Reclaiming Japan’s Energy Future: From Fukushima’s Shadow to Nuclear Leadership
- Eric Anders
- Apr 25
- 26 min read
Earthrise Accord’s Strategic Outreach to Japan for Nuclear Leadership, Energy Sovereignty, and Climate Justice
Introduction: In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, Japan stands at a crossroads. The tragedy of Fukushima was a national trauma that understandably spurred caution about nuclear power. Yet Japan’s path forward cannot be one of energy retreat or perpetual dependence on imported fossil fuels. Earthrise Accord (EA) – a new climate justice initiative founded on the legacy of the famous “Earthrise” photograph – urges that this tragedy must not prevent Japan from reclaiming a vigorous national path toward clean energy leadership. Just as France’s bold nuclear program delivered decades of safe, carbon-free power and energy independence (Earthrise Accord), Japan can surpass France to become the world’s foremost nuclear energy leader. In doing so, Japan would secure greater energy sovereignty, revitalize its economy, and uphold climate justice by holding fossil fuel interests accountable on the global stage. This essay argues that Japan should boldly embrace NucDACSF – Nuclear-powered Direct Air Capture Synthetic Fuel – to decarbonize aviation and fuel economic growth. It should also support EA’s mission to confront Big Oil and petro-states in international courts (inspired by the Maldives’ climate case at the ICC) rather than settling for narrower local lawsuits. By leveraging its strengths – from financial resources to technological prowess – and even partnering with China on mutual clean energy goals, Japan can turn vulnerability into leadership. Crucially, the welfare and sovereignty of the Japanese people must remain the focus of this agenda, with corporate collaboration serving as a means to national revitalization, not an end in itself.
From Fukushima’s Shadow to France’s Example: Nuclear Power Reconsidered
The meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi in March 2011 was a defining moment that cast a long shadow over Japan’s energy policy. Public trust in nuclear safety plummeted, and one of the world’s largest nuclear fleets was almost entirely shut down. In the years immediately after, Japan compensated by burning more coal, oil, and gas – a shift that caused carbon emissions to surge and hit a peak of 1.4 billion tons in 2013/14. The price of this retreat from nuclear was paid not only in higher emissions but in higher energy costs and mounting trade deficits from importing fossil fuels. Yet, even as Japan hesitated, France’s experience offered a powerful counter-narrative. France famously pursued an ambitious nuclear build-out in the 1970s and 1980s, achieving over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power and in the process preventing ~2 billion tons of CO₂ emissions since 1970 (Earthrise Accord). Notably, France has operated its reactors without a serious accident, demonstrating that nuclear power’s inherent safety and waste manageability are feasible with rigorous standards. This dichotomy – Fukushima’s failure versus France’s success – underscores that the fate of nuclear energy lies in policy and management, not in an immutable flaw of the technology itself. The lesson is not that nuclear power is too dangerous, but that it must be done with uncompromising safety culture and modernized designs. Japan, having learned hard lessons from 2011, is now equipped with stricter safety regulations and advanced technologies to ensure such a disaster “never happens again.” The question is whether Japan will remain frozen by the memory of Fukushima, or move forward, drawing inspiration from France’s model to reclaim nuclear power as a cornerstone of its national energy strategy.
Reclaiming Nuclear Leadership: A Vision to Surpass France
The time has come for Japan to shake off its post-Fukushima paralysis and reclaim its status as a global nuclear leader – even to surpass France’s example. This means not only restarting its idled reactors but going further: deploying next-generation reactors, innovating in nuclear technology, and possibly exporting that expertise abroad. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida signaled a step in this direction in July 2022 by calling for building new advanced reactors and extending reactor lifespans beyond 60 years. Fourteen reactors have already been restarted under rigorous new safety rules, with more in the approval pipeline. Each restart chips away at Japan’s fuel import bill and restores confidence that nuclear energy can be managed responsibly. The recent restart of the Onagawa-2 unit – the first in Japan’s northeast since 2011 – required a ¥570 billion safety upgrade investment and came after 13 years of scrutiny (Japan's Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus | Reuters). It stands as proof that Japan can run even the same reactor design as Fukushima’s with vastly improved safeguards. With 13 reactors now operational and another on the way (Japan's Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus | Reuters) (Japan's Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus | Reuters), Japan’s nuclear comeback is underway. But to truly lead, Japan should set its sights higher: modern French reactors produce roughly 70-75% of France’s electricity, whereas Japan’s 2030 target is only 20-22%. Surpassing France would entail raising nuclear’s share well beyond that – an ambitious but achievable goal if Japan deploys both large Gen-III+ reactors and a fleet of advanced small modular reactors (SMRs). Japanese industry has decades of nuclear engineering experience and could develop designs optimized for safety (passive cooling, resistant to tsunamis) and flexibility (load-following to complement renewables). By embracing this path, Japan can transform itself from a nation shackled by energy fear to one empowered by energy innovation. It would send a resounding message: that the Fukushima disaster, while seared into memory, will not define Japan’s future.
