011. The article has also examined factors that explain different view of these three countries and assessed the implications for international climate negotiation.BodySummaryBefore Fukushima accident, Japan, the UK and Germany considered nuclear energy as an important role in low-carbon electricity and committed to an aggressive GHG emissions reduction targets.
After the Fukushima accident which caused a nuclear fallout resulting in severe power supply shortage in several cities in Japan, all three countries had different view and directions. The UK decided to make minor modifications to the nuclear regulatory and continued with new build nuclear plan. Germany decided to immediately closed down 8 of its 17 operating nuclear plan and accelerated a nuclear phaseout.Prior to the Fukushima accident, the nuclear contributed about 30% of its electricity production and nuclear power had a high priority in its energy policy due to its government confident in nuclear power, its low cost power production and its technology strength.
After the Fukushima accident, Japan decided to reduce significantly nuclear output and reviewed its fundamental policy on electricity generation and planned a nuclear phase out.. Japan has also lowered its emission reduction target and climate change mitigation policy.There are arising new debate about energy security in UK due to the changing of UK's energy trade balance.
Dependence on gas imports, capacity pinch in the electricity sector around 2015 makes is UK's concerns. The UK's energy and climate policy establishes based on three foundations: environmental concern, energy security and affordability.Thus, there has been policy continuity in UK about current coalition and promoting nuclear power in UK. An Office for Nuclear Development and nuclear safety and regulations have been established. Public attitudes toward government’s promotion for nuclear has been studied systematically. Many pooling and researches have showed a positive public signal toward nuclear power.
Even NGOs with opposite opinion, they have not considered it a campaign issue. Fukushima accident has little direct impact to nuclear's perspective in UK. However, UK still response strongly positive toward a legally binding international agreement on climate change.Over recent years, Germany's electricity supply has increased significantly, and stabilized the energy demand - supply in Germany.
The Government decided to prolong the lifetime of Nuclear Power Plans by 8-14 years despite of a strong opposition from public. Fukushima accident is like a flame into the oil of recent public opposition toward nuclear power and has strong influence on Germany, forced the Government to implement an immediate U-turn on nuclear policy. Finally, several laws on the Engergiewende were pasted with closure of eight Nuclear Power Plans, and firm termination date of remaining nine Nuclear Power Plans.The realistic chance of full replacement of renewable electricity has resolved the concerns of Germany's inability to secure its electricity supply. Renewable electricity production has also some brought unexpected success such as jobs and income.
However, from political view, green growth in energy will only attractive if other countries followed the same path. Thus, Germany is strongly support Renewable Energy Directive of EU and new International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and new South African Action on Renewables Initiative.CritiqueThe article discussed and explained the changes in energy and climate policy directions of Japan, UK and Germany in relation to Fukushima. The writer discussed from neutral perspective, observed the changes and explained it pre and post Fukushima. His ideas are quite similar to others writers such as BMU/MUKE (2011), where they tried to understand and explain the effect of Fukushima on the regulatory systems of many countries.
The writer's explanations has contributed to the have more specific view on the influences of Fukushima on three big countries: Japan, UK and Germany.Even though it is not very clear, the tone of writer's suggested that the writer is more favorable toward green energy and his hidden purpose of this study is to support the development of green energy. In general, the references, reasoning and supporting evidences in this article are very strong and qualifying suggesting the high quality of writer in this field. With such a logical, easy to understand arguments of the writer, I share the same view points with him. From personal perspectives, I'm a supporter of going green and piece, thus, I'm totally support his hidden ideas in this article.
I would recommend it to many readers, especially whose concerns are nuclear, green energy and Fukushima's accident.
