Why Japan Is Neglecting Climate Change Commitments by Building Coal Plants

With the Kyoto Treaty, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the international pressure to curtail carbon emissions, you would think that coal would become more a thing of the past. At least in the United States, coal consumption as a percent of overall consumption has been on the decline (EIA). That does not seem to be the case for Japan. As a matter of fact, Japan has been increasing its reliance on coal. In 2018, Japan was looking to 36 new coal plants. The New York Times reported earlier this month, however, that Japan revised that figure down to 22 coal-fired plants because building the other plants did not make economic sense. Even with a downward revision, it is a notable trend in an age of more carbon-neutral alternatives. Japan was set to be carbon-neutral after 2050. If Japan is successful in building the 22 plants, it would most probably delay Japan's acquisition of carbon-neutral status. Not only that, these plants would emit 74.7 million tons of carbon every year. Why is Japan bucking the trend towards fewer carbon emissions?

The most obvious answer dates back to the Fukushima nuclear accident. In March 2011, an earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0 followed by a tsunami hit Japan. These natural disasters particularly hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, thereby causing the most severe nuclear accident since Chernobyl. I can talk about the advantages of nuclear power, but the truth of the matter is that Fukushima made a mark on the psyche of the Japanese people where it all but eliminated nuclear power consumption (EIA).

Tangentially, Japan is also looking to diversify its energy portfolio. In part, Japan does not want to generate too much liquified natural gas (LNG), especially since demand from China and India could cause LNG prices to spike. It is true that renewable energy as a percent of Japanese energy generation has increased to 16.7 percent, which is still lower than its European counterparts. Solar power increased from 1.9 percent of energy generation in 2015 to 6.5 percent in 2018 (ISEP). Aside from the general issues of capacity and intermittence with solar and wind power, Japan has the additional issues of limited sunshine and a lack of land for large-scale projects, both of which make solar power twice as expensive in Japan than in Europe.

There is also a geopolitical element to Japan's rush to coal, the "clear and present danger" being China. On some level, there could be a national security threat from China, which could be reason for Japan to become less dependent on Australia for its coal. However, I would contend that it is China's interactions in the energy market in the Asia Pacific that are driving concerns. China is using its Belt and Road Initiative to expand influence in Asia and Africa. The truth is Japan would like to have some of that influence. South Korea is also part of the equation because South Korea is exporting nuclear energy to countries that are of national interest to Japan. While Japan is nowhere near the military threat it was in the middle of the twentieth century, I would surmise that it would like to remain an economic powerhouse.

Where Does This Leave Us?
Japan is under economic and political pressure to continue with its coal production. In spite of the naysaying from other countries, I do not see Japan's coal consumption changing anytime soon. This is all the more lamentable since carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is too cost-prohibitive to be commercially available. It will be difficult for Japan to get past the geographic hindrances that limit solar energy production. I also do not see the Japanese populace getting over Fukushima quickly enough to restore nuclear power capacity.

We have to be careful of what lessons to draw from Japan when it comes to energy policy. The Fukushima accident does not show the issues with nuclear power per se, but rather about proper planning and construction. An archipelago nation in which most of the people live on the coasts and are prone to natural disasters is not the best candidate for nuclear power. That does not mean other countries should not use nuclear power. Nuclear power is still the only carbon-neutral energy source that can adequately satisfy energy needs. Removing nuclear power from the equation while trying to rely more on renewables would most probably either lead to greater energy outages or considerable increases in energy prices. Until technology can be developed to overcome the limitations of solar and wind power, nuclear power is the world's best bet for a more carbon-neutral energy consumption.

Illinois' Attempt to Ban Self-Service Gas Stations: Why I'm Not Pumped About This Misguided Overregulation

I have complained about my home state, Illinois, on here before. I have pointed out how the State's budgetary mismanagement is so nightmarish that it almost makes Greece look fiscally responsible. I have criticized Illinois' governor on wanting to remove the flat income tax and a general call for wanting to raise state taxes. I have also gone after my home state for manipulating statistics to increase food stamp beneficiaries or how high pensions for Chicago Public Schools teachers is making pension reform in Illinois all the more difficult. As if there were not enough crazy news items coming from the Land of Lincoln, Illinois House Representative Camille Lilly introduced a bill to ban Illinois drivers from pumping their own gasoline (see Bill HB4571 here). It is likely that the Bill would not pass committee given the nature of the bill and the lack of co-signers. However, if it passes, Illinois will not be the only state with such regulations on self-service stations. Two other states already have restrictions on self-service at gasoline stations: New Jersey and Oregon.

The Bill's language is unclear as to why the Illinois House bill is necessary, although Lilly makes an argument based on safety and convenience. The regulation from the Oregon Assembly (2017 ORS 480.315) lists 17 reasons as to why the regulation exists, including needing someone who is professionally trained in dispensing liquids to contributing to the employment of young people. I want to respond to some of the arguments that proponents use in attempts to justify this regulation.