Energy Sovereignty as Economic Salvation
Few countries have as much at stake in energy sovereignty as Japan. A nation poor in fossil fuel resources – Japan imports about 90% of its energy – it has long been vulnerable to external shocks. The 1973 oil shock first spurred Japan to adopt nuclear power as a national priority, precisely to escape the whims of foreign oil supply. After Fukushima, however, Japan fell back into extreme dependence: by 2014, fossil fuels made up roughly 86% of its electricity generation (with costly LNG and oil filling the nuclear gap). This reversal proved economically painful. Fossil fuel imports drove Japan’s trade balance into deficit; in the first half of 2012, Japan recorded a then-record ¥2.5 trillion trade deficit largely due to imported fuel. By FY2013, Japan was spending an extra ¥9 trillion per year on fossil fuels (about $40 billion) relative to pre-Fukushima times. Industrial electricity prices spiked over 50%, prompting dire warnings that “over ¥3 trillion per year is flowing overseas” instead of circulating in Japan’s economy. Business leaders cautioned that without reliable, affordable power, “there can be no new capital investment in power-intensive industries” – a chilling prospect for a country trying to reignite growth. In short, Japan’s stagnation and vulnerability are in no small part tied to its energy dependency.
Today’s Japan is often described as: resource-poor, growth-stagnant, cash-rich, and demographically declining. Each of these challenges is directly or indirectly addressed by a strategy of greater energy independence through advanced nuclear power:
Resource-Poor: With scant oil, gas, or coal, Japan’s best domestic energy resource is the ingenuity of its people – the ability to harness the atom. By investing in nuclear (and renewable) infrastructure at home, Japan converts its technological expertise into an indigenous energy source. Every reactor restarted or built means fewer tankers of LNG and oil that Japan must buy, insulating the nation from volatile global markets. Nuclear power thus “bolsters energy security to hedge against the volatility of global fossil fuel import markets”, as the Atlantic Council observes. Recent data confirm this hedge: the resumption of reactors has started cutting Japan’s LNG demand and lowering thermal generation’s share (Japan's Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus | Reuters), strengthening Japan’s hand in an uncertain world.
Growth-Stagnant: After “lost decades” of low growth, Japan’s government is seeking economic revival through new industries like artificial intelligence and semiconductor manufacturing. These sectors are energy-intensive – modern data centers and chip fabs consume vast amounts of electricity. Without abundant clean power, such industries will struggle or shift elsewhere. Nuclear energy offers the firm, large-scale power needed: restarted reactors are already expected to supply booming demand from new chip plants and AI data centers (Japan's Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus | Reuters) (Japan's Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus | Reuters). By ensuring a stable electricity supply, Japan creates a foundation for industrial resurgence. Moreover, building and operating reactors is itself a high-tech endeavor that creates skilled jobs and spin-off innovations (in materials science, robotics, etc.). In the long run, a strong domestic nuclear sector could make Japan an exporter of technology and services – serving global demand for small reactors or nuclear fuel recycling – thus creating a new growth engine.
Cash-Rich: Japan paradoxically holds enormous financial wealth even amid domestic stagnation. Japanese institutions and individuals are the world’s largest holders of U.S. government debt (around $1.1 trillion in U.S. Treasuries as of late 2024). Japan also sits on trillions in foreign exchange reserves and private savings. These funds currently earn modest returns abroad; strategically reallocating even a portion toward domestic clean energy infrastructure would be transformative. By leveraging its cash surplus to invest in nuclear plants, grid upgrades, and NucDACSF facilities, Japan can put its capital to productive use at home – yielding long-term energy dividends and reducing the need to finance fuel imports. Some have even mused whether Japan’s creditor status could be used as geopolitical leverage (for instance, pressuring other nations on climate commitments), but the surest strategy is to invest in its own resilience. Japan doesn’t need to weaponize its U.S. debt holdings; it needs to utilize its wealth to free itself from energy bondage. Financing a fleet of reactors or synthetic fuel plants is well within Japan’s means – an investment that would pay off in energy savings and economic activity. As EA advocates, funneling financial resources into “clean, sovereign, and scalable energy systems” is a form of reparative justice to heal past harms. In Japan’s case, it is self-repair: repairing the economic wounds of Fukushima-era policies by building a sovereign energy future.
