Interview with Taro Kono, Member of the House of Representatives, by Yasumi Iwakami, May 11th, 2011
Mr. Kono criticized the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) at a press conference at the Free Press Association of Japan, saying that it is responsible for the promotion of a Nuclear Power energy policy while in government, and that the party cannot change its policy since it receives political donations from the Federation of Electric Power Companies and Tokyo Electric Power Co. .
The same goes for the Democratic Party (DPJ), which receives donations from the Confederation of Electric Power Related Industry Workers’ Unions of Japan.
The mainstream media also receive huge advertising expenses from electric companies, so they are left numb as well.
Academics also receive funds from electric companies for their seminars and research projects. When combined with the local monopoly system of the electric power companies, there is a serious abuse of rights and power in connection with energy policy.
Knowing how serious the situation is, the fact that someone in a position like Kono’s is ready to freely discuss these kinds of things is vitally important. He is almost alone in doing so.
Click here to see Mr/ Kouno’s profile
See below for an English translation of some of what was discussed in the interview.
-About disclosure of information:
For example, TEPCO does not yet release any information regarding the workers nor any video clips of them.
In the case of Chernobyl accident, we can access footage even now, where we can see the faces and names of workers who answer questions about how they worked in the nuclear power plant damaged in the accident.
Even when chlorine 38 was detected, which suggested re-criticality, TEPCO reported that after they retested they didn’t detect any. We asked for the raw data of a spectrum analysis, and TEPCO rejected the request.
-Is it because the Government do not take an aggressive position towards TEPCO?
At least the Government should have come out in front regarding the accident. When the Government was questioned at the Parliament whose road map it was, they answered it’s Tepco’s. How about accident management? It’s also Tepco’s. Then what about the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency? What does it do? They answered that it will monitor the observation of safety regulations during the management of the accident.
It’s so ridiculous. Tepco lost its monitoring post at Kashiwazaki Kariha Nuclear Power Plant during the last accident it had, and the same this time too. They say they lost it in the Tsunami.
-The story of a power structure among the government, the politicians, the industries and academics centered on Nuclear Power is well known, but from your point of view, does it exist in actual fact?
When nuclear power first started, as an alternative to oil, on which Japan depends too heavily, the idea was not so bad. And if the nuclear fuel cycle could be completed, there would be no fear of an energy shortage for over 2000 years. But in the end, this cycle is only a dream, and plutonium thermal use, which was not in the picture to start with, came in as if it was some kind of mainstream possibility. It’s nonsense. At the same time, the nuclear energy industry brought in a lot of money, which gave them a huge amount of power.
As I always say, you receive funds from electric companies, receive votes from their labor unions, receive positions in private industries, the media get income from the advertisements and donations, all are intertwined and think it’s good.
If you question rationally whether the nuclear cycle is successful or not, you’d be called “red” or “outlaw” or something like that. I don’t mind being called those things as long as I get an answer, but you don’t even get that. There was no field of debate regarding nuclear power, anyone not in agreement was expected to keep quiet.
-Were there any parliament members like you who understood a bit about the nuclear fuel cycle?
When the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant began operation, there were some who joined my side. At that time, not many could explain what a nuclear fuel cycle is. So I would explain, and then I would be called names like “communist”, “anti-nukes”, that kind of thing. After March 11th, some said that “Kono was right after all”, but what I was really talking about was the nuclear fuel cycle, not the possibility of accidents. I hear some young LDP members saying that we should change. Especially those who used to be Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) bureaucrats, say clearly that there should be no new plants built. The times have changed.
-What do you think of the present government relief plan, which saves TEPCO by putting the financial burden on the public? What should be done here?
Irrespective of compensation, it’s important to separate generation of electricity from transmission of electricity. For any renewable energy to be able to use a transmission network needs to be kept independent from compensation issues. This requires political will.
As for the compensation issue, what is most important is to keep Tepco’s assets as they are. Debts from banks should not be returned so that the compensation money won’t be reduced. Then you need cash, and Tepco will be short of cash for a time. The Government should guarantee all the financing so that Tepco can run its business as it is. What is necessary is to keep the property but for the government to guarantee the flow of money. You need experts to set the property, cash-flow, clearing of debts. Chief Cabinet Secretary, Mr. Edano put this responsibility primarily on Tepco, but I doubt it’ll work out.
Meanwhile, separation of generation and transmission, liberalization, promotion of alternative energy sources and such measures should be taken.
-You have said, and written on your blog, that it is the public who leads changes in energy policy. As one of those influencing policy, do you suggest that the public should talk to the politicians. Do you think they’d listen?
They should do whatever it takes. Tepco is lobbying vigorously now, you know. Threats, coaxing everything.
-What do they do?
They argue that if Tepco crashes, the financial system will crash, if TEPCO crashes, energy will run short, so on and so on. All lies. Losing your job is one thing but energy supply is another. It’s on that level. The Ministry of Finance follows the same lead and so does the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. If you separate energy generation and transmission, you ‘d get the same energy shortage like California had. If they are talking such nonsense, why don’t the public go to the polls and question which side they are on. Are they the politicians for us or not? You should ask which side they are on.
(Translation: Naoko Kakuta, Jeremy Harley)
<Anti-Nuke Demo in Shibuya, May 7, 2011To the previous articleTo the following articlesRepudiate 20mSv! Call For Action at MEXT building, May 23, 2011>