Saitama

Fukuoka

Kyoto

Chiba

Saga

Osaka

Tokyo

Nagasaki

Hyogo

Kanagawa

Kumamoto

Nara

Niigata

Hokkaido

Oita

Wakayama

Toyama

Aomori

Miyazaki

Tottori

Ishikawa

Iwate

Kagoshima

Shimane

Fukui

Miyagi

Okinawa

Okayama

Yamanashi

Akita

Hiroshima

Nagano

Yamagata

Yamaguchi

Gifu

Fukushima

Tokushima

Shizuoka

Ibaraki

Kagawa

Aichi

Tochigi

Ehime

Gunma

Kochi

Shiga

Japan

renewables should account for 36-38% of power supplies in 2030, double 2019’s level and well above its previous 2030 target for 22-24%

Target 100% of artificial seedling rates in aquaculture by 2050

Target 90%+ superior varities and F1 plus trees in forestry seedling by 2050

Target 30% enhancement in productivity of food manufacturers by 2030

Target increase in organic farming to 1Mha by 2050

Targets 30% reduction in chemical fertilizer use by 2050

Target 50% reduciton in risk-weighted use of chemical pesticides by 2050

Target zero CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion ina griculture, forestry and fisheries by 2050

Target to increase number of FCVs in Japan to 40,000 units by 2020

Aim to develop commercial-scale supply chains by 'around' 2030 to procure 300,000 tons of hydrogen annually and reduce the cost of hydrogen to 30 yen/NM3

Target 26% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (from 2013 levels)

Target to cut the unit hydrogen power generation cost to 17 YEN/kWh around 2030.

Target 1,200 fuel cell buses and 10,000 fuel cell forklifts by 2030.

Target 200,000 fuel cell vehicles by 2025 and 800,000 by 2030

Target installation of hydrogen stations at 320 locations by 2025 and make the hydrogen station business self-reliant by the second half of the 2020s.

Target oil and natural gas independent development ratio of 40% in 2030 and to maintain the coal independent development ratio at 60% in 2030.

Target 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050

Target 26% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030

Target introducing 1.4 million units of stationary fuel clls in households by 2020 and 5.3 million units by 2030.

Target net-zero energy for standard newly constructed houses by 2020 and for all newly constructed houses by 2030

Target net zero energy for newly constructed public buildings by 2020 and for all newly constructed buildings by 2030

With regard to highly efficient lighting equipment, target penetration rate of 100% on a flow basis by 2020 and on a stock basis by 2020.

Promoting a decarbonized society in Japan by 2050

Zero CO2 emission from the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors

More than 3.8% reduction by FY2020 compared to by 2020 against a 2005 baseline

26% GHG emission reduction by 2030 compared with a 2013 baseline

Long-term goal to pursue 80% reduction by 2050 against a 2013 baseline

Storage battery business will capture a share of 50% in the global storage battery market (20 trillion yen) by 2020 against a 2014 baseline

100% diffusion of high efficient light such as LED by FY2030 on stock base  by 2030 against a 2016 baseline

GOJ continues expanding subjects of Top Runner Program, and regarding highly efficient lighting equipment (e.g. LED lighting and organic EL lighting), we aim to achieve a penetration rate of 100% on a flow basis by 2020 and on a stock basis by 2030 by 2020, 2030 against a 2014 baseline

Makes sales of electric vehicles, FCV etc. sales account for 50 to 70% of new automobile sales  by 2030

16 young people from Japan nationwide, from Hokkaido to Kyushu, filed a case in the Nagoya District Court against 10 thermal power companies, including JERA Corporation, asking for an injunction against CO2 emissions based on the scientific standards. To ensure the plaintiffs and young people across Japan live tomorrow and, in the future, the defendants, the major Japanese electric power companies must decarbonize by the 2030s at least to limit the rise in average global temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This case demands the defendants’ implementation of the emission reductions required by science. As we enter the era of "global boiling," temperature rises are approaching 1.5°C worldwide, including Japan. We have already experienced extreme heat of over 40°C. 