Demographically Declining: Japan’s aging and shrinking population is an oft-cited cause of its economic malaise. Fewer workers and consumers make growth hard to sustain. While nuclear energy cannot reverse demographic trends, it can mitigate their impact. A secure energy supply means Japan can automate and electrify more of its economy without constraint, offsetting labor shortages. Advanced reactors and energy systems will rely on robotics and AI, fields where Japan excels and which can improve productivity despite a smaller workforce. Additionally, a bold national project – say, to achieve 100% carbon-free energy with nuclear and renewables – could inject optimism and purpose into society, something intangible but valuable in combating stagnation. Finally, affordable energy helps families and social services, indirectly supporting a decent quality of life for an aging populace. In short, energy sovereignty is not a silver bullet for demographics, but it is a critical support that gives Japan breathing room to tackle social issues without the pressure cooker of energy insecurity.
In sum, greater energy sovereignty through nuclear power directly addresses Japan’s vulnerabilities. It keeps billions in the national economy, powers new industries, and protects Japan from external coercion or market turmoil. This is why Earthrise Accord frames nuclear not just as a climate solution but as a tool for “decolonizing energy” – breaking the chains of dependence that often tie nations to former colonial powers or petro-states. Japan, though a rich nation, has been in a kind of neo-colonial dependency for oil and gas. By breaking that chain, Japan asserts its sovereignty. It’s worth noting this is not a call for isolationism; rather, it’s about achieving the freedom to choose Japan’s own path. When Japan controls its energy destiny, it can engage internationally from a position of strength, as an equal partner rather than a supplicant for fuel. And with that strength, it can more credibly advocate the climate actions that global justice demands – including holding fossil fuel profiteers to account.
NucDACSF: Decarbonizing Aviation and Fueling Innovation
One arena where Japan can marry its nuclear resurgence with technological leadership is in cleaning up the aviation sector. Airlines are crucial to Japan – an island nation reliant on air travel for business, tourism, and connectivity – but aviation remains one of the toughest industries to decarbonize. Jet fuel emissions constitute about 2-3% of global CO₂ and rising, and for Japan (with major carriers like JAL and ANA), cutting aviation’s carbon footprint is both a climate obligation and an economic opportunity. Battery-electric airplanes are unviable beyond short hops because current batteries hold just a fraction of the energy per kg of jet fuel (around 0.25%). Hydrogen planes may come in future decades, but they require new aircraft designs and infrastructure that will take time. The only viable near-term solution for deep decarbonization of air travel is synthetic fuels – liquid fuels produced from CO₂ and hydrogen that can substitute for kerosene in today’s jets. These e-fuels, if made with carbon captured from the air and with clean energy, are carbon-neutral: they return to the atmosphere only the CO₂ that was originally removed.
This is where Nuclear-powered Direct Air Capture Synthetic Fuel (NucDACSF) comes in. The concept is elegantly simple: use the abundant, constant energy from nuclear reactors to pull CO₂ from the atmosphere and to produce hydrogen (via electrolysis), then synthesize these into jet fuel. Doing this at scale would allow Japan to produce its own zero-carbon jet fuel, slashing aviation emissions and reducing dependence on imported oil for planes. Why nuclear? Because synthetic fuel production is enormously energy-intensive. Running direct air capture (DAC) machines and electrolyzers 24/7 requires a steady, high-power input. Renewables like solar and wind, while crucial to Japan’s overall mix, are intermittent and would leave expensive DAC and fuel synthesis facilities idle when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. “Renewable energy alone is insufficient to power large-scale DAC-to-fuel systems due to intermittency and energy-density limitations,” experts note, whereas “nuclear can run the process 24/7”. In other words, nuclear energy’s reliability sidesteps the biggest hurdle in scaling synthetic fuels. A recent analysis highlighted that shifting synthetic fuel production to a nuclear-powered model “greatly enhances scalability”.
Japan is particularly well-suited to pioneer NucDACSF. It has advanced nuclear engineering capacity, and its geography (limited land area, high population density) makes large solar/wind farms challenging, so using compact nuclear plants to drive DAC could be more practical. Japanese companies are already investing in carbon capture innovation – for instance, Japan Airlines has backed projects to capture CO₂ from seawater and air as part of its net-zero 2050 strategy (Captura taps utility, aviation partners for direct ocean capture) (Japan Airlines Forges Carbon Capture Partnership). By coupling such carbon removal efforts with home-grown nuclear power, Japan can create a virtuous cycle: nuclear reactors feed energy into DAC units, CO₂ is pulled from the air, and synthetic fuel flows to JAL and ANA jets, which then ferry people around the world with net-zero emissions. The drop-in nature of synthetic fuel is key – no need to wait for new aircraft or engines. As Earthrise Accord notes, “synthetic fuels…can seamlessly replace conventional jet fuel without requiring costly changes to existing aircraft or fueling infrastructure,” enabling immediate emissions cuts.
