Japan: Changing Public Response to Pollution

Question 0

Social movements continued to grow. What was the historical response to these issues?

Answer 0

Under the Tokugawas ➡ citizens were allowed to protest.

Achieved through HUMBLE PETITION.

Written or oral request made for the write to protest. Once the petition was handed over - the named petitioner would be executed. The petitioner expired in the process as a moral weight to the cause. It was designed to dissuade further protest.

The humble petition was seen as a form of mitigation rather than stopping the problem at source.

Question 1

Japanese economic success was a facilitated by what in relation to government?

Answer 1

A good balance between market competition and government planning and controls.

Question 2

Pollution worsened ➡ growing protests. These remained however highly localised. Japan was controlled by the iron triangle. Who were involved?

Answer 2

1⃣ BIG BUSINESS
2⃣ POLITICIANS
3⃣ BUREAUCRACY

Question 3

Public concern began to force what?

Answer 3

Government responses at national and local levels (Imura and Schreurs, 2005).

Particularly across the 1960s…the four major cases of environmental pollution were taken to court where they won.

Question 4

How did the iron triangle try and maintain control over public uprisings?

Answer 4

1⃣ Chonaikai - historical roots - civil society organisation omnipresent throughout society (Pekkanen, 2009). Not tied to but linked to the state. Given responsibilities within government e.g. Resolving crime. If not achieved - all punished. A form of social control - it was officially abandoned by the Meiji but remains an informal practice. Beneficial for people to report on others. Prominent during the war years to maintain totalitarian control (Masland, 1946, cited by Mori, 2008).

2⃣ Choenkai - supporters clubs for politicians. Supposed to be neutral but have overlapping membership. Important for the re-election of politicians. Causes fractions within parties as several politicians from 1 party can run compete for the same position.

Question 5

How else could they maintain control before the 1960s?

Answer 5

A system of PATRONAGE…

STATUS SEDUCTION: move individual into position of power. Removes them from position where they would lead protest. Dis-empower them and the protest movement by removing the leader.

MANIPULATION OF INSTITUTIONS: government created new unions to compete against existing ones. Incentives for fishermen to move - acts as a form of mitigation whilst fishermen also get compensate. Old union power ⬇ because people defect on their membership.

Question 6

What changed into the 1960s?

Answer 6

Japan becomes more affluent and individuals become wiser to governmental methods of controlling civil unrest.

The question became more about how to stop development rather than allow it and mitigate for it……

1960s onward - protests focused on defending against development (Avenell, 2006)

Question 7

Shoji and Miyamoto (1969) referred to pollution and development how? What impact did this have on energy?

Answer 7

A form of colonisation, an ‘invasion of everyday life’ - Avenell (2006, p.99).

Acknowledging pollution to be a byproduct of Japan’s intensive method of accumulation (developed through its capitalist regime), Ui suggested that in the post war years Japan found its capital resources vastly reduced. This forced industry to look elsewhere for comparatively cheaper energy sources - and this gave way to oil in the 1960s as a means of maintaining Japan’s industrial drive for accumulation.

This forced more expensive enterprises such as coal mines to identify their weaknesses + caused them congregate in order to remain internationally competitive ⏩ large industrial cities with rapidly developing populations.

Acting in this way - industry was able to control local resources and manipulate local politics in direction of its best interests.

As such - local citizens and the government acknowledged that a little pollution was necessary for the drive to economic success.

Question 8

Early 1960s…Cases taken to court. What happened afterward in relation to civil movements?

Answer 8

The success of ‘Big 4⃣’ (Avenell, 2006) cases in court changed public attitudes. Exposed, through court, the impact of pollutants on health and the environment.

Success of the 4⃣ = 3000+ smaller movements by 1973.

Led to legislative responses following the 1970s DIET and the Environmental Agency.

Question 9

How did protest change characteristically though?

Answer 9

Rather than trying to seek compensation for ailments / injuries post development - new movements sought to stop them before they were commissioned.

