Connect with us

Published

on

This story was supported by the Pulitzer Center

Fourteen years after the Fukushima disaster, Japan is restarting its nuclear reactors – and two wind-blown near-deserted fishing villages on the northern island of Hokkaido could be the destination for all their radioactive waste.

But, while some residents of Suttsu and Kamoenai welcome the government money that volunteering to store the waste will bring, others are fiercely opposed due to fears that the nuclear waste will contaminate their land and water.

The controversy could delay Japan’s goals to use carbon-free nuclear energy to replace electricity generation from expensive imported fossil fuels and cut greenhouse gas emissions on the way to net zero by 2050.

Takeshi Kuramochi, a climate policy researcher at the NewClimate Institute, called the nuclear waste issue a “showstopper” for nuclear development. He added that, if Japan fails to meet its nuclear targets, it will likely resort to fossil fuels to fill the gap as the country has been “very slow on implementing renewable energy.”

Japan’s nuclear history

Japan first started using nuclear power to generate electricity in the 1960s and, by the twenty-first century, it was one of the nation’s main energy sources. As the island nation lacks fossil fuels and relies mostly on imports, nuclear power was seen as a path to energy independence as well as to reining in climate change.

But everything changed in 2011 when a powerful earthquake and tsunami disabled the Fukushima nuclear power plant’s cooling systems, causing nuclear fuel in three of its reactors to overheat and melt down, releasing radioactive materials into the air and ocean.

While no one was killed by the nuclear disaster directly, over 150,000 people were evacuated and some severely ill hospital patients did not survive their relocation. All of Japan’s nuclear power stations were shut down while new safety standards were drawn up. Well over a decade on, only 14 of its 54 reactors have been restarted.

Without electricity from these power stations, Japan resorted to increasing its use of gas and coal. While the EU, US and UK all more than halved their coal emissions between 2011 and 2023, Japan’s stayed the same.

But as memories of Fukushima fade for some, and global fossil fuel prices skyrocket, support for nuclear is again growing in Japan. In 2014, polls suggested 16% of Japanese people wanted an immediate phase-out of nuclear power but in 2024 that figure was just 5%.

With this in mind, earlier this year Japan announced a contentious plan to boost nuclear energy in its mix from the current level of 8.5% to 20% by 2040 – back up to its pre-Fukushima levels – as the country strives to realise its net-zero goal by 2050.

Nuclear waste storage

Standing in the way of those ambitions is nuclear energy’s Achilles heel – radioactive waste storage. When used up, the uranium rods that produce nuclear energy need to be disposed of. The spent rods are highly radioactive and hot, so they are usually buried — permanently — deep underground.

Jacopo Buongiorno, professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that, although storing waste is “actually pretty straightforward”, it is also often highly controversial around the world. He emphasised that current technology can prevent leakages of high-level waste after they are put underground, as long as the assessment for a site is done right.

Japan’s waste is currently being stored at an interim facility on its main island in Aomori Prefecture — despite some local opposition. This facility can only house the waste for 50 years and, as of 2023, 80% of its storage space was filled up.

Exhibition board showing how Japan handles nuclear waste at Tomari nuclear power plant exhibition hall in April 2025 (Photo: Chermaine Lee)

There was a government plan to reprocess the waste to recycle the energy. But a plant designed to do so has been delayed and research took a hit after Fukushima, casting doubt on the technique.

Japan, like other producers of nuclear energy, now has the urgent and challenging task of looking for a site to permanently store such waste.

To convince local governments to volunteer to store it under their land, the Japanese government offered two billion yen ($14 million) to any village that consented to literature surveys of key criteria, including past earthquake records.

If the survey found them suitable, a further seven billion yen ($49 million) would be the reward for entering the four-year second stage of the selection process involving a site study. The last stage, which lasts for 14 years, would see a more detailed assessment with test tunnels and mock facilities, but the amount of subsidy for that has yet to be determined.

The only municipalities through to the second stage so far are two tiny fishing villages in Hokkaido. Suttsu and Kamoenai are both within an hour’s drive of the Tomari nuclear power plant and have ageing populations, as in many of Japan’s rural areas.

Kamoenai Village on October 8, 2020. (Photo: The Yomiuri Shimbun )

Villages of Suttsu and Kamoenai

Climate Home visited both villages in spring and heard that the nuclear waste issue was at the top of people’s minds, although opinions on it differed sharply. Dotted with worn houses along a wavy coastline, the streets of Kamoenai looked grey and were near-deserted. Most residents were tight-lipped about the issue.

At the tourist information centre where she works, Toritani Taeko told Climate Home that “nuclear waste isn’t a big deal, but it has to be safe”. Besides, she said, “it’s set in stone already so no point in opposing”.

Sato Tazunori, a silver-haired sushi chef, said that the two billion yen ($14m) for the first stage helped with the repair of the fishing pier. Living near the Tomari nuclear plant for years has made locals accustomed to staying near nuclear facilities, he added.

But an hour’s drive away in Suttsu, where one of Japan’s first wind farms was built, opinions were more polarised. Electrical store owner Tana Noriyuki said the money helps the village pay for resources like a dormitory for nursing workers and a school.

