The Roles of Four Important Contexts in Japan’s Carbon Neutrality Policy and Politics, 1990–2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written manuscript on Japanese climate policy formulation. To improve the manuscript for possible publication, the section on materials and methods needs some strengthening. The authors need to describe in more detail how the research material was identified and how the research material included in the narrative analysis was chosen. The analyzed material needs to be described in more detail, e.g. the number of different types of open source documents, in addition to the total from the CiNii database. A  detailed list of all analysed documents would be of interest to the readers. The authors also need to explain how the method (narrative analysis) was implemented, e.g. what were core narrative elements used, did they use a text analysis software, 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is good.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Ma,

 

Thank you for your insightful comments. We have carefully perused your suggestions and incorporated these into the revised manuscript. The correction has been marked in BLUE COLOUR.

 

COMMENTS: This is a well-written manuscript on Japanese climate policy formulation. To improve the manuscript for possible publication, the section on materials and methods needs some strengthening. The authors need to describe in more detail how the research material was identified and how the research material included in the narrative analysis was chosen. The analyzed material needs to be described in more detail, e.g. the number of different types of open source documents, in addition to the total from the CiNii database. A detailed list of all analysed documents would be of interest to the readers. The authors also need to explain how the method (narrative analysis) was implemented, e.g. what were core narrative elements used, did they use a text analysis software.

 

RESPONSE: Correction has been made (pp.2-3).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is focused on identifying the causes of important changes in Japan's climate policy between 1990 and 2020. It is based on the analysis of Japan's policy documents related to carbon neutrality and net-zero policy announced in October 2020. The authors show that this is the result of opposing influences. On the one hand, there is pressure to accept challenging targets for Japan, but some industrialized economies have not made legally binding commitments regarding these economies. At the same time, there is concern about potential negative impacts on the economic competitiveness of Japan. On the other hand, there is pressure from the international community and the problem of political leadership in Japan's internal politics. These factors can also be found in other countries, so one can agree with the authors' conclusions.

As a research method, narrative analysis was used as an important method in social research. The use of the method is justified because it is a qualitative analysis of the problem.

The time horizon of this climate policy is the year 2050. It can be recommended that the authors express their opinion on the reality of the goals set in 2020.

Special comments:

Line 33-34: I recommend an explanation of the numbers for individual countries for readers who are not familiar with the wording of the Kyoto Protocol.

Line 229: no source is cited, only the page.

Line 238: "MOE 2022" is not mentioned in the quotes.

Line 316-317: documents are not listed in the citations.

Line 647: the citation of this source at line 163 is not complete.

Formal note: different font sizes are used in References.

After making the edits, I recommend publishing the article.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Ma,

Thank you for your insightful comments. We have carefully perused your suggestions and incorporated these into the revised manuscript. The correction has been marked in GREEN COLOUR.

COMMENTS: The article is focused on identifying the causes of important changes in Japan's climate policy between 1990 and 2020. It is based on the analysis of Japan's policy documents related to carbon neutrality and net-zero policy announced in October 2020. The authors show that this is the result of opposing influences. On the one hand, there is pressure to accept challenging targets for Japan, but some industrialized economies have not made legally binding commitments regarding these economies. At the same time, there is concern about potential negative impacts on the economic competitiveness of Japan. On the other hand, there is pressure from the international community and the problem of political leadership in Japan's internal politics. These factors can also be found in other countries, so one can agree with the authors' conclusions.

As a research method, narrative analysis was used as an important method in social research. The use of the method is justified because it is a qualitative analysis of the problem.

The time horizon of this climate policy is the year 2050. It can be recommended that the authors express their opinion on the reality of the goals set in 2020.

Special comments:

Line 33-34: I recommend an explanation of the numbers for individual countries for readers who are not familiar with the wording of the Kyoto Protocol.

RESPONSE: The sentence has been rephrased (p. 1).

Line 229: no source is cited, only the page. Correction has been made (p. 5).

