Bush Administration's Policy Against Global Warming
MURATA Ryohei / Advisor to Foreign Minister
April 27, 2001
When I heard reports on comments made by US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Whitman that the Kyoto Protocol was effectively dead, my initial reaction was that of shock and disappointment. Emotion accounted for 30 percent and reason 70 percent for this reaction.
I was born in Kyoto. So the emotion that made up 30 percent of my reaction was that we must not allow the "Kyoto Protocol," an agreement which bears the name of my hometown, to die. Though perhaps not as committed as Kyotoites like myself, many a Japanese must have felt the same way.
Should the United States scrap all the promises that have been pledged since the Rio Convention, that would spell doom for the future of the human race - that was the 70 percent of reason contained in my reaction.
However, I have since reconsidered the issue in a level-headed manner. And as a result I have come to think that my initial reaction was not necessarily warranted.
I remain hopeful that the international agreement bearing the name of "Kyoto" will survive, but that is not of real importance. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether the final agreement takes the shape of a major revision of the Kyoto Protocol or a new agreement altogether. Substance is all that matters.
While one should not pass judgement lightly on changes in US policy, I consider myself knowledgeable about attitudes towards the issue in the United States, including that of industry. And I firmly believe that President Bush's policy did not arise from any change in US thinking on the significance of the issue nor any short-term economic interests, let alone any partisan considerations.
There are calls coming from within the European Union that an accord based on the Kyoto Protocol should be concluded even without US participation, but that would be nonsense. Because while the protocol could take effect if Japan and Russia join the EU, it would certainly not provide a solution to an issue that concerns mankind as a whole unless the United States adopts self-restrictions of its own as a non-signatory country.
It was inevitable that developing countries were exempted from commitments under the Kyoto Protocol for the time being. Most of the greenhouse gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere are the result of emissions by OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, Russia and others. I was a professor at a university in Tokyo at the time the Kyoto Protocol was adopted and I remember explaining to my students that there was no chance the US Senate would ratify the protocol in its present shape. The stance taken by countries like China and India is understandable. However, though there may be difficulties, continued negotiations towards gaining more concrete commitments for the future from developing countries would be essential in seeking US participation.
Reduction targets and other agreements reached under the Kyoto Protocol were valuable achievements, but they were nonetheless the result of compromise not based on any rational foundations. It is perhaps appropriate for all countries to set aside the past and to engage in frank discussions about the cost issue or the possibility of lowering the initial target rate of reduction in exchange for more mid- to long-term commitments. The United States meanwhile must also abandon its inclination of unilateral thinking centered on national interest. This furthermore is an issue that demands immediate attention. I earnestly hope the United States will present its alternative proposals at the earliest occasion. Because the issue places at stake the normal lives, if not survival, of our grand-grand children at the latest.
The writer is Advisor to Foreign Minister. He is a former Ambassador to Germany and USA.
I was born in Kyoto. So the emotion that made up 30 percent of my reaction was that we must not allow the "Kyoto Protocol," an agreement which bears the name of my hometown, to die. Though perhaps not as committed as Kyotoites like myself, many a Japanese must have felt the same way.
Should the United States scrap all the promises that have been pledged since the Rio Convention, that would spell doom for the future of the human race - that was the 70 percent of reason contained in my reaction.
However, I have since reconsidered the issue in a level-headed manner. And as a result I have come to think that my initial reaction was not necessarily warranted.
I remain hopeful that the international agreement bearing the name of "Kyoto" will survive, but that is not of real importance. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether the final agreement takes the shape of a major revision of the Kyoto Protocol or a new agreement altogether. Substance is all that matters.
While one should not pass judgement lightly on changes in US policy, I consider myself knowledgeable about attitudes towards the issue in the United States, including that of industry. And I firmly believe that President Bush's policy did not arise from any change in US thinking on the significance of the issue nor any short-term economic interests, let alone any partisan considerations.
There are calls coming from within the European Union that an accord based on the Kyoto Protocol should be concluded even without US participation, but that would be nonsense. Because while the protocol could take effect if Japan and Russia join the EU, it would certainly not provide a solution to an issue that concerns mankind as a whole unless the United States adopts self-restrictions of its own as a non-signatory country.
It was inevitable that developing countries were exempted from commitments under the Kyoto Protocol for the time being. Most of the greenhouse gases that have accumulated in the atmosphere are the result of emissions by OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, Russia and others. I was a professor at a university in Tokyo at the time the Kyoto Protocol was adopted and I remember explaining to my students that there was no chance the US Senate would ratify the protocol in its present shape. The stance taken by countries like China and India is understandable. However, though there may be difficulties, continued negotiations towards gaining more concrete commitments for the future from developing countries would be essential in seeking US participation.
Reduction targets and other agreements reached under the Kyoto Protocol were valuable achievements, but they were nonetheless the result of compromise not based on any rational foundations. It is perhaps appropriate for all countries to set aside the past and to engage in frank discussions about the cost issue or the possibility of lowering the initial target rate of reduction in exchange for more mid- to long-term commitments. The United States meanwhile must also abandon its inclination of unilateral thinking centered on national interest. This furthermore is an issue that demands immediate attention. I earnestly hope the United States will present its alternative proposals at the earliest occasion. Because the issue places at stake the normal lives, if not survival, of our grand-grand children at the latest.