The economic case for NucDACSF is also compelling. The global aviation fuel market is enormous (over $200 billion annually pre-pandemic) and is projected to partially shift to synthetics in coming decades – estimates suggest a $600 billion market for synthetic fuels by 2050 if they reach ~40% of aviation fuel share. If nuclear-powered production proves cheapest (as some analyses indicate, due to constant utilization and high efficiency), countries that master this technology could capture a significant industry share. Japan could not only fuel its own jets but export synthetic fuels or the reactor-fuel systems to other nations. In doing so, it would secure high-tech jobs domestically and stake a leadership claim in climate technology. This aligns with the Green Transformation (GX) strategy Japan adopted in 2023, which explicitly flags hydrogen and synthetic fuels as growth areas requiring steady energy supply – with nuclear power identified as “one of several necessary policies to provide a steady supply of energy”.
Already, a few pilot projects in Europe (e.g. in Norway and Germany) are producing e-kerosene using renewable power. But scaling these will be challenging without around-the-clock power or massive overbuild of renewables and storage. By leapfrogging to NucDACSF, Japan can leverage its restarted reactors and future new reactors to not only generate electricity for the grid, but also to generate carbon-neutral fuels for transport. This multi-pronged use of nuclear energy – electricity, heat, and fuel synthesis – multiplies its value to the nation. It also demonstrates to a skeptical world that nuclear technology is not just about old reactors powering cities, but about innovative climate solutions across sectors. If Japan’s aerospace sector and utilities partner on NucDACSF, the country can proudly showcase how advanced nuclear energy directly enables decarbonization of even the hardest sectors like aviation. This would indeed put Japan ahead of France (which, while nuclear-heavy, has not yet tied its nuclear program to synthetic fuel production in a big way) and make it a true pathfinder in global clean energy.
Climate Justice on the Global Stage: From California to the Maldives – and Tokyo
While Japan focuses on its domestic energy revolution, it should not lose sight of the broader climate justice struggle in which it is embedded. Earthrise Accord emphasizes that climate action must include accountability for past and ongoing harms. This means not just cutting emissions, but holding the fossil fuel industry and its enablers to account for deceiving the public and delaying action for decades. A key pillar of EA’s mission is pursuing “Clean Energy Reparations” – compelling those most responsible for climate change to fund the clean transition in the communities most harmed. How does this abstract principle translate into action? Through the law, both domestic and international.
In 2023, California took the bold step of suing Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, accusing them of misleading the public about climate change and demanding compensation for damages. This California vs. Big Oil case is a landmark in climate litigation, and it certainly resonates with Earthrise Accord’s goals – but EA advocates going even further. As Earthrise’s analysis points out, California’s lawsuit, ground-breaking as it is, suffers from critical limitations. First, it targets only corporate fraud and product liability, “ignoring entirely the complicity of national governments” in the climate crisis. Many petro-states (and even nations like the U.S. itself) have been partners in crime with Big Oil, granting licenses, subsidies, and political cover to fossil fuel exploitation. A truly just reckoning must find ways to hold those states accountable too, not just let them wash their hands while blaming Exxon alone. Second, California’s case overlooks Big Oil’s decades-long disinformation campaign against nuclear energy. This omission is striking: fossil companies didn’t just lie about climate; they also stoked irrational fear of nuclear power to kneecap their biggest clean competitor. The consequence was a slower transition and more emissions – a deceit that has harmed the entire planet by foreclosing an earlier nuclear renaissance. By not addressing this, the California approach captures only part of the injury. Finally, California chose a state court venue, keeping the scope U.S.-centric. Earthrise Accord argues that climate destruction is “global in origin, global in culpability, and global in its devastation,” and thus requires a global forum and legal framework. This is where international law and institutions come in.