Line 238: "MOE 2022" is not mentioned in the quotes. Correction has been made (p. 5).

Line 316-317: documents are not listed in the citations. We did not include the documents (2015 Paris Agreement, 2015 Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and 2018 Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in the bibliography because they are well-known documents in general.

Line 647: the citation of this source at line 163 is not complete. The sentence has been rephrased to avoid misinterpretation (p. 4).

Formal note: different font sizes are used in References. Correction has been made.

After making the edits, I recommend publishing the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Roles of Four Important Contexts in Japan’s Carbon Neutrality Policy and Politics, 1990–2020

Christo Odeyemi and Takashi Sekiyama

The paper puts Japan’s “carbon neutrality and net-zero” (CNN) policy into context by examining four research questions. The paper relies heavily on the authors’ review of the literature as opposed to any specified methodology or approach, other than their four research questions.

There is no mention of Japan's change in emissions between 1990 and the present. What has Japan done in the way of emissions reduction? How does it rank compared with other G-7/G-20 countries? What is the response of the Japanese public to this?

There is no mention of the Fukushima nuclear event. Did that play any role in Japan’s reluctance to pushing for CNN more rapidly?

The paper is an interesting review of the events that lead up to Japan’s announcement in October 2022.

The title of the paper refers to 1990 through 2020, but the announcement was in October 2022. Should the title be changed?

1.10: The “four main findings” are listed, but what were the “four research questions”?

1.28: “coordination on global warming” – awkward way of describing what is happening.

1.27-42: References would be useful.

2-48: “In other words, it seems new to draw direct or indirect conclusions about the main factors behind the policy context that led Japan to announce its CNN policy in October 2020.”  Why does it seem new? Japan’s policy has not been described up to this point. Other research needs to be listed first and then “newness” of this paper can be described.

2-69: The four questions are finally described.

2-85: What (or who) is “Keidanren”? Whatever it is, it is somewhat defined on 4-188.

2-90: “In any case the open-source policy documents were read using Google and DeepL translators because the documents are not always written in English and one of the current authors is a foreigner who does not directly understand Japanese.” Thank you for admitting this.

3-119: “…why Japan unintentionally delayed…”  How do you know they were unintentionally delayed?  Pressure from the “influential stakeholders” (3-124) would seem to suggest the decision to delay was far from unintentional.

3-141: “…a clear 141 and fair commitment to the Kyoto Protocol”.  The fact that we are talking about fairness at the international level should be made clear earlier. I originally thought the paper was referring to fairness within different sectors in the country.

5-203: Is fairness and effectiveness within Japanese society and industry one of the concerns? Or is it simply at the international level?

5-215: “According to Arimura (2022), regarding the fact that “we faced opposition from the Japanese Industries,” “my voice was not heard” by the government.”  Awkward.

5-218: “For example, one would be inclined to think that Arimura conveyed this statement to a parliament less enthusiastic about what he has to say. However, it is clear that this is not the case, as the Japanese government actually invited Arimura for advice.”  It would be useful to emphasize the importance (if any) of Professor Arimura in this debate. My first thought was, does his view matter?

5-222: “How Has the Term Climate Crisis Contributed to the Need for CNN Policy?”.  Excellent question.

5-228: “…climate crisis framing is clearly clear.”  How much clearer that “clear” can something become? Drop the adverb “clearly”.

6-254: “CGW” what is the Council on Global Warming? Is it a Japanese organization? How important is it? Clarify.

6-299: “When it comes to getting serious about political leadership at a time when it is becoming increasingly important, both Yoshihide Suga and the late Shinzo Abe admittedly did their best during their tenure, at least with regard to CNN as an important political agenda.”  The style of writing in this paper is very informal and is not academic. I would recommend that this be corrected.

6-302: “Five weeks and a few days…”  Either give the number of days (5 x 7 + the “few days”) or say “shortly after”.

7-307: Clarify “zero-based”.

7-338: “…Japan no longer takes unnecessary cues from US policy action…”.  Why “unnecessary”?

