Series "What's brewing in post-3/11 Japan?" No.4: Calling for a Truly Realistic Debate on Nuclear Energy
CHINO Keiko / Journalist on International Affairs
October 12, 2011
Judging from Prime Minister Noda Yoshihiko's speech at the United Nations meeting on nuclear safety in New York, the Japanese government has apparently reverted to a pro-nuclear power policy. Former Prime Minister Kan Naoto's policy of abandoning nuclear power was all too abrupt and haphazard, and it was clearly a matter of time until it was discarded. Yet the manner in which the shift in policy was made, with no debate whatsoever as if it was a foregone conclusion, reflects the degraded state of today's politics.
Prime Minister Noda's speech was on the whole reasonable. Speedy and accurate disclosure regarding the nuclear accident and raising the safety of nuclear power to the world's highest standards are commendable - provided they are put to practice. It will be up to the Prime Minister to fulfill his responsibility to the country and the entire world by keeping his public pledge.
Meanwhile, the rift between the proponents and opponents of nuclear power that became even more pronounced since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains unresolved. Around the same time the Prime Minister was giving his speech to the United Nations, a massive anti-nuclear rally was taking place in Tokyo. It is unfortunate that this national issue is carving an ever deeper division within our society.
Coincidentally, the committee for formulating the government's Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy reconvened for the first time in half a year. Soon, a committee to discuss fundamental revisions to the Basic Energy Plan was also launched. This time around, it is noteworthy that both committees will include members with critical or skeptical views on nuclear energy as participants. This is an excellent development.
However, the latter committee will have no representatives from the energy industry. Wait a minute. This only means the table has been turned against the past committee, which had been accused of being slanted towards the pro-nuclear lobby. It makes no difference to the substance of the issue. In our post-Fukushima days, it is more important than ever to hear the views of the electric power industry that is directly responsible for operating nuclear power plants. Many questions need to be addressed, such as the safety awareness and risk management of these companies.
All too often, past debate over nuclear power has been an exchange of self-justifying claims by the pros and cons, with little incentive for seeking a consensus. The result was a self-satisfactory, one-way discussion, which forced most Japanese to feign indifference or become bystanders. That was the reality of the situation.
We need to get both the proponents and opponents to discard their respective myths about the safety or dangers of nuclear power, to clear the way for an entirely realistic debate aimed at building a consensus for developing a new policy.
I am particularly keen to see the proponents of nuclear power take this course, because even if we chose to abandon nuclear energy, it would take a gradual process to achieve such a goal. In other words, we would still need to keep the reactors in operation for years to come. Germany, which has decided to abandon nuclear power, plans to do so by 2022, and Switzerland – with only four reactors – is following a gradual shutdown plan that will not be completed until 2034. The proponents of nuclear power therefore carry a more practical, yet serious, responsibility on their shoulders.
Though the pretext may be peaceful use, the essence of nuclear power generation is the same as a nuclear weapon. If a nuclear bomb is a weapon that cannot be deployed due to the immensity of the destruction it causes, nuclear power is a form of power generation that should never go wrong. What happens in an accident? The answer is "Fukushima."
A tsunami expert who spoke recently at the Atomic Energy Society of Japan strongly criticized the indiscriminate use of the term "beyond anticipation" in the immediate aftermath of the accident. He emphasized the need for "imagination" instead. His words ring true. In some ways, accidents are always "beyond anticipation." We are being tested for our imagination.
In retrospect, since 3/11 - or 9/11, rather - bipolar confrontation has became prominent in the world. You were either for terrorism or against, for keeping the U.S. bases in Japan or against, enemy or ally, winner or loser. This mentality is now spreading from the political arena to society at large, and to everything around us.
Let us make the best use of our imagination and put an end to this binary mindset of "either-or." The truth may not be either this or that, but lie quietly in between.
Writer is Columnist at the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
Prime Minister Noda's speech was on the whole reasonable. Speedy and accurate disclosure regarding the nuclear accident and raising the safety of nuclear power to the world's highest standards are commendable - provided they are put to practice. It will be up to the Prime Minister to fulfill his responsibility to the country and the entire world by keeping his public pledge.
Meanwhile, the rift between the proponents and opponents of nuclear power that became even more pronounced since the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains unresolved. Around the same time the Prime Minister was giving his speech to the United Nations, a massive anti-nuclear rally was taking place in Tokyo. It is unfortunate that this national issue is carving an ever deeper division within our society.
