How Can I Serve? | Bible Study | 11th March 2026

Welcome to the new Books Network. I'm Caleb Zachrinn, CEO and publisher of the new Books Network. Today I'm speaking with Masako Ichihara on the Braille Nihau-Flawcast about her book, Climate Change Litigation in Japan, cases, challenges, and opportunities for environmental law. Masako is Assistant Professor in Environmental Law, the Center for Indigenous and Culinary Studies of Law and Policy at Kyoto University. Amidst the current oil crisis, Japan is quickly being forced to reconsider its immense dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Many East Asian and South Asian economies are reeling from the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. While this book does not deal with Japan's current responses to the unfolding crisis, it provides important background on several major environmental cases argued in the Japanese court system. These cases involve suits against coal plant operators. Coal-fired plants are a major feature of Japan's energy infrastructure, especially in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Coal-fired plants stand to be winners in the oil crisis, as Japan turns to non-golf energy sources. The fight for climate justice in Japan has been narrowly focused on the polluting harms of coal, and provides insight into future hopes for a turn towards renewable energy, and one of the world's most industrial-lead advanced economies. The case study of Japan's climate change litigation is particularly valuable for scholars studying climate change litigation and other nations globally. Masaka, thanks for joining me today. Thank you for having me today. I'm Aza Koichi Hara. Thank you for being on. I think this is a really important book, and it's an important topic. I think climate change is one of those subjects that I feel in the past couple of years. It seems to be a bit on the wane in terms of people's attention, but the world is still warming, and the threat to our climate is still very real. I think that we really do need to continue to press forward and look at how we can solve our problems, whether it's related to pollution or related to just dependence on fossil fuels and a turn towards renewable energy. But before jumping into the book, I was wondering if you just tell us a little about yourself, your background, how you first got into climate change litigation as a topic. Okay, thank you for your introduction. Hello everyone. I'm Masaka Koichi Hara. I originally majored in rural, and I obtained my BSD in 2021. And I came back to my study after my third-kit entered nursery school. So my originally motivation to study climate change program was when I took my first daughter who was one year old to the park. And I found many instruments too hard to play, and that frightened me. I have to do something. And that is when I started to explore what can I do with my legal expertise. So this is my starting point, and now I'm here. Climate change litigation is a relatively recent phenomenon. You talk about the post-Paris climate agreement environment and how it led to a lot more cases, particularly in that it states, but also elsewhere. Do you just talk about the kind of the global backdrop of climate change litigation and how it compares to what climate change litigation is looked like in Japan? Okay, thank you for your questions. Yeah, the climate change litigation was known, it became very popular, the past four couple of years, but actually it is existing from the early beginning of the 20th century. Very old case was observed in the United States in 2007, which was called in Massachusetts and EPA, which called the COTA as a polluted in the term of the air pollution act, the Clean Air Act. But as you mentioned, you are right in the point that after 2015 where the Paris Agreement was assigned, the number has been significantly increased because many member states submitted the NDC naturally determined the contribution that those people can to evaluate whether one 13 climate regulation is sufficient to achieve the temporary detergment of the Paris Agreement. And there are a lot of climate litigation in some of the very positive judgment to enforce the climate's regulation. But in the context of Japanese, Japan, where the very Japanese people are non-legiguous, our case is of a climate case of numbers will be limited because litigation was kind of the last result, last measures we take for general Japanese. Still, that's the limited number, at the same time has a very big social effect sometime. So in that way, I just say that is why I focused on this limited number of cases. Yeah. And there's different types of energy sources are treated differently. There's an attempt to phase out some faster than others because of their polluting effects. So coal, for example, is oftentimes in the crosshairs because of how polluting it is and how destructive it is for the environment. Can you talk a little bit about Japan's history with coal, why they are so dependent on coal as a resource for electricity? Okay. Thank you so much. Yeah. Actually, Japan has a long history to depend on the coal because we initially have had a lot of coal mines within our countries. We also depend, we did depend coal when we experienced high economic, rapid development in late 20th century. So after the world war two in the context of revitalize the country, the coal significantly helped the development of industry. But still, we have an important lot called from outside a country like Australia or other