TO STOP THE SPREAD OF INDUSTRY (Avenell, 2006)

Question 10

How did industry leaders view the way protest had changed?

Answer 10

Not well.

Public attitudes had changed ⏩ posed a serious threat to economic development.

Implementing environmental measures = sacrificing the position and competitiveness of industry in Japan (Imura and Schreurs, 2006).

Those who backed environmental regulation were seen as ‘anti-industry’

Question 11

What would happen if one of these movements succeeded?

Answer 11

Potential ❄⛄ snowball effect. (Avenell, 2006)

This fear was recognised when in the early 1960s a movement stopped the development of a petrochemical complex.

It DID NOT however spark a snowball effect.

Question 12

What did this successful movement do?

Answer 12

It proved that localised movements in protest of pollution could succeed.

It challenged the idea that development and economic growth is at the heart of public good…

Avenell (2006)

Question 13

What was the benchmark movement that stopped the development of a petrochemical complex in the early 1960s?

Answer 13

Mishima and Numazu - south of Tokyo.

Complex proposed - to be larger than Yokkaichi.

Question 14

The residents and intellectuals had some advantages. What were they?

Answer 14

Left wingers had left Tokyo during the war years due to the intense environment for academics. They organised a people’s university to help open learning and make it more accessible. (Avenell, 2006)

The did not support the government ❌

Instead they gave support to movements intending to stop the developments.
These movements already benefited from established groups in Mishima - women’s groups, fishermen unions among others.

Social resources were already established in the city.

Question 15

What did the success at Mishima and Numazu demonstrate?

Answer 15

That local level movements could succeed.

That local residents were capable of mobilising resources in extremely localised levels to achieve wider goals.

That, if done correctly, activists could make people in positions of power acknowledge their position.

Question 16

Mishima and Numazu summary

Answer 16

1964 plans emerge for petrochemical complex
Local citizens don’t want it
Knowing epidemiological studies not enough they look for scientific proof they would suffer
Local intellectuals support the grassroots movement
Send individuals to Yokkaichi - learn new data collection methods
Prove wind blows inland undermining plans key assumption
Plan scrapped

Question 17

Why did environmental pressure groups not develop in the late 1960s after the development of the big four?

Answer 17

Several reasons:
Grass roots movements were emerging more within localised contexts
There was increasing deregulation of planning
Pollution issues were being dealt with at point source
The 1973 returned public attention to the need for economic development
Day to day living took over

Question 18

Was environmental legislation strong or weak at central government level?

Why?

Answer 18

Weak

Bureaus within central government wanted to promote their own ministry’s interests and those of the companies they regulated as they would likely retire in to them.

Therefore - in interest of ministers to compete on policy rather than cooperate

Question 19

4 key actors in managing pollution?

Answer 19

Ministry for Health and welfare - relatively weak. Pollution bureau set up within min looking to protect against pollution and promote health

MITI - influential in post war years. Pollution bureau looks to ensure economic development isn’t impacted.

LDP - aligned with MITI

Keidanren - comprehensive business organisation - 1,200 + Japanese company members. Working to promote their interest

Question 20

Why did the PM’s office step in to create the basic law for pollution control?

Answer 20

Because there was internal dispute among the ministries about whether to champion health or development.

Moving the economy around simply wasn’t abating the issue.

1966 PM’s office asked ministry for health and welfare to build a basic law for pollution control

Question 21

What was the governmental response and what changed between draft 1 and draft 2?

Answer 21

Basic Law for Pollution Control 1967 draft 1

1) protection of health over pursuit of profit
2) strict industrial liability
3) administrative compensation fund
4) an environment agency

Draft two scrapped point 1 in favour for a ‘harmonisation clause’ - seeking to emphasise economic development once more by promoting environmental protection measures to co-exist with economic development policy (Yamamoto, 1987)

Question 22

The basic law was enacted to protect against what?