Imagine, as EA does, a small vulnerable country taking the climate fight to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or a similar global tribunal. The Maldives – a low-lying island nation facing literal extinction from sea-level rise – has raised exactly this possibility. In an impassioned statement to the ICC Assembly of States Parties in 2023, the Maldivian government called for adding ecocide as a fifth international crime under the Rome Statute, saying “the time is ripe to consider an amendment… that would criminalise acts that amount to ecocide.” (Maldives calls for a fifth international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ) (Maldives calls for a fifth international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ). Maldives officials spoke of the “life-or-death situation” their people face and the “lack of international action” by large emitters that could “lead to the death of nations such as ours.” (Maldives calls for a fifth international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ). This moral clarion call lays the groundwork for a case in The Hague: Maldives vs. Big Oil (and possibly vs. certain states) for the “physical destruction and spiritual desecration” of an entire country (Maldives vs. Big Oil at the ICC: Physical Destruction, Spiritual Desecration & Ecocidal Complicity). While unprecedented, such a case would reframe climate change as not just an environmental issue, but as an issue of justice, human rights, and even crimes against humanity. The legal theories could range from ecocide to genocidal intent (if one views knowingly imperiling nations as akin to indirect genocide). Even if the ICC’s jurisdiction over corporations or states is limited (currently it prosecutes individuals for crimes), the very attempt would galvanize world opinion and perhaps accelerate the recognition of ecocide in international law (Maldives calls for a fifth international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ).
Japan should not sit on the sidelines of this global push for accountability. As a highly developed democracy and the world’s third-largest economy, Japan carries significant weight in international forums. It is also an ICC member state (since 2007) and can influence that institution’s direction. Embracing EA’s approach, Japan could formally support efforts to recognize ecocide as an international crime – sending a diplomatic signal that those who wreck our planet’s climate should face consequences beyond fines and broken reputations. Japan could also lend its legal expertise and even financial support to initiatives by vulnerable nations (like Maldives or Pacific Island states) seeking justice. This would not be without precedent: Japan has often championed multilateral solutions, and aiding climate justice efforts would be in line with its image as a responsible global citizen. There is a self-interest here as well. Japan is vulnerable to climate impacts (typhoons, heatwaves, etc.) and to energy disinformation: recall that Japan’s turn away from nuclear after Fukushima was accelerated and exploited by anti-nuclear activism that, as Earthrise notes, was actively fueled by fossil fuel interests. In a real sense, Japan too was a victim of Big Oil’s lies – paying the price in higher emissions and energy insecurity for a decade. By seeking accountability, Japan would be partially seeking justice for itself.
Crucially, Japan’s backing of a “Maldives vs. Big Oil” style effort should complement, not replace, its domestic reforms. The point of such international action is to make fossil fuel companies and petro-states pay for the transition, effectively turning their ill-gotten gains into funds for nuclear plants, renewables, and adaptation in countries that need them. If Japan aligns with that cause, it implicitly backs the idea that those who profited from climate harm should bankroll climate solutions. Imagine a scenario where Japan, leveraging its alliance with the G7 and influence in Asia, helps establish a global fund (through settlements or judgements) that finances clean energy projects. Japan could then potentially access some of those funds or partnerships to further its own clean transition (for instance, co-financing an SMR deployment in Southeast Asia that benefits Japanese manufacturers, or receiving support for advanced R&D). In any event, Japan would be on the right side of history: standing with climate-vulnerable nations and honest advocates, rather than with the obfuscators. This stance also improves Japan’s soft power, particularly among Global South countries that increasingly demand climate justice. By backing an ICC or global approach, Japan differentiates itself from countries that only pursue narrow self-interest.
In contrast, a purely localized approach – say Japan suing fossil companies in its own courts or simply focusing on its domestic emissions – would not carry the same visionary leadership. EA explicitly contrasts California v. Big Oil with the need for a broader view. Japan can illustrate that broader view in action. Supporting international legal frameworks to criminalize ecocide or hold polluters to account is part and parcel of being a true climate leader. It shows that Japan’s quest for energy independence isn’t just about lights and factories at home, but about contributing to a more just and sustainable world order where no corporation or country can recklessly endanger others for profit.
Partnering with China: A New Model of Regional Leadership
As Japan retools its energy policy and engages in climate advocacy, it finds itself in a complex geopolitical landscape. Traditionally, Japan has looked to the United States as its primary partner and to some extent leader in global initiatives. But on climate and energy, the U.S. has been a patchy leader – oscillating between engagement and regress (witness the Paris Agreement exit and re-entry). Meanwhile, in East Asia, China has emerged as both the world’s largest emitter and the largest producer of clean energy technology. Any realistic global decarbonization scenario must involve China heavily; Earthrise Accord recognizes China as “both the largest emitter and the largest manufacturer of clean energy tech… Any serious effort… must include China as a partner”. Herein lies an opportunity for Japan: rather than viewing China only as a rival or threat, Japan can model a positive cooperative relationship with China centered on mutual energy independence and emissions reduction.