countries. We still have a lot of a lot of facilities like coal, coal, coal, coal, coal, coal, coal, and coal. And continuous use of that facility is very kind of practical and useful. And there are a lot of people who have been long time involved in that industrial sector. So the government, our society, are the same, are the same, are the same, are the same about their lives and their income. So we have to ensure their lives at the same time. Many, many Japanese government acknowledge the necessity to transition. But the way how to trans, maybe they, every country can decide according to their own needs in context. So what is now a Japanese government arguing, maybe we can continuously use such a facility for short time, is transition by using ammonia or something alternative source of coal or zero emission technology to combine. When we use coal, we are plus add some technology to reduce or the size of the emission. In that way, I think Japan is not still right on the coal industry. Right. Yeah, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the attempt to regulate it. Obviously, like you said, there are these, you know, obviously concerns around people's jobs and, and, you know, also the convenience of it, especially like in the face, for example, of this current crisis that's, that's ongoing and the, the costs associated with, with other energy sources. But you, you look at, you know, the attempts by people to bring suits against various coal companies or, or energy providers. And before jumping into these particular cases against these companies, I was wondering if you just talk a little bit about Japan's court system, how it works and what makes it challenging to bring a climate case compared to other court systems that have, you know, have had all sorts of cases that focus on climate change in a very expansive way. These cases, they're quite narrow. Okay. Thank you for a question. Yeah. I let me explain, but Japanese courts system are very, very free. Yeah. System, a basic, basic, a structure called is more or more the same as a Western country, because we imported basic, a system from Germany in, I mean, the era in, in 18, 18, centuries, but still the underground, underwind, coal, and coal. culture or the social leader background is totally different from the Western one. So initially Japanese, Japan has kind of the system to solve the problem not about the court but kind of negotiation or communication because we are island countries. So most Japanese are indicated by the literatures. They are going to make it clear like a hard work. No, they prefer to be gray and there are no winner and loser. Maybe everyone is a little bit loser, a little bit way, wing. So it is one thing and at the same time Japanese court usually very best precisely see the house cases. So to become most similar cases are the same result like car accident or something mostly. That would be easy to categorize. So maybe in similar case court should decide the most the same amount of damage or something like that. So court is very systemized and also the number of legal, legal practitioners is very limited because they are very difficult to borrow them. So in some Japanese court want to retain very high quality. So they only recruit very talented judges. So the capacity to handle the cases are very low but still they retain their high quality or very very strict precise decisions. But this character makes it very difficult when for the parties who want to argue about climate change because position of climate change is very broad. So for the judges it seems very very abstract. What is that talking about? It is very no connection, almost no connection and also there are not only the judges but also the attorney in law, the total number is very limited in Japan. So people have difficulty to find some attorney of law who accept that okay I can work for climate litigation. So the minimum difficulty is maybe I stop here right now. I think that actually takes us pretty well into the first case, the Sendai case as an example because of the finding was they did criticize the company but obviously they ruled against them or they ruled against the petitioners. So could you talk about that case and the outcome and what basically it meant for the future, the subsequent case is because it set the standard. Yeah okay thank you, let me talk about that. Sendai was a very significant case to the first climate change in this climate litigation in Japan but it was very difficult. I suppose it is very challenging cases. There are already my book, there are 124 plaintiffs but there are leaders and one of the leaders with a scholar who is very, who is an expert in environmental analogy. But it was very difficult so because then they are not only arguing about climate change but they added also the air pollution and also biodiversity laws because maybe air pollution is one very connected point of the climate case and perse Japanese environmental pollution cases. And Japanese court has experienced to handle the air pollution cases so maybe this is one of the most easy, easiest point. And as you see the Japanese presiding judges in this process maybe based on their argument, the plaintiff Tony was a plaintiff decided to maybe withdraw the argument of climate change because if they keep that argument maybe they cannot persuade the judges. So that is why they only kept the first point of air pollution. That amplified how difficult to make a brand new argument to Japanese court which I introduced, they prefer very very