Coincidentally, the committee for formulating the government's Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy reconvened for the first time in half a year. Soon, a committee to discuss fundamental revisions to the Basic Energy Plan was also launched. This time around, it is noteworthy that both committees will include members with critical or skeptical views on nuclear energy as participants. This is an excellent development.
However, the latter committee will have no representatives from the energy industry. Wait a minute. This only means the table has been turned against the past committee, which had been accused of being slanted towards the pro-nuclear lobby. It makes no difference to the substance of the issue. In our post-Fukushima days, it is more important than ever to hear the views of the electric power industry that is directly responsible for operating nuclear power plants. Many questions need to be addressed, such as the safety awareness and risk management of these companies.
All too often, past debate over nuclear power has been an exchange of self-justifying claims by the pros and cons, with little incentive for seeking a consensus. The result was a self-satisfactory, one-way discussion, which forced most Japanese to feign indifference or become bystanders. That was the reality of the situation.
We need to get both the proponents and opponents to discard their respective myths about the safety or dangers of nuclear power, to clear the way for an entirely realistic debate aimed at building a consensus for developing a new policy.
I am particularly keen to see the proponents of nuclear power take this course, because even if we chose to abandon nuclear energy, it would take a gradual process to achieve such a goal. In other words, we would still need to keep the reactors in operation for years to come. Germany, which has decided to abandon nuclear power, plans to do so by 2022, and Switzerland – with only four reactors – is following a gradual shutdown plan that will not be completed until 2034. The proponents of nuclear power therefore carry a more practical, yet serious, responsibility on their shoulders.
Though the pretext may be peaceful use, the essence of nuclear power generation is the same as a nuclear weapon. If a nuclear bomb is a weapon that cannot be deployed due to the immensity of the destruction it causes, nuclear power is a form of power generation that should never go wrong. What happens in an accident? The answer is "Fukushima."
A tsunami expert who spoke recently at the Atomic Energy Society of Japan strongly criticized the indiscriminate use of the term "beyond anticipation" in the immediate aftermath of the accident. He emphasized the need for "imagination" instead. His words ring true. In some ways, accidents are always "beyond anticipation." We are being tested for our imagination.
In retrospect, since 3/11 - or 9/11, rather - bipolar confrontation has became prominent in the world. You were either for terrorism or against, for keeping the U.S. bases in Japan or against, enemy or ally, winner or loser. This mentality is now spreading from the political arena to society at large, and to everything around us.