On July 25, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated that temperature will continue to rise. He also noted that extreme heat is the new normal, which is increasingly straining economies, increasing inequality, and costing people their lives. He pointed out the anthropogenic climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels as the cause, to call for accelerated emission reductions. The situation requires immediate and decisive action. The CO2 emissions of Japan's power generation sector (390 million tons), including the defendants, equates to 16th place in the global ranking of emissions by country. It is also Japan’s largest emitting sector, accounting for about 40% of Japan's energy-derived CO2 emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) and the G7 agreement also demand carbon neutrality of the power sector by 2035. The defendants of 10 companies, Japan's largest thermal power producers including JERA, are responsible for 333 million tons of CO2 emissions (in 2019), equivalent to 33% of Japan's energy-derived CO2 emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for a 48% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 and a 65% reduction by 2035 compared to 2019 levels to achieve the 1.5°C target (50% confidence). Avoiding dangerous climate change is the world's greatest common concern, to reduce emission reductions to the levels required by the IPCC. 

Large emitting companies in Japan, which is a developed country, are also obligated to reduce their emissions to this level. The same should be applied to the defendants, the power generators, as a minimum obligation. However, the 2030 reduction targets proposed by the defendants are not only below the requisite level but are also extremely inadequate in that they continue to use coal-fired power generation and rely on technically unproven technologies such as hydrogen, ammonia co-firing, and CCS, all of which have little effect on emission reduction. Moreover, the defendants have not even set the 2035 target at all except JERA, which has set only a 40% reduction target from 2019 levels. In light of these circumstances, it is nearly impossible to assert that they are developing a plan that aligns with the 1.5°C objective. The plaintiffs filed this case in order to be protected from the even more severe impact of climate change, claiming the court’s order for the defendants to fulfil their legal obligation to reduce their emissions The plaintiffs also expect the defendants to shift to a renewable energy company.

The First hearing was held on October 24, 2024, where the ten defendant companies made it clear that they would fight. The next hearing date is set for February 18, 2025.

On May 27, 2019, 45 Japanese citizens filed suit to block the construction of a new coal-fired power plant. The plaintiffs filed a legal challenge against the Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, seeking cancelation of the notice of finalization of the environmental impact assessment for the construction of two new coal-fired generating units - totaling 1,300 MW - at the Yokosuka power plant. The plaintiffs allege that JERA, the plant operator, improperly exploited a streamlined assessment process for replacements or upgrades that the Japanese Government created after the Fukushima Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

On January 27, 2023, the Tokyo District Court delivered a judgment that dealt with the request to cancel the Notice of Confirmation issued by the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, who confirmed the Environmental Impact Assessment of JERA under Article 46 (17) (ii) of the Electricity Business Act. Firstly, the judgment discussed if the Notice of Confirmation was considered disposition against which an administrative complaint could be made. On this point, the Court determined that the Notice of Confirmation was considered disposition within the meaning of Article 3 (2) of the Administrative Case Litigation Act since the recipient of the Notice was an essential requirement for starting the operation of a power plant and granted legal status to JERA. Secondly, the judgment discussed if the Plaintiffs had standing and to what extent claims could be made. The Court stated that those persons who lived close to the coal-fired power plant and were likely to directly suffer significant damage from air pollution had legal interests to request the cancelation of the Notice of Confirmation. On the other hand, the Court stated that the damage from climate change could not be considered an individual interest to be protected by law. Thus, the Court recognized the standing of the Plaintiffs who lived within 20 km of the coal-fired power plant related to air pollution but did not recognize the standing and claims related to climate change and CO2 emissions. Lastly, the judgment discussed if the Notice of Confirmation was legal. The Court stated that the consideration of the alternative fuels was not obligatory and the use of the simplified procedure of the assessment was rational when the nature of the power plant (in this case, replacement) fell under the scope the rationalized guidelines. Therefore, the use of the simplified procedure in accordance with the rationalized guidelines was not against the Power Plant Assessment Ordinance and there were no procedural defects in the assessment of the impact of air pollution. Moreover, the Court stated that there were no reasons to predict that the level of the environmental impact would increase by the construction. The Court concluded that the Notice of Confirmation was legal as its content was adequate and there was no deviation nor abuse of power by the Minister.

On the same day, the Citizens’ Committee released a statement saying that the judgment was unjust, for the Court rejected the standing of the plaintiffs in relation to climate change and determined that the evaluation of PM 2.5 and consideration of the use of alternative fuels were not necessary.

On February 9, 2023, the citizens submitted a statement of appeal, and the following arguments are made in the appeal procedure. 