1. Handling gasoline is unsafe because it could cause a fire. You would think if people were dying or getting injured because of gas station fires, media outlets would bombard us with stories about it. That is why I looked at what the National Fire Protection Association had to say. The most recent NFPA statistics I could find were from 2004-2008 and 2009-2013 data from its 2015 report. Per the 2015 report, the average number of annual deaths was zero deaths (yes, that is nil), whereas the number of injuries was 14 injuries. This was the death and injury count over 460 fires at gasoline stations. According to the National Convenience Store Association, there are an average of 1,100 customers a day at a convenience store that sells gasoline. Multiply that by the 60,000-plus gas stations with convenience stores that exist in the United States, and the likelihood of catching on fire as a result of going to the gas station is quite small. 
• The safety argument is a solution in search of a problem. Even if gasoline fires were more prevalent, what is the basis that an attendant responsible for filling up multiple vehicles is going to be less rushed? 
2. Exposure to toxic fumes is unhealthy for customers. Healthline says that it's generally safe, but for argument's sake, let's assume this argument is valid. Customers are only exposed to the fumes for a short period of time (less than five minutes) once or twice a week, depending on how often they fill up their car. If I understand this correctly, it would not be okay to expose customers to a small amount of toxic fumes, but it is somehow acceptable to expose gas station attendants to these fumes for multiple hours throughout their work week? I don't know about you, but I don't consider gas station attendants to be disposable or that their health should be put at risk like that. 
3. Having full service is convenient. Some people do not want to have to get out in bad weather to fill their car or they do not want to smell like gasoline. If convenience were such a major factor for customers filling up their car, then there would be notable demand for full-service gas stations without a government mandate. 
4. What about the elderly and disabled? The elderly and disabled are the ones who are most vested in having full-service gas stations because it is otherwise difficult to fill up the car with gas. Instead of having a full-time attendant for a full-service station, an employee could help on a need-by-need basis. As a matter of fact, as long as a gas station provides assistance upon request [and it is not operated by a single employee], they are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 
5. Reducing theft of gasoline (gas-and-dash). If you are a convenience store own that finds gasoline theft to be that much of a concern, you can install better video surveillance equipment. Or better yet, you can require pre-payment of gasoline. 
6. Full-service gas stations provides employment opportunities that would otherwise be destroyed by automation. Do proponents think that without these gas attendant jobs, people would be otherwise unemployed? If we go with the logic of this argument, does this mean that we need to mandate all entry-level positions or create superfluous jobs for the sake of employment? That's not how economic growth works. Yes, there is a concern that automation is decreasing job opportunities, although I have wondered if that concern is overblown. In the case of gas station attendants, self-service did not create a net loss in employment. As this Census Bureau working paper illustrates (Basker et al., 2015), there was a net loss of 0.4 workers per pump. Paradoxically, there was an increase of overall employment in the sector because stations became larger, they were able to add convenience stores, and freeing up the attendants' times allowed for the stations to be open for longer hours (Basker et al., p. 23). 

Whether it is safety, job creation, or convenience, the arguments banning self-service gasoline stations are flimsy at best. It is not simply that a self-service ban limits the freedom of consumers as to how they want to make purchases, erodes personal responsibility, or mandates that a business should hire certain labor. In the states that did not enact a government mandate, the full-service gas station did not withstand the test of time.

Self-service became increasingly popular throughout the 20th century, and it will only become more popular as technology progresses. We can use the ATM when we need money from the bank. Grocery stores have self-checkout lines. Fast food restaurants are installing kiosks to order food instead of interacting with a cashier, not to mention there are drink machines that allow you to pour your own drink. Airlines allow for purchasing tickets on their websites. Most drivers would rather pump their own gas than deal with the longer wait for an attendant, so why should self-service gas stations be different than any of the other forms of self-service that have organically evolved over time?

If there truly were no costs to labor, then why not demand one attendant for every pump? The answer is that there are costs to labor. What happens when you add an attendant? As Oregon State University economist Patrick Emerson points out, the price of gasoline increases. Whether it is minimum wage, paid leave, or menstrual leave, adding labor costs vis-à-vis government regulation always comes with a tradeoff. I am not going to be surprised if the outcome is more expensive gasoline for Illinoisans or that the supposed health or workforce benefits do not come into fruition. People have mocked the Oregon version of this regulation, and given what we have covered here, rightfully so. Illinois already has a ton of taxes and regulations that are a drag on the economy. Why should the citizens of Illinois have to be subjected to another baseless regulation?

Is Trump's Israeli-Palestinian Peace Plan Really "The Deal of the Century?"

President Trump likes to think of himself as the master of "The Art of the Deal," a book that he wrote back in 1987. Part of the image that the President cultivates is that he is second to none when it comes to transactions. It would explain help explain why he calls the Israel-Palestine peace plan he released last week "The Deal of the Century." You can read the peace plan for yourself (see here), but I would like to see if the President still can conjure "The Art of the Deal" or if his plan is a dud. Let's get in the main features of this deal before answering that question.