Answer 22

The seven public nuisances

1⃣ Air pollution 
2⃣ Water pollution 
3⃣ Soil pollution 
4⃣ Noise 
5⃣ Vibration 
6⃣ Ground subsidence 
7⃣ Offensive odours

Question 23

Was the environmental agency a good thing?

Answer 23

Yes but it’s strength died out pretty rapidly.

Question 24

When was the EA introduced and why?

Answer 24

The EA was introduced as part of the POLLUTION CONTROL DIET (1970)

During this diet several other environmental laws were amended also.

= major strides forward in reducing emissions in the1970s across a range of pollutants (EA, 1980) with extensions to laws introduced as part of the 1967 basic law also passing into motion.

The EA became official in 1972.

Question 25

Why could the EA’s inauguration also be viewed as a political move?

Answer 25

The ‘Harmony Clause’ in draft two caused anger among the public which was reflected through local elections.

Pro-environmentalists were being appointed above the LDP candidates.

In 1970 the LDP took an unprecedented step to restore popularity and faith in the party - the POLLUTION DIET (1970) (Ui, 2002)

The party put to one side the ‘harmony clause’ for as long as public attitudes remained averse to pollution.

Question 26

The POLLUTION DIET

Answer 26

Builds on the Basic Law for pollution control 1967.

The Natural Environment Preservation law introduced 1972.

Question 27

So attitudes and approaches to pollution changed through the 1970s….the EA was established and initially in a strong position but what happened in 1973 to change public attitudes once more?

Answer 27

The 1973 OIL SHOCK.

Japan imported oil cheaply before the 1973 oil shock. It’s response - keep reserves. Then it happened again in the latter half of the 1970s - Japan looks at different energy types.

The Japanese economy was hit hard b.cos it relied heavily on oil imports. There was a movement away from ‘rapid economic growth’ toward ‘steadier economic development’ (Imura and Schreurs, 2006, p.32).

Energy policy shifts!!!!!

Question 28

The oil shocks sparked a return in attitudes focused toward economic growth. How did energy use change?

Answer 28

The use of coal was encouraged once more but advances in technology meant this was safer for the environment.

Natural gas was sought as an energy source because it is cleaner. Long contracts were enacted by energy companies to secure the energy source long term (Imura and Schreurs, 2005).

LNG was also employed with power stations constructing special harbours where LNG carrying ships could dock and offload.

Question 29

Imura and Schreurs (2005) suggest what in relation to Japan’s lack of energy resources?

Answer 29

That actually its been beneficial to Japan rather than detrimental.

It has forced them to seek cleaner and more environmentally friendly energy sources benefitting economic development and environmental control.

Cleaner and cheaper energy sources.

Question 30

Still the EA had issues it had to overcome beyond the oil shocks reducing its authority. What were these?

Answer 30

Structuring issues: originally staffed by individuals from MITI and the ministry of health and welfare ➡ external conflicts become internalised. Staff had ties to external companies they could potentially secure work with after they retired from public office. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It took about 30 years for these issues to be ironed out by which time the EA was recruiting its own staff rather than sourcing them from other agencies.

Returning focus on economic growth: being the leader of the EA carried less weight - it became less and less influential as the focus returned to economic growth.

Question 31

EIA

Answer 31

Environmental Agency attempt to bring in EIA

EIA: begins in US in late 1960s. Japan introduce it in 1972 but for public works only, EIA for harbour building and transport networks and land reclamation introduced ➡ 1980s. Tips the situation in favour of the environment over industry - not good so rolled back until it was practically purposeless. In 1981 EIA law submitted to the DIET but in 1983 it failed to be passed - still some local provinces used EIA where regulation was stricter. Eventually it passed into legislation in 1997. (Environmental Impact Assessment in Japan, 2005)

During the 1990s Japan went into recession. Public sector spending rose to try and combat the recession and because EIAs required cabinet sanction - many were overlooked until a law was eventually introduced in 1997.

Question 32

As well as pollution control in the 1960s / 70s through business. Cars were impacted. How?

Answer 32

Japan enacted strict emission standards on automobiles.