8-337: “…particular timing has not yet received sufficient attention in the literature.”  Is the timing of the announcement that important? The reason given, “…landmark effort to properly align Japan’s climate concerns (and/or interests) with the global CNN agenda.” (8-378) would appear to have little to do with timing, other than it was announced just before COP-27.

9-432: “…Japan’s announcement of CNN policy is still commendable.”  By whom?  Why?  And announcement mean little without concrete action.

9-433: “Looking back, among major industrialised countries and interstate institutions, the EU, the United Kingdom, Japan and the US announced their CNN policies in November 2019, December 2019, October 2020 and January 2021 respectively.”  This is confusing. The previous sentence says Japan’s policy was announced in October 2022, but in this sentence it is apparently October 2020. Please clarify.

10-470: “That development is not too surprising. Keidanren skilfully practices two-pronged advocacy on behalf of climate-forcing assets and owners of climate-vulnerable assets. This is a matter of prioritising the interests of each group of owners, depending on the prevailing circumstances at a given time.”  Does this mean Keidanren’s policy could switch again?

10-484: The Conclusions give a good summary of the paper and the events it covers.

11-522: “In this context, Japan had six prime ministers between 2006 and 2012 (Abe 2006; Yasuo Fukuda 2007; Tarō Asō 2008; Yukio Hatoyama 2009; Naoto Kan 2010; Yoshihiko Noda 2011; Abe 2012). With the exception of Abe, who held office from 2012 to 2020, each prime minister was in office for about one year.”  This would have been useful to know earlier in the paper, since unstable, short-term governments find it impossible to make long-term commitments.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The style is informal in a number of places. This seems out-of-place in an academic journal.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Ma,

Thank you for your insightful comments. We have carefully perused your suggestions and incorporated these into the revised manuscript. The correction has been marked in RED COLOUR.

COMMENTS: The paper puts Japan’s “carbon neutrality and net-zero” (CNN) policy into context by examining four research questions. The paper relies heavily on the authors’ review of the literature as opposed to any specified methodology or approach, other than their four research questions.

There is no mention of Japan’s change in emissions between 1990 and the present. What has Japan done in the way of emissions reduction? How does it rank compared with other G-7/G-20 countries? What is the response of the Japanese public to this?

There is no mention of the Fukushima nuclear event. Did that play any role in Japan’s reluctance to pushing for CNN more rapidly? We have now included the relevant details (p. 8; p. 9).

The paper is an interesting review of the events that lead up to Japan’s announcement in October 2022.

The title of the paper refers to 1990 through 2020, but the announcement was in October 2022. Should the title be changed? There’s no need to amend the title. Japan announced its CNN policy in October 2020.

1.10: The “four main findings” are listed, but what were the “four research questions”? The questions are now listed in the Abstract section (p. 1).

1.28: “coordination on global warming” – awkward way of describing what is happening. The sentence has been reworded (p. 1).

1.27-42: References would be useful. Relevant citations are provided in the revised paper (pp. 1-2).

2-48: “In other words, it seems new to draw direct or indirect conclusions about the main factors behind the policy context that led Japan to announce its CNN policy in October 2020.”  Why does it seem new? Japan’s policy has not been described up to this point. Other research needs to be listed first and then “newness” of this paper can be described. The sentence has been reworded (p. 2).

2-69: The four questions are finally described.

2-85: What (or who) is “Keidanren”? Whatever it is, it is somewhat defined on 4-188. The definition of “Keidanren” is as in the original manuscript (p. 2).

2-90: “In any case the open-source policy documents were read using Google and DeepL translators because the documents are not always written in English and one of the current authors is a foreigner who does not directly understand Japanese.” Thank you for admitting this.

3-119: “…why Japan unintentionally delayed…”  How do you know they were unintentionally delayed?  Pressure from the “influential stakeholders” (3-124) would seem to suggest the decision to delay was far from unintentional. The sentence has been reworded (Section 3.1, paras. 1-2).

