**Uniqueness 2 Generic Links 16
Impacts- Econ Bad- Russia - Kyoto
Download 0.75 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Impacts- Econ Bad- Russia - Kyoto
Impacts- Econ Bad- Russia - KyotoIf Russia stopped selling permits because of economic expansion, the US would become the primary seller Mckibben 97 (Warwick, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institute, June 97, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1997/06energy_mckibbin.aspx?rssid=climate+and+energy+economics ) ET Moreover, the U.S. proposal would probably not even achieve the goal of stabilizing emissions. Britain, Germany, and especially Russia are all already below their 1990 emission levels and would be able to sell their unused permits abroad. In that case the permit system would really amount to nothing more than an elaborate accounting mechanism for counting increases in emissions in countries like the United States against the 1990 allocation for Russia. There would be little or no overall reduction. If Russian economic growth begins to recover, the demand for permits within Russia would increase, sharply driving up the world price of permits. This could add an ironic twist to an international permit policy: if Russia were to grow quickly, the United States could soon become the developed world's low-cost emissions abater. In that case the United States would be a net seller of permits, and the rest of the industrial world would end up paying it to reduce its emissions. And using many models, the US will become the prime permit seller Mckibben 99 (Warwick, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institute,Feb 99, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/1999/02globaleconomics_mckibbin.aspx ) ET We use an econometrically-estimated multi-region, multi-sector general equilibrium model of the world economy to examine the effects of using a system of internationally-tradable emissions permits to control world carbon dioxide emissions. We focus, in particular, on the effects of the system on flows of trade and international capital. Our results show that international trade and capital flows significantly alter projections of the domestic effects of emissions mitigation policy, compared with analyses that ignore international capital flows, and that under some systems of international permit trading the United States is likely to become a significant permit seller, the opposite of the conventional wisdom. And japan is under pressure to meet their Kyoto goals- without permits, they can’t meet them Lies 8 (Elaine, journalist , Reuters, feb. 10-8, http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKT26372920080210 ) ET Japan is the world's fifth-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, and while officials have pledged to meet its obligations under the international pact to fight global warming, critics say this may be difficult. Japanese Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura and Russian First Deputy Premier Sergei Ivanov agreed in a meeting on the sidelines of a Munich conference that the first round of vice-ministerial talks on the issue would be held on February 27 in Tokyo, Japanese officials were quoted by Kyodo news agency as saying. Separately, the Yomiuri Shimbun daily said the talks aimed at reaching a deal under which Japan would buy surplus emissions quotas from Russia, a key step towards helping Tokyo meet its Kyoto goals. The trading could take place under several options possible under the Kyoto Protocol, including one in which Japan -- one of the world's most energy-efficient nations -- takes part in work to reduce Russian emissions and then is allowed to count that cut as its own, the Yomiuri added. Officials at the Environment and Foreign Ministries were not available for comment. Japan has pledged to cut emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels over the 2008-2012 period. A government panel said in December that Japan would be able to reach its goals if additional measures, such as extra voluntary agreements with industries, are carried out. The United States, China, India and Russia all emit more greenhouse gases than Japan, but of the top five emitting nations, only Japan is under pressure to meet a Kyoto goal. Impacts- Econ Bad- Russia - KyotoIf japan looks like it isn’t going to meet its Kyoto goals it will shorten inspection times of nuclear reactors Arita 4 (Eriko, Japan Times staff writer, the Japan Times, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20040618f1.html , 6.18.4) ET Yet factors such as local opposition and relatively slack growth in electricity demand have delayed the construction of new nuclear reactors, jeopardizing the government's carefully crafted plans to meet its Kyoto Protocol target of trimming emissions by 6 percent from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The government now says that only four new reactors are likely to be built by fiscal 2010, whereas previous projections had put the figure at as many as 13. This scenario will probably lead to a rise in thermal power generation using fossil fuels, boosting carbon dioxide emissions by an additional 20 million to 30 million tons by fiscal 2010, according to government data. In an effort to counteract this, the Environment Ministry proposed in April that Japan produce thermal energy by making better use of natural gas, which releases 40 percent less carbon dioxide than coal. Yoshiteru Sakaguchi, assistant head of the ministry's Climate Change Policy Division, said that 19.2 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions can be cut by fiscal 2010 if the operation rate of natural gas thermal power plants is raised from the current 50.3 percent to 59.3 percent and that of power plants powered by coal is cut from the current 64.3 percent to 50.1 percent. "In Japan, nuclear power and coal thermal power plants operate around the clock" as core power suppliers, Sakaguchi explained. "But in Britain, it is the natural gas thermal power plants that operate all day." Britain's carbon dioxide emissions dropped 7 percent in 2000 compared with 1990 levels, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Sakaguchi said this decline was helped by the greater role played by gas. However, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry suggested earlier this month that the expected shortfall in emissions cuts should be covered by improving the operation rate of existing nuclear reactors by shortening the period in which operations are halted for regular inspections. Japan has 52 nuclear reactors that are all instable- less inspection would be a massive mistake Moret 4 (Leuren, Special reporter @ Japan Times, Japan Times, 5.23.4, http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040523x2.html ) ET Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list. An aerial view of the Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, "the most dangerous nuclear power plant in Japan" The Japanese archipelago is located on the so-called Pacific Rim of Fire, a large active volcanic and tectonic zone ringing North and South America, Asia and island arcs in Southeast Asia. The major earthquakes and active volcanoes occurring there are caused by the westward movement of the Pacific tectonic plate and other plates leading to subduction under Asia. Japan sits on top of four tectonic plates, at the edge of the subduction zone, and is in one of the most tectonically active regions of the world. It was extreme pressures and temperatures, resulting from the violent plate movements beneath the seafloor, that created the beautiful islands and volcanoes of Japan. Nonetheless, like many countries around the world -- where General Electric and Westinghouse designs are used in 85 percent of all commercial reactors -- Japan has turned to nuclear power as a major energy source. In fact the three top nuclear-energy countries are the United States, where the existence of 118 reactors was acknowledged by the Department of Energy in 2000, France with 72 and Japan, where 52 active reactors were cited in a December 2003 Cabinet White Paper. The 52 reactors in Japan -- which generate a little over 30 percent of its electricity -- are located in an area the size of California, many within 150 km of each other and almost all built along the coast where seawater is available to cool them. However, many of those reactors have been negligently sited on active faults, particularly in the subduction zone along the Pacific coast, where major earthquakes of magnitude 7-8 or more on the Richter scale occur frequently. The periodicity of major earthquakes in Japan is less than 10 years. There is almost no geologic setting in the world more dangerous for nuclear power than Japan -- the third-ranked country in the world for nuclear reactors. "I think the situation right now is very scary," says Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a seismologist and professor at Kobe University. "It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode." Last summer, I visited Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, at the request of citizens concerned about the danger of a major earthquake. I spoke about my findings at press conferences afterward. Because Hamaoka sits directly over the subduction zone near the junction of two plates, and is overdue for a major earthquake, it is considered to be the most dangerous nuclear power plant in Japan. Together with local citizens, I spent the day walking around the facility, collecting rocks, studying the soft sediments it sits on and tracing the nearly vertical faults through the area -- evidence of violent tectonic movements. The next day I was surprised to see so many reporters attending the two press conferences held at Kakegawa City Hall and Shizuoka Prefecture Hall. When I asked the reporters why they had come so far from Tokyo to hear an American geoscientist, I was told it was because no foreigner had ever come to tell them how dangerous Japan's nuclear power plants are. Download 0.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|