Firstly, the citizens claim that the judgment of the District Court did not recognize the danger of climate change as fact, although  the significant damage caused by climate change such as an increase in the number of extremely hot days and also an increase in the precipitation have been observed in their residential area.  They particularly emphasized the destruction of marine ecosystems due to the impact of climate change and the fact that fishermen are being deprived of their means of livelihood.

Secondly, the citizens contest their lack of standing with regard to GHG emissions. The citizens argue that their health and living environment are exposed to risks and the interests to not suffer damage from GHG emissions should not be absorbed into public interests which do not assign standing but should be recognized as  individual concrete interests.

Thirdly, the citizens argue that the lack of consideration of the use of alternative fuels is a serious procedural flaw in the Notice of Confirmation. They also contest the District Court’s inadequately wide recognition of governmental discretion on issuing the alleged notice. 

Fourthly, the citizens argue that there have been procedural flaws during the EIA, including the lack of consideration of carbon dioxide emissions at the planning phase. They also contend that the conducted assessment ignores the perspective of environmental conservation through transparency of the decision-making process and effective public participation, which is a fundamental requirement of EIA, and that the assessment did not examine the consistency with the Paris Agreement.

Finally, the citizens argue that the use of the simplified EIA procedure is illegal since the present plan does not meet the criteria, such as the reduction of environmental impact as a result of the replacement of the power plants. 

On February 22, 2024, the Tokyo High Court dismissed all of the citizensʼ (appellants) appeals. Firstly, regarding the non-recognition of the threat of climate change in the first instance judgment, the court recognized the danger of climate change as fact, citing both the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°. The court stated that "Indeed, it is a serious and grave situation that climate change is causing weather disasters and changes in ocean conditions in various parts of the world, including Japan, and causing various damages to people.” On this point, the court acknowledged the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems, in response to the appellants' claims. Secondly, concerning the standing, the court stated that the Basic Matters relating to the Guidelines to be Established by the Competent Minister in Accordance with the Provisions of the EIA Act, as well as Ministerial Order of EIA, clearly treats GHG differently from other evaluation items for which studies, forecasts, and assessments should be conducted to ascertain the effects on human health and the living environment, with the aim of ensuring the protection of human health and the preservation of the living environment.
Consequently, the court concluded that the regulations governing CO2 did not include the intent to protect the individual interests of each person. Furthermore, it stated that "the interest to not suffer damage caused by global warming due to CO2 cannot be legally protected as concrete individual interests that are not absorbed by general public interests” because the alleged power plant is not considered to particularly increase the threat of damage in relation to a specific range of individuals. Thirdly, regarding the non-consideration of the alternatives of fuel sources, the court denied illegality because the based regulations of the conducted EIA "only require consideration of multiple alternatives for the structure or layout of the power generation facilities, the location where the project will be implemented, or the scale of the project.” Fourthly, regarding the fact that carbon dioxide has not been selected as a consideration factor at the planning phase, the court stated that “The annual emissions of CO2 from the operation of the new power plant (approximately 7.26 million tCO2/year) are only about 1/5000th of the global CO2 emissions in 2015 and about 0.64% of Japan's total CO2 emissions in 2006. The CO2 emitted by the thermal power plant itself does not directly affect the environment. It causes climate change on a global scale in combination with emissions from other sources, to materialize natural disasters resulting various types of damage. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the CO2 emissions from the new power plant alone will significantly increase the scale or frequency of damage caused by disasters due to global warming." Additionally, the court noted that the alleged operator plans to adopt USE power generation equipment to reduce CO2 emissions. Further, the EIA Guideline for power plants states that CO2 is not an item that is expected to have a significant environmental impact in a typical project. Consequently, the court concluded that it was not illegal not to select CO2 as a consideration factor in the planning stage. Fifthly, regarding the application of the Improvement and Replacement Rationalization Guideline, the applied "Simplified Replacement Assessment" in this case is principally applicable in the case of replacement when the environmental impact has been reduced. In reality, however, the power plant before the replacement in this case had hardly been in operation since 2000. Thus, in 2015, when the construction of the two power plants was planned, the local air quality had improved considerably and stably. However, the court held that, even under these circumstances, a reduction in the actual environmental impact compared to recent operations was not a necessary requirement for the application of the Simplified Replacement Assessment. Therefore, there was nothing illegal in applying this type of Assessment on the grounds that emissions were lower than in 1970, when the plant was operating at maximum capacity.

