Abstract

A substantial number of policies aimed at combatting climate change, based on improved targets, have not been implemented, or are ineffectively enforced. This is largely because the key sentiments behind these policies are bias and antagonism. War-like opposition to proposed policies has been based on notions of deep dualism: Who “deserves life” and who “deserves death”? Emphasis on such dualism has led to conflicts over the energy policy. Policies that extend outside the domain of the original purpose are destined to have erroneous outcomes; Japan’s energy policy is a good example. Considering similarities with major wars, the arguments over the Japanese energy policy mirror “social cancer.” The author estimates the extent of this social cancer by addressing the differences between the original purpose of the policy and its expansion outside the originally intended domain, as well as related projects. Though this article focuses on Japan, the importance and universality of the topic means that cases similar to Japan’s can be found in Australia, China, the Czech Republic, and Poland, while they have been observed in almost all countries in Europe as well as in the USA, in the past. Most nations behave in a remarkably uniform manner, seeking to dominate, and undermine sustainability. The objective of this study is to identify the factors influencing energy conflicts arising from dualism and suggest ways to resolve them.