Those who have spoken out about environmental problems in the past have traditionally been anti-corporate and anti-marketing. Currently however, this "Environment vs. Economy" stance is disappearing from the main stream. Corporations that do not reflect the anxiety that individuals feel about the environment will probably not survive. I agree with the philosophy that we must change our current economics to a model that promotes economic development while giving due consideration to the environment.

Modern corporations gained a certain kind of trust through organization, procured enormous capital, produced in mass quantities, promoted mass consumption, pushed commercialism, made consumers consume, and produced mass waste. This type of society began in the 16th century and reached its peak in the 19th and 20th centuries. And this type of society started to perish in the latter half of the 20th century. We have reached the limits of our environment at the same time that a technological reformation has occurred. Both the revolution in telecommunications and advances in biotechnology have made revolutionary advancements. With these intense technological innovations, it has become possible to avoid the cycle of mass production/mass consumption that is prevalent in our current society. It is now possible to receive consumer needs in real time and respond to them with some type of production-to-order. Technologically, diverse products can now be produced in small lots.

What modern corporations need is not large volumes of people, but rather technology, brand recognition, and information. Just because the economy has recovered does not mean that employment has recovered. In fact, corporations have cut back on jobs to increase profits.

The next 20 or 30 years will probably see a major change not only in corporations but also in human lifestyles. We must return to

. This will be the actualization of the shift from a concentrated society to a more dispersed society.

People's values are also slowly changing. In particular, there is a growing sense in developed nations such as Japan that more "things" are unnecessary. Everyone eats enough and has enough good clothes to wear. We have a sufficient amount of "things," perhaps wanting only a better television or mobile phone. Amidst all this, the consciousness of the individual has changed radically. How will corporations, countries, and governments create a system to back up this radical change in consciousness? We must realize that Japan is in a position to take the lead in creating this new system. Of course Europe is progressive on environmental issues, but we have created a society based on a mature middle class with a great deal of freedom. This should enable us to make selections that help create a new recycling-based society.

For example,

. During the Edo Era, more than 250 years of peace were maintained at the national level. The common people loved nature. The nation was decentralized and there was a recycling-based society. There are many things to learn from the Edo Era.

In fact,

.

Iwate Prefecture Governor Masuda and I have been discussing doing some "Destructive Public Projects." We've been saying that we should rip out all the concrete put in as bank protection along the rivers. But, in fact, it costs more to destroy than to create. Even so, the time to do these types of projects is nearing. Of course, this means returning to nature, but it also means that we have been put into a position where these projects must be done. We have also entered a stage where we can begin to act.

I'd like to present my conclusion first. I believe there is no solution other than an "Ecological Market Economy." For example, China has an enormous population in an undeveloped state and is developing economically at an explosive rate. They must push growth economics, and it is unlikely that they will have zero growth for the next 50 years. Accordingly, I believe that we must push a market economy or growth economy that gives thorough consideration to the environment to the entire world.

Of course, I assume the rapid development of democracy, market economy, and science and technology. I believe that these are the keywords. In particular, no one can exit from the ring of the market economy. No one can restrain the development of science and technology. These are developing independently. The market also has these characteristics.

So, the question becomes in what direction will we develop our science and technology and our market economy? I believe that a good strategy would be to create a sustainable future out of the vigorous market competition by intensifying contributions, taxes, and legal restrictions. The solution to the simultaneous problems of reviving the Japanese economy and greening the Japanese industrial market is commonly referred as a state founded on the principles of environmental protection or an environmental nation. But this is, more simply put, the all out effort to promote an ecological market economy (environmental growth economy).

It is quite obvious how we came to reach our limits. It goes without saying, but I will give an academic explanation. Humanity has already monopolized 40% of the carbon fixed through photosynthesis. Our population is growing at the rate of 2.4 persons per second, about 77 million people a year. Seven-point-two million hectares of land are needed to grow the 21.3 million tons of food to feed this additional population. Additionally, 21.3 billion tons of water, equivalent to the yearly supply of water from Lake Biwa, are also needed. Even looking at these figures alone, it is obvious that we cannot continue at this rate.

In addition to

Another problem we face is the economic externality. We receive everything from the global ecosystem, but the costs borne by the ecosystem are not reflected in the actual market price. In response to this criticism, economists and ecologists have converted the services provided by and assets of the global ecosystem into currency and have arrived at an annual total of between 36 and 58 trillion US dollars. The world GDP in 1998 was 39 trillion dollars.

How can this problem be solved? After 10 years of debate, it is clear that we must change from the old industrial economy to the new service economy. To accomplish this,

Manufacturers must change from a product sales business to a functional sales business.

Aiding in this goal are the concepts of Design Production and Eco-Design, switching from providing products to providing service, various IT activities, and also the enrichment of public goods. These areas must be completed fastiduously. To support these activities, the application of taxes and contributions must be changed and legal regulations must be strengthened.

The roles of technology and management are also clear. One is the strategy of de-materialization or reduction of material objects. Or, simply put, to ultimately push energy and resource conservation. Or

by, for example, using natural fuels that are not petroleum derived. We can facilitate an environmental technology reformation by promoting these three strategies.

I acknowledge the limitations of the environment. Japan's environmental policy for the past 10 or so years has focused on the garbage policy. You could make whatever you wanted. But, when you throw something away, be careful. That is the essence of Japanese environmental policy. This is no good.

.

I looked at the environmental policies of each party during this last general election (lower house election in autumn 2003), but unfortunately, I thought that the environmental manifestos were quite weak. What about the unification of environment and economy? What are we going to do about our future national businesses? What about a vision for our future lifestyle? I felt that the manifestos did not sufficiently address any of these issues. I hope the results of the discussions found in these kinds of forums are made readily available so that the parties can easily imitate them as integrated environmental policies and use them as a concept of a state founded on the principles of environmental protection. I also hope that by the next upper house election, that the parties will be able to propose an environmental manifesto model.