•  A unified Jerusalem belongs to the State of Israel. Palestinians have wanted part of Jerusalem as part of the peace process. Trump's plan keeps Jerusalem united while giving the Palestinians a separate East Jerusalem that is outside the Israeli security barrier. A unified Jerusalem should remain the capital of Israel. Not only has the State of Israel done a good job ensuring that Jerusalem is open to worshipers of all religions, it would be political suicide to give up Jerusalem after its unification in the Six-Day War. Plus, let's remember that Palestine has never administered the city of Jerusalem, and thus has no legitimate claim to it. 
• Slight modification of the borders. The State of Israel gains 20 percent of the West Bank while relinquishing part of the Negev, a move that would triple the size of Gaza (see map above). Israel can maintain its borders while giving Palestine enough land to create a state. 
• Asking Israel to go back to pre-1967 borders was never a reasonable request because it would put Israel's security in jeopardy. It is nice to see a peace plan recognize that reality. 
• Israel would still cede about 70 percent of the West Bank, even though it had rightfully annexed the West Bank as part of a defensive war. 
• No absorption of Palestinian refugees in the State of Israel. The Palestinian government and activists have been clamoring for "the Right to Return" since after the War of Israeli Independence of 1948, or what the Palestinians call النكبة (Al-Nakba, literally "the catastrophe"). I have covered the "Right to Return," but let's cover it again. 
• One, there have been larger refugee crises that have since been resolved, and that is not only regarding Kashmir or World War Two. This is also true for the Jewish refugees who were kicked out of Arab nations when the Arab nations retaliated as a result of the creation of the State of Israel. When those Jewish refugees left, the State of Israel absorbed those refugees and dealt with it. 
• Two, a "Right to Return" is a nonstarter for Israel because it would mean erasing the Jewish identity of Israel. 
• Three, these refugees could have settled in other Arab nations if the Arab states weren't more interested in using the Palestinian refugees as political pawns.  
• Creation of a Palestinian state. The deal does not immediately create a Palestinian state. It comes with contingencies, such as acceptance of the plan from the Palestinian government, the Palestinian government discontinuing its funding of terrorists, Hamas ending its jihad on the Jewish state, and the Palestinian government ending the use of school curricula and textbooks that incite hatred towards Jews. 
• The creation of a Palestinian state comes with an even larger caveat: "The State of Palestine will not be able to develop military or paramilitary capabilities inside or outside  of the State of Palestine." It essentially puts the security issues into Israeli hands. Regardless of how you feel about that caveat, this could not be called a sovereign state because, not to be tautological, it could not exercise sovereignty without its own military or capability to tell outside forces to bugger off. Palestine would only be quasi-autonomous at best. 
• Regional Development Plan. Upon the Palestinian government accepting this plan, the U.S. government would inject over $50 billion over a ten-year period for various infrastructure and business projects with the goal of vitalizing the Palestinian economy. 

Now let's get back to the question of the hour: is this "the deal of the century?" Sure, we could be cynical about the deal by saying that Trump is helping out his friend Bibi Netanyahu in the upcoming Israeli elections while positioning himself for the November 2020 election. But let's assume this is a deal genuinely offered as a potential solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

While I think there are meritorious aspects of the plan, I still do not think it is the deal of the century because it is inoperable. Those who have criticized the plan have done so because they think it does not take into account the Palestinian side and leans heavily towards Israel. I find there are three reasons why this plan seems to lean in favor of Israel.

1. Israel is an ally of the United States. It always seemed peculiar to me to have the United States arbitrate past peace processes as if it were some neutral, objective third party. 
2. Having the Palestinian government ask for such concessions as Right to Return, control of all the land in the West Bank and Gaza, a divided Jerusalem, or pre-1967 borders either erode the Jewish nature of the State of Israel or are simply a security threat. What Palestine asks of Israel are de facto non-starters, which is anything but surprising. 
3. With the increased divisiveness between Israel and Palestine, the Palestinian government wants peace less than ever, and even the Israeli side has gotten tired of trying to negotiate after hearing "no" multiple times. The last time Palestine came to the table to talk was in 2014, and look how that turned out. 

In order to broker peace, all sides need to have an actual desire for peace. If you cannot do something as simple as recognize the other side's right to exist, then it's no wonder there has yet to have been an accepted peace plan. Rejecting a peace deal is hardly new. Arab leadership rejected the Peel Commission of 1937. They rejected the United Nations Partition Plan (Resolution 181) in 1947, as well as the Kharotum Resolution of 1967, the 2000 Camp David Summit proposal, the 2008 Olmert Plan...you get the idea. To be fair, the Oslo Accord was derailed by the Second Intifada, but that is beside the point. Arab leaders have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. What the Palestinian recalcitrance combined with their unreasonable demands signals is that they do not want peace with their Jewish neighbor. They would rather have a Middle East without a Jewish state. If that is the ultimate aim, nothing short of Israel's non-existence is the only acceptable solution.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said that "we [Israel] will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us [the Israelis]." Although that was uttered in 1973, that quote is sadly still relevant. It wouldn't matter if Trump were "more sensitive" to Palestinian needs on settlements or if he tried to set up a fund for Palestinian refugees. Perhaps Trump's plan could set precedent in which the Palestinian government would consider something more realistic in the future. But until there is a genuine desire of peace from both sides, any Israeli-Palestinian peace plan is mere pageantry.