At first blush, Japan-China cooperation might seem implausible given territorial disputes and historical animosities. But energy and climate could be areas of pragmatic alignment. Both nations crave energy security. China, like Japan, is resource-constrained in oil and gas (though rich in coal, which it knows it must curb). Both have advanced nuclear programs: China is rapidly building reactors (including innovative designs like pebble-bed and molten-salt reactors), and Japan has deep expertise and could restart its reactor supply chain. A partnership might involve joint development of next-gen reactors or safety systems, where Japanese precision engineering complements Chinese scale and speed. For instance, they could collaborate on small modular reactors for deployment across Asia, giving both countries manufacturing opportunities and enhancing regional energy security without carbon emissions. They could also coordinate on nuclear fuel cycle security – ensuring stable fuel supply that isn’t subject to geopolitical choke points. Moreover, Japan and China could jointly invest in direct air capture and synthetic fuel projects, perhaps in neutral locations or through multilateral development banks, showcasing how two major Asian powers can lead in hard-to-abate sectors.
Such cooperation would serve as an alternative to U.S. leadership, not in opposition to the U.S., but filling a void where the U.S. might be inconsistent. It would demonstrate an Asia-led pathway to climate goals, signaling that decarbonization need not be a Western-driven agenda alone. For China, partnering with Japan (a technologically sophisticated democracy) on climate solutions could improve its global image and counter skepticism about its intentions. For Japan, working with China on a shared existential challenge could build trust and reduce the risk of conflict. Climate change is a common enemy that respects no borders; by teaming up, Japan and China can shift from competition to “coopetition,” focusing on survival and prosperity for both. This does not mean Japan should drop its guard or core interests vis-à-vis China, but it does mean recognizing areas where collaboration is rational. One historical parallel is the environmental cooperation that sometimes occurred between adversaries (like the U.S. and USSR on ozone depletion). Similarly, Japan and China could cooperate on, say, electric grid interconnections in East Asia that allow sharing renewable power, or on establishing regional standards for green finance.
Importantly, such partnership should be framed around mutual benefit and respect for sovereignty. Japan should make clear that its goal is the welfare of its own people and the region’s stability – it is not “allying” with China against anyone, but rather aligning on specific goals (clean energy, climate resilience) that benefit all. This could ease concerns among Japanese and allied audiences that Japan is “pivoting to China.” In fact, robust Japan-China climate cooperation might even encourage the U.S. to step up its game, to not be left behind – a constructive kind of rivalry. If Japan can maintain its alliance with the U.S. while also engaging China on climate, it will truly be providing an alternative model of leadership: one that doesn’t see everything through a militarized, zero-sum lens, but through a human security lens where climate security is paramount. Such a model would be incredibly valuable in the 21st century, as nations grapple with shared threats that traditional geopolitics are ill-suited to address.
Moreover, Japan and China working together on climate could inspire other nations to join in. South Korea, India, Southeast Asian nations – all would take notice. An “Asian Green Accord” of sorts could emerge, complementing Earthrise Accord’s vision by bringing major emitters into alignment with the principle of energy sovereignty and decarbonization. It could also soften Chinese attitudes toward Japan and vice versa, reducing nationalistic friction. The long arc of history shows that economic and technological cooperation can build bridges where diplomacy alone struggles. If the people of China see Japan contributing to improved air quality (e.g., through joint clean energy projects) and the people of Japan see Chinese cooperation helping to solve nuclear waste or improve reactor safety, mutual goodwill can grow.
Finally, Japan engaging China on clean energy serves the welfare of the Japanese people by ensuring that global emissions – which directly affect Japan’s climate – are being addressed with the help of the world’s biggest emitter. It’s often said that “no one is safe until everyone is safe” in climate terms; Japan can act on that maxim by not isolating itself. In doing so, it also provides a balancing act: if the U.S. were to falter in climate commitments, Japan has hedged by having a working relationship with China on these issues. That is a form of sovereignty in itself – not putting all eggs in one superpower basket. Instead, Japan asserts itself as an independent actor that chooses cooperation wherever it sees fit for the benefit of its people and humanity.
Centering People and Sovereignty: Corporate Means to National Ends
In pursuing all the above strategies – nuclear expansion, NucDACSF, climate litigation, and China partnerships – one principle must remain inviolable: the well-being and sovereignty of the Japanese people. Too often, grand economic or technological schemes falter because they prioritize corporate profits or abstract goals over the tangible interests of citizens. Japan should avoid this pitfall by making it clear that corporations are partners, not masters, in this national revitalization. Any collaboration with industry must be framed as a means to strengthen Japan as a whole, not an end of enriching a few firms.