On April 30, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Japan, claiming violation of human rights, due process, and procedural defect of environmental impact assessment. 

On October 23, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected the request for a final appeal, and the judgment by the Tokyo High Court was upheld. The Supreme Court stated that it did not find grounds for a final appeal under Article 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure but no specific reasons were given.

On September 14, 2018, thirty-one families filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the construction and operation of two units at a coal-fired plant in Kobe, Japan. The plaintiffs are represented by the Citizens' Committee on the Kobe Coal-Fired Power Plant and named Kobe Steel Ltd., Kobelco Power Kobe No. 2 Inc., and Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. as defendants.  According to the plaintiffs, the new units would have a total output of 1,300 megawatts and emit 0.6% of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions from energy. They assert that the construction and operation of the new coal-fired units would violate the right to clean air and a healthy and clean environment, and the right to enjoy a stable climate; conflict with Japan's 2030 and 2050 climate targets; and pollute residential areas where air quality standards are already being violated.  

On March 20, 2023, the Kobe District Court delivered a judgment discussing the request for an injunction to the construction and operation of the coal-fired power plants. 

Firstly, the Kobe District Court discussed whether air pollution caused by the coal-fired power plants would violate the personal rights of the citizens. As for those Plaintiffs who live far from Kobe city, the Court said that there was no threat of a violation of personal rights to life, bodily integrity, and health by the emission of air pollutants from the power plants in question.  As for the other Plaintiffs, the Court examined whether there was a ‘concrete danger’ to determine a violation of personal rights. To determine this, the Court considered the Notice of Finalization that affirmed the assessment of SO2, NO2, SPM, and mercury and concluded that those substances would not create a concrete danger to the citizens. Further, regarding PM2.5, which was not included in the assessment, the Court considered the outcome of the simulation but did not recognize the existence of a concrete danger either. Consequently, the Court did not find a violation of personal rights to life, bodily integrity, and health. 

Secondly, the Kobe District Court determined whether air pollution caused by the coal-fired power plants would violate the right to a peaceful life. The Court repeated that there was no concrete danger to life or health and stated that granting an injunction based on non-serious anxiety about a healthy life could not limit socio-economic activities. Hence, the Court concluded that there was no violation of the right to a peaceful life.

Thirdly, the Court discussed whether climate change aggravated by using coal-fired power plants would violate personal rights. On this point, the Court states that climate change is likely to occur in Hyogo as the progression of global warming would affect the entire earth and the Plaintiffs may suffer damage. Yet, the Court continues by saying that there are many uncertain factors including the level of damage by disasters and the place where a disaster actually happens. Moreover, the Plaintiffs argued that the existence of a concrete danger should be judged by the level of danger of climate change by considering the carbon emission reduction targets by the international community. The Court stated that the concrete danger could not be equated with the danger of global warming as a whole since the concrete danger of damage to the Plaintiffs needed to be determined based on damage that global warming would cause to each individual whereas the reduction targets aimed at preventing global warming for the whole earth. 

Further, the Court stated that the operation of the coal-fired power plants would not immediately render achieving the reduction targets impossible. Thus, the Court did not recognize the existence of a concrete danger to the Plaintiffs’ life, bodily integrity, and health, while it stated that there could be an abstract danger by the emission of CO2 that could aggravate global warming.

Lastly, the Court discussed whether climate change would violate the right to a peaceful life, or the right to a stable climate, which the Plaintiffs claimed as being included in the right to a peaceful life. First, the Court stated that the Plaintiffs’ anxiety about climate change was not serious, as it was about the uncertain danger in the future. Second, the Court said that the Plaintiffs’ claim was considered as a request to protect the environment in the absence of a concrete danger and that the right to a stable climate was not legally protected. Third, the Court stated that even if those points were affirmative, the responsibility could not be unilaterally attributed to the new coal-fired power plants in question. In conclusion, the Kobe District Court did not find grounds for an injunction. 