3-141: “…a clear 141 and fair commitment to the Kyoto Protocol”.  The fact that we are talking about fairness at the international level should be made clear earlier. I originally thought the paper was referring to fairness within different sectors in the country. Correction has been made (Section 3.1, para. 1).

5-203: Is fairness and effectiveness within Japanese society and industry one of the concerns? Or is it simply at the international level? The sentence was rephrased to reflect the international level (p.5, para. 2).

5-215: “According to Arimura (2022), regarding the fact that “we faced opposition from the Japanese Industries,” “my voice was not heard” by the government.”  Awkward.

5-218: “For example, one would be inclined to think that Arimura conveyed this statement to a parliament less enthusiastic about what he has to say. However, it is clear that this is not the case, as the Japanese government actually invited Arimura for advice.”  It would be useful to emphasize the importance (if any) of Professor Arimura in this debate. My first thought was, does his view matter? For the sake of simplicity, the description of Arimura’s statement has been deleted.

5-222: “How Has the Term Climate Crisis Contributed to the Need for CNN Policy?”.  Excellent question.

5-228: “…climate crisis framing is clearly clear.”  How much clearer that “clear” can something become? Drop the adverb “clearly”. Correction has been made (Section 3.3, para. 1).

6-254: “CGW” what is the Council on Global Warming? Is it a Japanese organization? How important is it? Clarification has been made (p. 5, para. 5).

6-299: “When it comes to getting serious about political leadership at a time when it is becoming increasingly important, both Yoshihide Suga and the late Shinzo Abe admittedly did their best during their tenure, at least with regard to CNN as an important political agenda.”  The style of writing in this paper is very informal and is not academic. I would recommend that this be corrected. The sentence has been reworded (p. 6, para. 4).

6-302: “Five weeks and a few days…”  Either give the number of days (5 x 7 + the “few days”) or say “shortly after”. Correction has been made (p. 6, para. 4).

7-307: Clarify “zero-based”. Clarification has been made (p. 6, para. 4).

7-338: “…Japan no longer takes unnecessary cues from US policy action…”.  Why “unnecessary”? The word “unnecessary” was deleted (p. 7, para. 4).

8-337: “…particular timing has not yet received sufficient attention in the literature.”  Is the timing of the announcement that important? The reason given, “…landmark effort to properly align Japan’s climate concerns (and/or interests) with the global CNN agenda.”

(8-378) would appear to have little to do with timing, other than it was announced just before COP-27. The sentence has been rephrased to avoid confusion (p. 8, para. 2).

9-432: “…Japan’s announcement of CNN policy is still commendable.”  By whom?  Why?  And announcement mean little without concrete action. The sentence was deleted to avoid confusion.

9-433: “Looking back, among major industrialised countries and interstate institutions, the EU, the United Kingdom, Japan and the US announced their CNN policies in November 2019, December 2019, October 2020 and January 2021 respectively.”  This is confusing. The previous sentence says Japan’s policy was announced in October 2022, but in this sentence it is apparently October 2020. Please clarify. The sentence has been corrected (p. 9, para. 1).

10-470: “That development is not too surprising. Keidanren skilfully practices two-pronged advocacy on behalf of climate-forcing assets and owners of climate-vulnerable assets. This is a matter of prioritising the interests of each group of owners, depending on the prevailing circumstances at a given time.”  Does this mean Keidanren’s policy could switch again? To avoid misunderstanding, the sentence was deleted.

10-484: The Conclusions give a good summary of the paper and the events it covers.

11-522: “In this context, Japan had six prime ministers between 2006 and 2012 (Abe 2006; Yasuo Fukuda 2007; Tarō Asō 2008; Yukio Hatoyama 2009; Naoto Kan 2010; Yoshihiko Noda 2011; Abe 2012). With the exception of Abe, who held office from 2012 to 2020, each prime minister was in office for about one year.”  This would have been useful to know earlier in the paper, since unstable, short-term governments find it impossible to make long-term commitments. This omission has been addressed (Section 3.4, para. 2).