エネルギー選択 付け焼き刃の議論で決めるな

The Yomiuri Shimbun (Jul. 26, 2012)
Don't decide energy option through ad hoc discussions
エネルギー選択　付け焼き刃の議論で決めるな（7月25日付・読売社説）

The basic policy on energy, which will determine the nation's future, should not be decided through ad hoc "national debates."
　国の将来を左右する重要なエネルギーの基本政策は、付け焼き刃の「国民的議論」で決めるべきものではない。

The government presented three options on the ratio of nuclear power in the nation's mix of power sources for the year 2030, namely zero, 15 percent, or 20 percent to 25 percent. It is carrying out procedures to seek public opinions regarding which option would be most desirable.
　政府は２０３０年の電源に占める原子力発電の比率を、「０％」「１５％」「２０～２５％」とする３案を示し、どの選択肢が望ましいか、国民に意見を求める手続きを進めている。

Among such procedures are hearings where randomly selected members of the public express their opinions. Eleven such hearings have been or will be held through Aug. 4 at 11 locations nationwide.
　その一つが、抽選で選ばれた国民による意見聴取会だ。８月４日までに全国の計１１会場で開く。

It is reasonable for the government to seek a wide sample of public opinions, but it cannot be overlooked that the hearings have caused trouble.
　国民に幅広く意見を求めるのは妥当だが、意見聴取会が混乱を招いている事態は看過できない。

At hearings on July 15 and 16, employees of electric power companies, who identified their employers by name, called for the continued use of nuclear power. Both times, this caused a fierce backlash from other participants who support moving away from dependence on nuclear energy.
　７月１５～１６日の聴取会で、電力会社の社員が社名を明かしたうえで原発の利用継続を主張したところ、脱原発を求める出席者から強い批判を浴びた。

The government then hastily decided not to allow employees of power companies and affiliated businesses to express opinions at such hearings. At hearings held Sunday at two locations, the government kept four people working in the industry from expressing their views.
　すると政府は急きょ、電力会社と関連会社の社員に意見表明を認めない方針を決め、２２日に開かれた２か所の聴取会では、電力関係者４人に発言を辞退させた。

===

Why have a gag rule?

We are concerned that prohibiting people in the power industry from expressing their views on energy policy is a form of suppression of free speech. The government needs to convincingly explain why it changed the rules in the middle of the process.
　電力関係者というだけでエネルギー政策に関する意見表明を封じるのは、言論の自由を抑圧することにならないか。政府は、途中でルールを変更した理由をきちんと説明する必要がある。

To avoid unproductive black-and-white arguments over pro- or anti-nuclear power positions, we consider it vitally important for members of society to express opinions from various points of view and calmly discuss them.
　原発推進と脱原発という不毛な「二項対立」を避けるには、多様な意見を出し合い、冷静に話し合うことが肝心なはずだ。

It is also distressing to observe the bad manners displayed by some participants at those hearings, such as excessive booing by those seeking an end to nuclear power.
　意見聴取会で脱原発派が激しいヤジを飛ばすなど、マナー違反が散見されるのも残念である。

We also cannot eliminate our concerns over a "deliberative poll," a new method of public survey and discussions the government plans to conduct on Aug. 4 and 5.
　８月４～５日に実施する新手法の「討論型世論調査」に関する懸念も拭えない。

Among about 3,000 people nationwide who responded in an opinion survey on the energy options, 200 to 300 who wished to participate in a two-day discussion meeting will do so. After the meeting, the government will again conduct an opinion survey on the participants.
　エネルギー選択に関する世論調査に答えた全国の約３０００人から希望者２００～３００人が参加して２日間の討論会を開き、終了後に再び意見を調べる。

===

An opinion experiment

We understand the purpose of such a measure--to deepen public understanding of the issue through discussions and observe how public opinions change. But public views could be influenced in certain directions, depending on the content of materials used for discussions and how such an event is held. The government should consider such a method as a mere experimental project--it must not directly reflect the results derived from the event in shaping its policies.
　討論を通じて理解を深め、意見の変化を見るという趣旨はわかるが、討論の資料や運営によって考えが誘導される恐れはないだろうか。政府は実験的な取り組みにとどめ、結果をストレートに政策判断へ反映させてはならない。

In the first place, all three policy options the government presented are based on the assumption that the ratio of renewable energy sources, including hydroelectric power, will be raised from the current 10 percent or so to 25 percent to 35 percent. People in business circles and others have vocally opposed such scenarios as unattainable.
　そもそも、政府の示した３選択肢はいずれも、水力を含めて現在約１０％の再生可能エネルギー比率を２５～３５％に引き上げる想定だ。経済界などでは、とても達成できないとする声が強い。

As long as current circumstances remain unchanged, none of the three policy choices represent a realistic composition of power sources to ensure a stable power supply.
　このままでは、どの選択肢を採用しても、電力を安定供給できる現実的な電源構成となるまい。

To hammer out a mid- to long-term energy policy in which impacts on the economy and the environment are taken into account, the government should reconsider the suitability of the three options.
　経済や環境への影響を考慮した中長期のエネルギー政策を打ち出すためにも、政府は３選択肢の妥当性を再検討すべきである。

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 25, 2012)
（2012年7月25日01時42分 読売新聞）