This philosophy can draw on Japan’s own post-war history. The remarkable rise of the Japanese economy in the mid-20th century was a product of state-guided capitalism – the government worked closely with companies (keiretsu, utilities, etc.) to achieve national goals of development. A similar approach can guide the clean energy transformation. The government should set firm targets (e.g., X number of reactors by 2035, Y% synthetic fuel in aviation by 2040, Z amount of emissions cuts via legal restitutions) and then mobilize corporate actors to deliver on them, with accountability. Utilities like TEPCO or KEPCO, engineering giants like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, automotive and aviation firms like Toyota and JAL – all have roles to play, but under the guidance of a national strategy that puts public safety and benefit first. For example, if public funds or ratepayer money is used to finance new nuclear plants, those plants should operate under strict safety oversight and with provisions that profits are not exorbitant and some benefits (like cheaper rates or technology sharing) accrue to the public. The memory of Fukushima demands nothing less than a safety-first culture, even if that means extra costs or delayed profits. Likewise, if airlines and reactor vendors team up for NucDACSF, the government can stipulate that the resulting synthetic fuel be affordable for the aviation sector and that any intellectual property developed with state support remains accessible for Japan’s broader use.
Earthrise Accord’s ethos of “decarbonize honestly, decolonize energy, deliver justice” dovetails with this people-centered approach. “Decarbonize honestly” means no more false solutions or PR greenwashing – policies must be grounded in scientific reality (e.g. admitting we need nuclear) and transparent about trade-offs. “Decolonize energy” means ensuring Japan’s energy system serves its people equitably and isn’t under the thumb of foreign suppliers or even domestic oligopolies. It also implies involving communities in decision-making, from siting of new plants to use of reparation funds, so that energy development doesn’t repeat patterns of marginalization (for instance, rural areas bearing burdens of hosting plants without seeing benefits). “Deliver justice” means addressing historical wrongs – which in Japan’s context could include justice for those displaced by Fukushima or affected by pollution from thermal plants that ran overtime after 2011, and also intergenerational justice (making sure future Japanese inherit a livable environment and robust infrastructure).
One concrete suggestion is to set up a form of national energy dividend or trust. If Japan does secure damages or reparations from fossil fuel entities through litigation or international pressure, a portion of those proceeds could go into a public trust dedicated to funding clean energy projects and potentially paying dividends to citizens (especially those in regions that bore the brunt of fossil fuel use or nuclear accidents). This would embody the principle that the transition is about people, not just power plants. It could also build public support – people will back nuclear and novel technologies if they see direct benefits and a say in outcomes.
Another consideration is openness and honesty about nuclear safety and waste. Corporate or government cover-ups (as happened in some instances pre-Fukushima) would be fatal to trust. Japan should adopt best practices in participatory policy – for example, empowering an independent nuclear regulatory agency (like the reformed NRA) and inviting international observers (IAEA peer reviews) regularly to keep the process transparent. Also, engaging local communities early when deciding on new reactor sites or life-extensions is key. Sovereignty in energy doesn’t mean top-down imposition; it means a democratic sovereignty where Japanese citizens collectively choose this path with full information and consent. It should be emphasized that nuclear energy in Japan will exist to serve the public interest – providing clean air, stable power, and climate protection – not to line the pockets of executives. This can be underscored by ensuring democratic stewardship of nuclear infrastructure, a strength France has shown, by maintaining significant public ownership and oversight in the nuclear sector. Japan could consider partially re-nationalizing certain aspects if needed to guarantee this (for example, the back end of the fuel cycle or waste management might be best handled by a public entity).
When it comes to corporate partnerships in innovation (like NucDACSF plants or joint ventures with foreign firms), Japan should negotiate terms that keep critical knowledge and capacity within Japan. It’s fine to collaborate with say, American or European companies on DAC technology or reactor design, but the terms should prevent know-how from simply bleeding out with no long-term benefit for Japanese industry or workers. Building indigenous expertise is part of rebuilding national confidence and capability.
Finally, the narrative presented to the Japanese people should consistently tie back to national revitalization. This is not about appeasing international pressure or abstract climate targets – it’s about making Japan thrive. Clean skies over Tokyo free of smog, energy bills that don’t bankrupt households, industries humming with electricity, young engineers finding purpose in designing fusion reactors or SMRs – these are the images of success to highlight. By framing it in terms of national pride and renewal, unnecessary deference is avoided. Japan need not apologize for pursuing what is best for its citizens; indeed, that is the primary duty of any government. And in this case, what’s best for Japan – achieving sustainable energy independence – also happens to be what’s best for the planet. It’s a fortuitous alignment of moral responsibility and enlightened self-interest.