Let us make the best use of our imagination and put an end to this binary mindset of "either-or." The truth may not be either this or that, but lie quietly in between.
Writer is Columnist at the Sankei Shimbun newspaper.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
「3.11後の日本」シリーズ No.4 原発の議論に徹底したリアリズムを
千野境子 / ジャーナリスト
2011年 10月 12日
ニューヨークにおける原子力安全首脳会合の演説を聞くと、野田佳彦政権は原発容認路線に再び戻ったようだ。菅直人前首相の脱原発路線は唐突、無計画で、いずれ反古になることは目に見えていた。とはいえ転換があたかも既定路線だったかのように、議論抜き、なし崩し的に行われるところに昨今の政治の劣化がある。
演説は全体として妥当なものだし、事故の迅速で正確な開示や原発の安全性を世界最高水準に高めることなど、本当に実行されるなら評価できるものだ。また首相には内外への公約としてこれを果たす責任もあるだろう。
しかし福島第一原発事故以来、より鮮明になった原発容認・反原発の対立は依然として残ったままだ。野田首相の国連演説とほぼ同じ頃、東京では反原発の大集会が開かれていた。国家的課題で社会が二分され、亀裂が深まるのは不幸なことである。
折しも原子力政策大綱の策定会議が半年ぶりに再開され、エネルギー基本計画の抜本的見直しの議論も始まった。今回はどちらの会議にも原発に反対ないし懐疑的な委員の入ったことが特徴という。結構なことだと思う。
ところが後者の委員会に、今度はエネルギー事業関係者が一人もいない。ちょっと待ってほしい。これでは推進派に偏したと批判のあったこれまでと立場が逆転しただけで、本質は同じではないか。原発稼働に直接責任のある事業者の声を聞くことは、フクシマ後であればこそ、なおさら重要だ。事業者の安全意識、危機管理など問うべきことは多い。
原発の議論は過去、容認派も反対派もともすれば自説の正しさの主張に終始し、コンセンサスを求める姿勢が希薄だった。だから議論は自己満足と一方通行で終わり、国民の多くは無関心を決め込むか傍観者にならざるをえなかったというのが現実だろう。
いま必要なことは、容認派は原発の安全神話を、反対派は危険神話をいったん捨て、双方風通しをよくし、徹底したリアリズムの議論を通して新たな政策構築に向け合意形成を図ることではないか。
このことを私はとりわけ前者に望みたい。なぜなら原発の今後については、仮に脱原発を望んだとしても早急な達成は困難で、段階を踏む、換言すれば稼働を当面続けなければならないからだ。脱原発を決めたドイツは２０２２年、わずか４基のスイスでさえ２０３４年までの段階的閉鎖計画だ。つまり容認派にはより現実的な重い責任がある。
例え名目は平和利用でも、原発の本質は核兵器と同じである。被害の巨大さゆえに核兵器が「使えぬ兵器」なら、原発は「事故を絶対に起こせぬ発電」だ。事故を起こせばどうなるか。「フクシマ」が眼前にある。
先頃、日本原子力学会で講演した津波の専門家が事故後の「想定外」の乱発を厳しく批判し、「想像力」の必要性を力説した。至言だと思う。事故はある意味で常に想定外なのであり、想像力が試されているのだ。
振り返れば３.11後いや９.11後、世界で二極対立が顕著になった。テロか反テロか。基地か反基地か。敵か味方か。勝ち組か負け組か。いまやそれは政治から社会、すべてに及ぼうとしている。
私たちは想像力を駆使し、単純な「あれか、これか」の二分思考を止めたいものだ。真理は「あれ」でも「これ」でもなく、その間に静かに身を隠しているかもしれないのだから。
（筆者は産経新聞特別記者。）
演説は全体として妥当なものだし、事故の迅速で正確な開示や原発の安全性を世界最高水準に高めることなど、本当に実行されるなら評価できるものだ。また首相には内外への公約としてこれを果たす責任もあるだろう。
しかし福島第一原発事故以来、より鮮明になった原発容認・反原発の対立は依然として残ったままだ。野田首相の国連演説とほぼ同じ頃、東京では反原発の大集会が開かれていた。国家的課題で社会が二分され、亀裂が深まるのは不幸なことである。
折しも原子力政策大綱の策定会議が半年ぶりに再開され、エネルギー基本計画の抜本的見直しの議論も始まった。今回はどちらの会議にも原発に反対ないし懐疑的な委員の入ったことが特徴という。結構なことだと思う。
ところが後者の委員会に、今度はエネルギー事業関係者が一人もいない。ちょっと待ってほしい。これでは推進派に偏したと批判のあったこれまでと立場が逆転しただけで、本質は同じではないか。原発稼働に直接責任のある事業者の声を聞くことは、フクシマ後であればこそ、なおさら重要だ。事業者の安全意識、危機管理など問うべきことは多い。
原発の議論は過去、容認派も反対派もともすれば自説の正しさの主張に終始し、コンセンサスを求める姿勢が希薄だった。だから議論は自己満足と一方通行で終わり、国民の多くは無関心を決め込むか傍観者にならざるをえなかったというのが現実だろう。
いま必要なことは、容認派は原発の安全神話を、反対派は危険神話をいったん捨て、双方風通しをよくし、徹底したリアリズムの議論を通して新たな政策構築に向け合意形成を図ることではないか。
このことを私はとりわけ前者に望みたい。なぜなら原発の今後については、仮に脱原発を望んだとしても早急な達成は困難で、段階を踏む、換言すれば稼働を当面続けなければならないからだ。脱原発を決めたドイツは２０２２年、わずか４基のスイスでさえ２０３４年までの段階的閉鎖計画だ。つまり容認派にはより現実的な重い責任がある。
例え名目は平和利用でも、原発の本質は核兵器と同じである。被害の巨大さゆえに核兵器が「使えぬ兵器」なら、原発は「事故を絶対に起こせぬ発電」だ。事故を起こせばどうなるか。「フクシマ」が眼前にある。
先頃、日本原子力学会で講演した津波の専門家が事故後の「想定外」の乱発を厳しく批判し、「想像力」の必要性を力説した。至言だと思う。事故はある意味で常に想定外なのであり、想像力が試されているのだ。
振り返れば３.11後いや９.11後、世界で二極対立が顕著になった。テロか反テロか。基地か反基地か。敵か味方か。勝ち組か負け組か。いまやそれは政治から社会、すべてに及ぼうとしている。
私たちは想像力を駆使し、単純な「あれか、これか」の二分思考を止めたいものだ。真理は「あれ」でも「これ」でもなく、その間に静かに身を隠しているかもしれないのだから。
（筆者は産経新聞特別記者。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