detailed arguments and they kind of very conservative. So as you see the litigation with, when we see the outcome, it's a very negative one from the perspective of the plaintiff but it still opens the way after climate change case is I think. The next case is the two Kobe cases. How do those compare and what were those cases dealing with that were slightly different? Let me point out some characteristics of Kobe. The first is if we see the substance, maybe substance, Kobe case was the first case in Japan, Japanese climate case because they argue climate change issues in court actually and also they get judgment in which court argue about climate change issues. So this is one significant point which Kobe case has achieved. The second one is they are arguing, they brought two cases, like a civil case and a other ministry case. And I think this kind of filing is not possible in many countries because our filing is one case we are based on the same, same effect is maybe prohibited. Japan is a regional system, it is possible. So why are they arguing from all civil procedures and administrative procedures? They can argue many, many legal legal points in one case is and this is also one character of Kobe litigation. The third one is this is the first Japanese case which was cited in the international report from the net nations environment program in 2020. So this is the first case which was known in global sphere. Then the next case is looks at more the marine health. With this case, it obviously it also fails. And I'm wondering just in general, with these four cases, they've all failed. And there are other cases too. But what do you make in general of just the challenge of taking on, taking climate change litigation if there's been these failures? What do you see as the biggest barriers? Big experience. So yes, maybe if I summer because only one point, I would say Japanese court has not been prepared to accept new argument because I like to explain climate change issues have a very, very, very big scale, both in time scale and local scale. So it is not manageable in one jurisdiction. So Japanese court has been argued about environmental issues as well and some is transboundary as well. But climate change has a very, very enormous scope. So they had actually in some court in other countries like Netherlands, Germany or India. The court is very positively interpreted, some very open article to incorporate some terrorist and climate change. For example, in Netherlands, there's a civil court inauguration in civil law. And it speculates, it's written lawful act will be made in our TV court. Our thought article is kindly being said, but at least court do the positive interpretation. It is very difficult to incorporate what are taking the characteristic of climate change program. So in my view, or many researchers say if Japanese court remains in the domain of a kind of used argument, used a structure, used a logic, is it not possible to make a positive argument? So that is the most big and harder I think. From these cases, you surveyed people involved. You looked at various plaintiffs' reasons for getting involved and other attorneys that were involved on either side. What did you learn from your conversations and surveys? Thank you. As you read current, at the time when I make the research, the number was very limited. Even in the same day I gave you more than 100 plaintiffs, but they are still kind of minority because most Japanese were indicated by many literatures. Their sense of climate change is very low compared to other countries. But still, some Japanese are very, very ambitious, courageous to make a litigation. They are supported by some course lawyers who want to inherit the stable climate and future generations. So in my view, as I said at the same time, many Japanese share the emergence sense, but they are not so courageous to make action by themselves. So maybe they represent kind of represent. Plants and Tony kind of represent other Japanese wish, but still their minorities are very strong. But actually, the end of the last year, very new Japanese climate litigation has evolved. They are mostly more than 900 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are suing the Japanese government. So the plaintiff of the court cases and the court cases may be cultivated the way to argue about climate change in court for their understanding kind of frontiers. And you look at the comparison between the current Japanese climate litigation and early US tobacco litigation to fight to regulate cigarettes. What do you see as the comparisons if you could share a little bit about how US tobacco litigation worked and why you drew this connection? Yeah, because I observed some similarity or commonality between tobacco litigation in US and climate litigation. I did at many points, but one is both smoking and emission with initially legal. They are not prohibited and they are free to that kind of exercise of rights. But according to the emergence of the scientific knowledge, tobacco is turned out to be very harmful to their health. So once they are learned to smoking is very difficult to stop. I think that same character in emission. Because emission is, it is inevitable when we live our late daily life, it is very difficult systematically. Even if we don't want but we have to admit, it's kind of very similar. But fundamental change or systematic change will be required. It is over beyond individual power to change everything. And tobacco litigation's chronological change is