Forced car manufacturers to develop cleaner technologies = ⬇ in nitrogen oxides.

Question 33

Increasing oil prices resulted in what?….

Answer 33

An industrial restructuring that looked toward the employment of cleaner, more secure energy sources.

 E.g. 
 Natural Gas and LNG

Question 34

Government intervention reduced following the introduction of the environmental legislation in the 70s. True or False?

Answer 34

True.

Few environmental laws were passed post 1970 and the introduction of the environmental basic law. The focus was more on private economic initiatives. Imura and Schereurs (2005).

Question 35

What other legislation was passed in 1993?

Answer 35

ENVIRONMENTAL BASIC LAW

passed by the DIET in Nov 1993.

Basic law on pollution seen as incapable of dealing with newer concerns such as global warming.

Backed by soaring public support for wider environmental policy internationally following the Rio Summit 1992.

(Imura, 1994)

Question 36

ENVIRONMENTAL BASIC LAW (1993) info….

Imura, 1994

Answer 36

Developed in 1992

The Basic Law for Pollution Control becoming outdated…not capable of dealing with emerging issues such as global warming.

The EA advised on the legislation.

Question 37

Was the 1993 Environmental Basic Law watered down?

Answer 37

It was watered down after it attracted criticism once more from other government agencies and business leaders.

They were concerned that in passing the law - the strength and role of the Environment Agency would increase and tip the playing field in favour of the environment over economic development. Imura (1994).

Question 38

Impact of the UN 1992 summit in Rio on environmental consideration?

Answer 38

Raised the awareness of several new issues…global warming and climate change at the ❤

Businesses set up divisions tasked with exploring the links between their industrial activities and environmental degradation.

This was shown through survey to be more as a result of ethical principles than as capitalist opportunities such as Eco-business (Imura 1994)

Question 39

What did polls in the 1990s relating to environmental issues show?

Answer 39

That the vast majority of Japanese citizens surveyed felt environmental consideration should be taken by big businesses and that Japan should lead the way in promoting and developing measures to reduce the environmental impact.

80% of big businesses indicated they should deal with environmental issues as it is a form of social responsibility.

IMURA 1994

Question 40

Pollution dumping is the process of…?

Answer 40

Exporting products cheaply at the cost of environmental degradation.

Attracted international criticism but promoted the introduction of better technologies.

Question 41

Chinas energy consumption is impacting Japan. How?

Answer 41

Pollution has and in some areas exceeded that of Japan in its past.

Acid rain became an issues for Japan’s west coast ➡ by China’s ⬆ coal consumption.

To overcome these issues Japan has leased some of its technologies and equipment to china at reduced costs.

Question 42

Although Japan’s environmental policies are now some of the most stringent in the world - its past has been chequered by governmental policies and regulations that have supported industrialisation and ‘pollution dumping’ (exporting products at low prices by sacrificing environmental protections)

TRUE or FALSE?

Answer 42

True

Question 43

Criticisms of Japan’s industrial development? Imura, 1994

Answer 43

Japan = GDP per capita ⬆ than the USA. Therefore the west would like to see less governmental interference in industry.

Many do not benefit from the wealth generated by Japan’s economy.

There remains an underlying policy of paying individuals, corporations and unions off in order to achieve certain policy goals.

Question 44

Moving into the 1980s - environmental degradation has tended to shift from manufacturing industries to…….?

Answer 44

Public works.

Road and town building…
Railway / harbour developments…
Airport development…

The political, administrative and business triangle that is generated around the construction of public works has, as argued by Imura 1994 created a pro-development atmosphere that does not support environmental policy at local and national levels.

Question 45

Concluding points…..

Answer 45

Japan’s environmental policies have been a success but have come about as a result of citizen movements.

They have focused historically on mitigation rather than complete environmental protection.

They are highly localised issues with central government maintaining control over local prefectural governments.

Responses have been political in nature also.

Triggered as a result of increasing pollution due to rapid industrialisation in post war years.

Japan does however continue to use a high % of natural resources.