The following is from an article by Taishi Sugiyama, Senior Research Fellow at the Canon Institute for Global Studies, titled "Energy is a top priority for security," which appeared in today's Sankei Shimbun's "Sound Arguments."
This article is a must-read not only for Japanese citizens but also for people around the world.
The emphasis in the text, except for the headline, is mine.
It announced the government's "clean energy strategy" interim reorganization.
Although it became "de-Russia before decarbonization" following the Ukrainian War, it is supposed to make a government-led decarbonization investment at a massive cost.
In a drastically changing world, will such a strategy be sufficient?
The annual cost burden of 15 trillion yen
Initially, the "Clean Energy Strategy" was conceived at the behest of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to promote decarbonization investments.
However, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has increased the importance of security, and the interim report has two chapters: one on energy security and the other on decarbonization.
However, security and decarbonization have yet to be reconciled.
It is simply inconsistent.
Energy security includes the prevention of supply disruptions and the provision of affordable energy.
If so, there is a fundamental trade-off (incompatible relationship) with costly decarbonization, but that awareness is weak.
The strategy requires an annual investment of 15 trillion yen.
While this may sound like an investment, the public bears the burden of funding it.
The public already pays 2.4 trillion yen per year in renewable energy levies alone.
The Clean Energy Strategy includes items that are likely to increase costs enormously compared to existing technologies, such as the introduction of more renewable energies, electric vehicles, and the use of hydrogen.
To what extent will the burden on the public increase?
How much more will the burden on the public increase?
However, the strategy also includes items contributing to economic growth while contributing to financial security, such as investments in storage battery factories, semiconductor factories, and data centers.
With governments worldwide competing to lure new industries, Japan has no choice but to do the same.
The strategy is expected to be finalized by the end of the year.
Still, its contents should be carefully scrutinized and limited to items contributing to economic growth to avoid making Japan a high-cost state.
In this context, "de-Russia followed by decarbonization" is a naive security view.
We should restructure it based on a careful analysis of the current situation.
Let me raise two points of contention.
The new Cold War has set back decarbonization.
From the 1992 "Earth Summit," global environmental issues came to international attention.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was also agreed upon.
It is no coincidence that this coincided with the end of the US-Soviet Cold War due to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The ideological confrontation between East and West ended, and Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the "end of history" with the triumph of democracy.
With the romantic exuberance that "the entire world will converge on Western-style democracy and peace will be achieved," global environmental issues became a significant focus of attention as problems to be solved through cooperation on a worldwide scale.
However, the utopia did not materialize.
Instead of becoming a democracy, as the West had hoped, China's growing economy became increasingly autocratic, and it began to vie for global hegemony.
In turmoil after its failed attempts at rapid democratization, Russia reverted to an authoritarian state.
It continued to engage in armed conflicts in neighboring regions, including the annexation of Crimea, and it continued to have strained relations with Western countries.
Finally, the war in Ukraine was the decisive factor in the deterioration of relations.
It is now clear that a new Cold War has begun, and the premise on which the global warming issue is based has fundamentally changed.
There is no longer any hope for a global cooperative solution.
And countries led by Europe are scrambling to increase the production and procurement of fossil fuels.
The developed countries have not yet dropped their "decarbonization" signs, but their priorities will significantly decline.
Next to de-Russia, then de-China
What is next after Russia?
Senator Marco Rubio, a leading U.S. Republican, warns.
"Even now, with the war in Ukraine, I'm looking at China. It is a real problem for the United States. The threat from China is a thousand times greater than Russia. It has a much larger economy and a superior military. Already, U.S. companies have become lobbyists for various Chinese government positions in the name of business priorities."
Senator Tom Cotton, D-N.Y., said the U.S. should pursue a de-Russian and de-Chinese policy simultaneously.
"We should make sure that China does not use force against Taiwan because it thinks it has an economic advantage over the United States. Instead, we should strategically separate the U.S. economy from the Chinese economy. In particular, important and strategic industries such as semiconductors and rare piles of earth need to start now."
Europe's heavy dependence on Russian energy, especially natural gas, made it vulnerable and made Russia belligerent.
The price for this was a devastating war in Ukraine.
In turn, the mass introduction of solar panels and electric cars will make us dependent on the Chinese industry, especially in crucial mineral industries such as silicon and rare piles of earth.
In addition, the huge cost burden of decarbonization will hurt Japan's manufacturing industry and damage its national strength.
Japan must refrain from creating vulnerabilities through its decarbonization policy and give China an opening to take advantage of it.
We should reconsider it immediately.