Conclusion: A Sovereign, Sustainable Japan Leads the Way
Japan stands on the cusp of a new era. The scars of Fukushima will never be forgotten, nor should they be. But those scars can either petrify a nation or propel it to innovate and overcome. By reaching out to Japan in this critical moment, Earthrise Accord urges a bold choice: do not let tragedy define destiny. Japan can and must turn the page to a future where it is a leader in nuclear energy and climate action, not a reluctant follower shackled by fear and fossil fuel dependency.
The path outlined is ambitious: surpass France in nuclear deployment, achieve true energy independence, decarbonize not just power generation but transportation through nuclear-powered synthetic fuels, demand accountability from fossil fuel companies and complicit petro-states on a global stage, and even forge new bonds with China in the name of climate cooperation. Yet, none of this is beyond Japan’s reach. The country that gave the world bullet trains, hybrid cars, and countless high-tech marvels is more than capable of solving the energy puzzle that lies before it. It has the capital, the technical acumen, and the national cohesion needed – now it requires the clarity of vision and firmness of purpose to act.
By embracing nuclear energy not as a necessary evil but as a national strength – a safe, clean, constant source of power and pride – Japan reclaims the narrative. No longer is the discourse “Japan, victim of nuclear accident,” but “Japan, architect of a post-carbon future.” By insisting that the polluters pay for the clean-up, Japan aligns justice with progress, ensuring that its people are not stuck with the bill for a crisis they did not create. By innovating in areas like NucDACSF, Japan creates domestic fuels out of thin air (quite literally CO₂ from air), turning a liability (emissions) into an asset (fuel) – a transformation alchemy that symbolizes the overall journey from crisis to opportunity. And by reaching across to work with all who are willing – whether small islands sinking under the waves or giant neighbors sharing the same sky – Japan exemplifies the spirit of Earthrise: recognizing that we are all together on this “fragile vessel” called Earth.
There will be challenges. Entrenched interests – some in the fossil sector, some ideological opponents of nuclear – will resist. International dynamics can be unpredictable. Building new reactors or industrial plants takes time and faces regulatory hurdles. But Japan has navigated far greater challenges in its history, from post-war reconstruction to the oil shocks and the financial bubbles. Each time, it adapted. Now, confronted with the intertwined crises of climate change, energy insecurity, and economic stagnation, Japan can adapt once more – by innovating and leading.
The Japanese people deserve a future where they do not have to worry about blackouts or climate extremes, where their nation is respected not just for its GDP or culture but for its principled leadership in saving our shared planet. A Japan that wholeheartedly pursues advanced nuclear energy, upholds climate justice, and secures its own independence will be a Japan that inspires the world. Fukushima was a story of warning; let the next chapter be a story of wisdom and will.
In the end, this is about the sovereignty of the people – enerugī jiritsu, energy self-determination, as a cornerstone of national survival and dignity. By partnering with truth and atoms (to borrow Earthrise Accord’s motto), Japan can rise to its full height again. It can light up its cities, power its industries, and fuel its planes with clean energy born from its own ingenuity. It can stand up to those who polluted the earth and say: We will not be your victims or your customers any longer; we will be leaders in our own right. And in doing so, Japan will not only secure its own future, but also help guide humanity toward a more just, sustainable, and sovereign future for all.
Sources:
Earthrise Accord – About & Mission
Earthrise Accord Blog – California v. Big Oil Through an Earthrise Lens
Earthrise Accord Blog – Maldives vs. Big Oil at the ICC (Maldives vs. Big Oil at the ICC: Physical Destruction, Spiritual Desecration & Ecocidal Complicity) (Maldives calls for a fifth international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International )
Reuters – Japan’s emissions surged after Fukushima, now falling with nuclear restarts
World Nuclear Association – Nuclear Power in Japan (country profile)
Atlantic Council – Japan’s economic revitalization requires nuclear energy
Reuters – Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus (Japan's Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus | Reuters) (Japan's Tohoku Elec restarts Onagawa reactor after 13-year hiatus | Reuters)
Nuclear Engineering Int’l – Nuclear’s pursuit of synfuels
Earthrise Accord Blog – Sector-by-Sector Blueprint: Aviation & NDACSF
Stop Ecocide Int’l – Maldives calls for a fifth international crime of ecocide (Maldives calls for a fifth international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International ) (Maldives calls for a fifth international crime of ecocide — Stop Ecocide International )
Comments