The nurse dormitory in Suttsu, which was part-funded by money from the nuclear waste storage site evaluation (Photo: Chermaine Lee)

However, Nobuka Miki, co-chair of a group fighting against nuclear waste and mother to a teenage daughter, said a potential underground disposal site there could harm future generations, while the seafood produced in the village could suffer.

Suttsu’s nuclear fate will effectively be decided in November’s Mayoral elections. The current pro-waste mayor, who declined to speak to Climate Home, is likely to be challenged by anti-waste 41-year-old Shingo Ogushi.

Ogushi came to Suttsu in his early 30s to study the local cherry trout, but in 2020, in order to challenge the mayor’s decision to volunteer for the site study, he quit and intends to run against him in this year’s mayoral election. He told Climate Home that a pier might have to be built to transport nuclear waste to the village. If so, he said this could disturb the marine ecosystem and the fishing industry.

Pro-nuclear voices argue that more needs to be done to win public support for nuclear energy and nuclear waste, while critics argue the technology should be dropped – at least in earthquake-prone Japan.

Indigenous rights: Ainu people

Nuclear waste storage is also controversial among the Indigenous people of Hokkaido – the Ainu. Although there are no current Ainu communities in either of the two villages and less than 20,000 Ainu on the whole of Hokkaido, they were the almost sole inhabitants of the island until the Japanese took over in the 19th century.

ann-elise iewallen, a professor at the University of California specialising in indigenous and environmental rights said that, because of the lack of Ainu consent for nuclear waste storage on Hokkaido, Japan is engaging ini “energy colonialism”.

iewallen – who decapitalises her name as a gesture towards resisting hierarchy – warned of the risk that “part of Hokkaido can be carved out as a kind of nuclear extractive zone”.

The names Suttsu and Kamoenai come from the Ainu language, according to Hiroshi Maruyama, director of Japan’s Centre for Environmental and Minority Policy Studies. Ainu people “feel closer to the land than Japanese settlers”, he added.

Fumio Kimura, an Ainu activist in Hokkaido, said that “any nuclear waste on our land is horrible and our right to the land shouldn’t be neglected”. “Japanese people robbed our land, so why can’t we voice it out?” she asked.

Ainu musician Oki Kano told Climate Home that nuclear waste is regarded as “poison” in Ainu’s philosophy, which seeks a balance between human and nature.

But Kazuaki Kaizawa, secretary general of the government-funded Ainu Association of Hokkaido, said that while nuclear energy and other modern technologies are traditionally regarded as unnatural in Ainu philosophy, those principles can not be fully applied in the modern world. He added that, as Hokkaido has been part of Japan for over a hundred years, Indigenous land rights are no longer practical.

In 2007, Japan was among the 143 countries that voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The declaration states that governments shall “take effective measures” to “ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous people without their free, prior and informed consent.”

But the declaration is non-binding and Japanese law does not currently recognise the Ainu peoples’ rights to Hokkaido’s land, although a court case over salmon fishing rights may change this.

A way forward

Takatoshi Imada, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology who has published research on public opinion of the nuclear waste system, said that, to avoid the division seen in Suttsu, an organisation outside of government should select 20 or so sites and engage their communities in “deliberative dialogue” to win their support for waste storage.

But New Climate Institute’s Kuramochi said that finding a storage site far away from people will be next to impossible in Japan – and that nuclear energy should not be relied on as legal battles, local opposition and safety inspections will slow down its deployment.

“There’s a huge risk of spending so much money on nuclear and nothing coming out of it at the end,” he said. “If you are betting on nuclear, then that means they are not committing fully to this more fully modernised grid network that can accommodate a large amount of renewables”. That, he added, “delays the whole transition of the entire electricity system.”

Buongiorno argues the opposite, saying that nuclear can provide the around-the-clock clean power that solar and wind – when the sun doesn’t shine and wind doesn’t blow – cannot. Therefore, he said nuclear power enables a clean renewables-based electric grid.

Nobuyuki Kawashima, spokesperson for Japan’s nuclear waste authority NUMO, agreed, telling Climate Home that nuclear power “will lead to both ensuring a stable supply and decarbonisation”. “Final disposal needs to be carried out step by step, with the understanding of the public,” Kawashima added.

Translator Zhao Yang contributed to this report. A version of this story was co-published with Japan Times

The post Nuclear comeback? Japan’s plans to restart reactors hit resistance over radioactive waste appeared first on Climate Home News.

Nuclear comeback? Japan’s plans to restart reactors hit resistance over radioactive waste

Continue Reading

Climate Change

DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report

Published

on

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed. 
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week

Blazing heat hits Europe

FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.

HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.

UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.

Around the world

  • GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
  • ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
  • EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
  • SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
  • PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.

15

The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.


Latest climate research

  • As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
  • A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
  • A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

Factchecking Trump’s climate report

A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80

Spotlight

Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?

This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.

On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.

In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.

(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)

In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.

Forward-thinking on environment

As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.

He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.

This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.

New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.

It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.

Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.

“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.

Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.

What about climate and energy?

However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.

“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.

The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.

For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.

Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.

Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.

By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.

There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:

“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”

Watch, read, listen

TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.

NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.

‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.

Coming up

Pick of the jobs

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report

Continue Reading

Climate Change

New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit

Published

on

The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.

Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.

New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims

Published

on

A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.

The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.

The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.

It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.

Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.

Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.

Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.

The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)

The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.

In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.

Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.

The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com