On April 1, 2023, the citizens appealed the judgment. Thirty-four people appealed, and the process began on October 10, 2023. As their primary claim, the appellants sought an injunction against the operation of the power plant and an injunction against Kansai Electric Power's instructions to generate electricity. As a preliminary claim, they sought a phased emission reduction toward the future so that carbon dioxide emissions will be zero by 2040, since the international goal is to eliminate all coal-fired power plants worldwide by the same year.

The appellants, opposing the District Court decision, argued that their rights should be evaluated as being infringed by the state of being exposed to countless individual damages and the continuation of such a lifestyle, without actually having specific disasters. Specifically, the appellants insisted that "being forced to live in a climate unstable world with a temperature increase of over 1.5 degrees Celsius, where life and health are in danger and social instability” itself is a violation of their rights. Moreover, they claimed that not all CO2 emissions are illegal, but only those that would make achieving the 1.5 °C target impossible. They alleged that the appellees’ emissions fall under this category.

On October 23, 2024, an expert witness's testimony on climate change was heard, and the pleadings concluded. 

On April 24, 2024, the Osaka High Court dismissed the appeal. Regarding plaintiffs’ claim of an injunction based on personal rights in the context of climate change (the right to live a healthy and safe life in a world without a temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius), the court acknowledged that the effects of climate change on life, body, health, etc. are not merely a matter of concern. Still, it held that the relationship is indirect and abstract, and that such legal interests cannot be incorporated into moral rights, because there is no concrete harm that could justify restricting the actions of others. As for causation, the court denied the legal causation between the climate harm claimed by the appellants and emissions from the defendant's plant because of the weakness and uncertainty in attributing liability to injure their social and economic activities.

On November 19, 2018, twelve residents of the Japanese city of Kobe filed an administrative action against the government seeking more ambitious action on climate change. The plaintiffs asked the Osaka District Court to compel the government to cancel the notice of finalization of an environmental assessment of two new coal-fired units, which the plaintiffs allege would emit about 7 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. The plaintiffs also seek an order finding that the government has unlawfully failed to establish regulatory standards consistent with the Paris Agreement. 

On March 15, 2021, the Osaka District Court rejected the plaintiffs’ request to cancel the Notice of Finalization issued by the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, concerning the construction plan of the new coal-fired Units based on two reasons. Firstly, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing since there was a general rather individual public interest in the potential health damages caused by global warming. Secondly, the Court determined that the Notice of Finalization was not illegal as the decision of the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry was neither deviation nor abuse of discretionary power.

On March 26, 2021, the citizens filed an appeal. In the Statement of Appeal, the Plaintiffs argued that the emission of GHG can be a violation of human rights of individuals as climate change damages a person’s life, body, and property. Moreover, they claim that the denial of standing is a violation of their right of access to the courts. Further, they demand the court to revisit the appropriateness of the environmental impact assessment and the Notice of Finalization. 

On April 26, 2022, the Osaka High Court upheld the judgment by the Osaka District Court rejecting the request of the appellant’s to revoke the Notice of Finalization. In this judgment, the Osaka High Court discussed whether the appellants had standing under administrative law and whether the Notice of Finalization was illegal. Regarding the first point of the dispute, the court stated that there must a legally protected individual interest to have standing under administrative law. While the court recognized the standing of the appellants in relation to air pollution, the court ruled that the interest of the appellants do not include climate damage and that CO2 emissions are not recognized as a legally protected interest in the current society. The court further states that this interest should be pursued in the policy-making process as a general public interest. However, the court does not deny the possibility of a future change in this interpretation. If there is a change in the social situation or understanding, the interest to not incur damage through climate change and the CO2 emissions may be recognized as a legally protected individual interest.

Regarding the second point, the legality of the Notice of Finalization, the court was not able to determine its legality based on the CO2 emissions as this was a policy issue. Moreover, concerning the lack of consideration of PM 2.5 emissions and concerns related to the emissions of other pollutants, the court stated that there was no deviation nor abuse of the discretionary power. Thus, the Notice of Finalization was legal. The citizens expressed their intent to further bring the case to the Supreme Court.

On May 6, 2022, the citizens filed a final appeal and asked the supreme court to reverse the judgment given on April 26, 2022.

On March 9, 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the request for a final appeal and the judgment by the Osaka High Court was upheld. The Supreme Court stated that it did not find grounds for a final appeal under Article 312 of the Code of Civil Procedure but no specific reasons were given.

Geography

Japan

Recent cases