The writer is Advisor to Foreign Minister. He is a former Ambassador to Germany and USA.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
ブッシュ政権の地球温暖化防止政策
村田 良平 / 外務省顧問
2001年 4月 27日
米国政府環境保護局長ホイットマン女史が、京都議定書は実質的に死に体となったと述べたとのニュースを聞いた時の私の即座の反応は、驚愕と失望だった。その三割は感情、七割は理性による。
私は京都で生まれた。私の故郷の名を冠する「京都議定書」が死んでしまってはならない―これが、三割に当たる感情部分である。京都人たる私ほどの思い入れはないかもしれないが、似たような感情を抱く日本人は少なくないだろう。
米国が、リオ条約以来積み重ねられた約束を反故にするようなこととなれば、人類の将来は破滅だ。これが七割に当たる理性部分の反応であった。
しかし私はこの問題をもう一度冷静に考えてみた。その結果、現在では、当初の私の反応は必ずしも妥当ではないと考えるに至っている。
国際合意の名称に「京都」が残ることは依然として私の希望するところだが、どうでもよいことだ。最終合意が京都議定書の大幅の改正の形をとるか、新条約となるかもこだわる必要はないことなのだ。問題は実質のみにある。
米国の政策変更に軽々しい評価は下されないが、私は産業界の動向を含めこの問題について米国内の動向を知っているつもりだ。ブッシュ大統領の政策が、問題の重要性についての考え方の変更や短期的な経済上の利害、ましてやパーティザンな考慮から出たものでは決してないと確信する。
ＥＵの一部からはすでに米国抜きでも京都議定書を基礎とする合意をはかるべしとの声が出ているが、これはナンセンスだと思う。ＥＵに日本やロシアが合流すれば議定書は発効可能だが、米国が非締約国乍ら独自の自主規制を行わない限り、これでは人類全体の問題の解決につながらにことは確実だからだ。
京都議定書が途上国にとりあえず義務を課さないとしたことは止むを得なかった。すでに大気中に蓄積されたグリーンハウス効果ガスの大部分はＯＥＣＤ加盟国とロシア等が排出したものだからだ。しかし、私は京都議定書締結後の大学での講義において、このままの形では米国の上院がこの議定書を承認する可能性は皆無だろうと説明したものである。私は中国やインドの考え方も理解しているつもりだ。しかし容易なことではないだろうが、交渉を進め、将来についての途上国のより具体的なコミットメントをとりつけることは、米国の参加のためには欠かせないであろう。
京都議定書での削減目標をはじめとする各国の合意は貴重な成果ではあったが、所詮は妥協の産物であり、合理的基礎によるものではなかった。この際、すべての国が、過去の経緯にこだわらず、コスト問題、あるいは当初の削減率は縮小してより中長期のコミットメントをはかる可能性について率直に話し合うことがのぞましい。他方、米国も、ユニラテラルな国益中心の発想はとり止めてもらわねばならない。しかもことは急を要する。米国の新提案が速やかにとりまとめられることを切望する。何故なら、おそくとも私共の曾孫の正常な生活、場合によっては生存がこの問題にかかっているからだ。
（筆者は外務省顧問。元駐米・駐独大使）
私は京都で生まれた。私の故郷の名を冠する「京都議定書」が死んでしまってはならない―これが、三割に当たる感情部分である。京都人たる私ほどの思い入れはないかもしれないが、似たような感情を抱く日本人は少なくないだろう。
米国が、リオ条約以来積み重ねられた約束を反故にするようなこととなれば、人類の将来は破滅だ。これが七割に当たる理性部分の反応であった。
しかし私はこの問題をもう一度冷静に考えてみた。その結果、現在では、当初の私の反応は必ずしも妥当ではないと考えるに至っている。
国際合意の名称に「京都」が残ることは依然として私の希望するところだが、どうでもよいことだ。最終合意が京都議定書の大幅の改正の形をとるか、新条約となるかもこだわる必要はないことなのだ。問題は実質のみにある。
米国の政策変更に軽々しい評価は下されないが、私は産業界の動向を含めこの問題について米国内の動向を知っているつもりだ。ブッシュ大統領の政策が、問題の重要性についての考え方の変更や短期的な経済上の利害、ましてやパーティザンな考慮から出たものでは決してないと確信する。
ＥＵの一部からはすでに米国抜きでも京都議定書を基礎とする合意をはかるべしとの声が出ているが、これはナンセンスだと思う。ＥＵに日本やロシアが合流すれば議定書は発効可能だが、米国が非締約国乍ら独自の自主規制を行わない限り、これでは人類全体の問題の解決につながらにことは確実だからだ。
京都議定書が途上国にとりあえず義務を課さないとしたことは止むを得なかった。すでに大気中に蓄積されたグリーンハウス効果ガスの大部分はＯＥＣＤ加盟国とロシア等が排出したものだからだ。しかし、私は京都議定書締結後の大学での講義において、このままの形では米国の上院がこの議定書を承認する可能性は皆無だろうと説明したものである。私は中国やインドの考え方も理解しているつもりだ。しかし容易なことではないだろうが、交渉を進め、将来についての途上国のより具体的なコミットメントをとりつけることは、米国の参加のためには欠かせないであろう。
京都議定書での削減目標をはじめとする各国の合意は貴重な成果ではあったが、所詮は妥協の産物であり、合理的基礎によるものではなかった。この際、すべての国が、過去の経緯にこだわらず、コスト問題、あるいは当初の削減率は縮小してより中長期のコミットメントをはかる可能性について率直に話し合うことがのぞましい。他方、米国も、ユニラテラルな国益中心の発想はとり止めてもらわねばならない。しかもことは急を要する。米国の新提案が速やかにとりまとめられることを切望する。何故なら、おそくとも私共の曾孫の正常な生活、場合によっては生存がこの問題にかかっているからだ。
（筆者は外務省顧問。元駐米・駐独大使）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