very, very implicated because the number once increased. But at the top, a very big negotiation was done. And after that, other solutions like insurance or companies change of attitude has decreased their conflict. Then I identify some possibility. Maybe the climate change problem may be solved by the same way. Like insurance or companies change of activities. If companies change their activity to more reduce of emission, the number of litigation will be decreased. And this is why I compare to chronological change. But still according to the difference between the United States and Japan, I conclude it. Maybe the number will not increase in Japan. Maybe we will see a little bit different pathway in future. Yeah, so bring us to the present. There's been another case. And also just in the context of the oil crisis that's going on right now. I was reading in article prior to this that Japan is easing some restrictions on coal production to deal with the current squeeze as they are trying to get oil from the Middle East, but not through the Strait of Formos through different areas. And obviously a lot of countries, especially in South Asia and East Asia, are dealing with this crisis right now. Nobody knows for all I know by the time this airs, it could be resolved to some extent. It's hard to tell. But given the current status of the world and how Japan is reacting, do you have any thoughts on the future of a climate change litigation? Do you still see it a reason to be optimistic, even if in the short term, there's still pretty strong reliance on coal? Yeah, thank you. It's a very, very, very, many Japanese researchers are worrying about including current our political tendency or attitude leading by our ministry or ministry of Tagayichi. So yeah, you are right. We have just the recent recent recent ministry, our ministry of economy announced that they are going to activate the unabated coal fire power plant for limited in one year under this current global situation. But it is a parentry opposed to our climate target because we need to reduce rapid recovery. It is the most unfavorite option if we seriously think about climate crisis. So this is why the court should take their role under this era because not only the climate crisis but also the many, many conflicts in our court in all over the world. All that difficulty is based on very short term, short term necessity or short term interest. When we keep, to keep our long term, long term perspective, long term sustainability, maybe the institution which free from popularism or majorities hope or majorities will, which is a court. A court can argue, court can make decisions based on some legal principle or justice. So a court, it is actually, it is a very, very time where the court should take their role in all over the world including Japan. I know, I know there is a minimum difficulty, especially in Japan because they are very, very passive in history. So Japanese court tend to avoid opposing judgment to government. Still, basically, a court role is to keep their justice and more logical decisions. So I still keep my hope or my. believe in court. And I'm curious for you with this work now coming out and obviously more cases to probably likely to come. What are you working on? What's your main research interest right now? In Japan. Yeah. I think you, yeah, yeah, I think you, a current three, two cases ongoing in Japan, a youth climate change in our industry court and a climate justice court case in Tokyo, Tokyo District Court and the latter, the last week, April 2nd, what the secondary filing was made by 450 plants. So, now, planted becomes more than 900. And maybe fast trial will be designed, maybe held soon. But, yeah, but if we, when it comes to additional case filing, I'm not sure because as I mentioned, there are many limited limited number of lawyers in Japan. But still, national conversation or social awareness, there's a maximum possibility that national social awareness be raised by these cases. Because climate justice cases involves many, many key persons who have a very strong impact on social, social personality, like very very very known researchers and very very known singers and many, many big, big persons. So, I need to keep on my eyes to whether it will be the goals. But at this point, it is difficult to say what is happening in future. Well, I'm Asaka. Thank you so much for being guests on the Brillenai Half-Lock cast. It's a really fascinating topic. And obviously, it's a current topic. Everything's unfolding right now in the cases that you look at are in the grand scheme of things. They're all pretty recent. So, I think that, you know, it'll be interesting. I think anyone who's looking at climate change litigation in Japan or elsewhere in the United States and other countries globally, it's a very live and vital field. So, I'm curious to see what happens and obviously how both the litigation helps to push forward the energy transition, but also how it'll help deal with pollution in the short run as well. So, thank you so much for being guests. It was really wonderful to speak with you. Thank you for this opportunity. I very appreciate it. And I hope many, many, many people can enjoy my book and I'm always welcome to your comment and criticism. Thank you so much. Yeah, I'll add that the book is available open access on Brillenai's website. So, anyone can go and download it. You can get all the chapter. You can get the entire book or all the chapters too. So, it's easy to access that way as well. [Music]