Japan’s position in international climate policy: navigating between Kyoto and the APP

Abstract

The emergence of technology-oriented agreements such as the 2005 AsiaPacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP) may have significant implications for the future of global climate governance, as these agreements could be perceived as an alternative for the existing international climate regime. It is, therefore, important to examine what has moved countries to be involved in these agreements alongside the UN climate regime. This article seeks to identify possible factors contributing to Japan's participation in both the UN climate regime and the APP, looking at the position of domestic interest groups, the distribution of climate policy-making at the government level and varying international pressures. It concludes that Japan's participation in both the APP and the UN climate regime flows from a policy-making process that tries to accommodate conflicting viewpoints at the domestic and international levels. To what extent Japan's participation in both fora can be regarded as constructive will depend on the partnership's ability to support the implementation of a future climate regime.

The fragmentation of the global climate governance architecture

“…McGee and Taplin 81,83,86 as well as van Asselt 84 During meetings of the UN climate regime, members of the APP and other initiatives referred to the added value of these external partnerships. 88,89 For instance, in the opening session of the Vienna talks, the USA presented its proposal for a Major Economies Process in September 2007 as a promising approach to reach an agreement among major greenhousegas emitters. 87 In the conference corridors, delegates discussed the US intervention, interpreting it as an alternative vision of a soft regime of 'pledge and review,' compared to the UN approach of hard targets (Ref 90, p. 2).…”

“…During meetings of the UN climate regime, members of the APP and other initiatives referred to the added value of these external partnerships 88,89. For instance, in the opening session of the Vienna talks, the USA presented its proposal for a Major Economies Process in September 2007 as a promising approach to reach an agreement among major greenhouse‐gas emitters 87.…”

Agency dynamics of International Environmental Agreements: actors, contexts, and drivers

“…Research predominantly examined one IEA, but in a few cases also adopted comparative approaches with analyses of the role of one or several countries in several IEAs and regimes (Atela et al, 2017;Heggelund & Buan, 2009;Kim & Chung, 2012;Oh & Matsuoka, 2015). Agency-related drivers included motivations linked to national interests such as energy security, economic growth, trade, technology transfer or the protection of economic sectors (Afionis & Chatopolous, 2010;Heggelund & Buan, 2009;Skodvin & Andresen, 2009;van Asselt et al, 2009;Walsh et al, 2011) or ideological or strategic factors not linked to the issue itself (e.g. Afionis & Chatzopoulos, 2010).…”

Highlighting Photocatalytic H2-Production from Natural Seawater and the Utilization of Quasi-Photosynthetic Absorption as Two Ultimate Solutions for CO2Mitigation

“…The international emissions trading in Japan was started in 2010 and run by TMG (Tokyo Metropolitan Government) [22]. The emission trading in the European Union and the national emissions trading in Norway both began from 2005 [23]. The Emission Trading Scheme was run from 2008 to 2012 in Switzerland, while the United Kingdom Trading Scheme was run from 2002 to 2006.…”