US$92b Fukushima damages order overturned
US$92b Fukushima damages order overturned
Plaintiffs in the Fukushima case carry a banner calling for 22 trillion in damages outside the Tokyo High Court. Photo: AFP
The Tokyo High Court on Friday overturned a US$92 billion damages order against four ex-bosses of the operator of the devastated Fukushima nuclear plant, Japanese media reported.
The former executives had in 2022 been ordered to pay the sum, or 13.3 trillion yen, in a suit brought by shareholders over the nuclear disaster triggered by a massive tsunami in 2011 following an earthquake.
Shareholders had argued the catastrophe could have been prevented if Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) bosses had listened to research and implemented preventative measures like placing an emergency power source on higher ground.
But the defendants countered that the risks were unpredictable, and the studies cited were not credible.
The 13.3 trillion yen damages award was believed to be the largest amount ever ordered in a civil suit in Japan.
It was meant to cover Tepco's costs for dismantling reactors, compensating affected residents and cleaning up contamination.
In 2015, British oil giant BP was ordered to pay US$20.8 billion for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in what was described at the time as the highest fine ever imposed on a company in US history.
Jiji Press reported on Friday that the High Court had denied the tsunami was a predictable event.
Footage broadcast on Japanese networks showed the plaintiffs holding a banner calling for an even higher damages order of 22 trillion yen.
"Take responsibility for the Fukushima nuclear accident!" their banner said.
Three of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant's six reactors were operating when a massive undersea quake triggered a massive tsunami on March 11, 2011.
They went into meltdown after their cooling systems failed when waves flooded backup generators, leading to the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.
Overall the tsunami along Japan's northeast coast left around 18,500 people dead or missing.
In March, Japan's top court said it had finalised the acquittal of two former Tepco executives charged with professional negligence over the Fukushima meltdown.
The decision concluded the only criminal trial to arise from the plant's 2011 accident. (AFP)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
7 hours ago
- RTHK
Trump may get rid of his Tesla over Musk row: official
Trump may get rid of his Tesla over Musk row: official Donald Trump bought the Tesla in March to boost support for his mega-donor Elon Musk. Photo: AFP Donald Trump may now offload a Tesla vehicle he said he bought earlier this year in a show of support for Elon Musk, a White House official said on Friday, following a blazing row between the US president and his billionaire former advisor. The red electric vehicle, which retails for around US$80,000, was still in a parking lot on the White House grounds on Friday, a day after the very public meltdown between Trump and the South African-born tech tycoon. "He's thinking about it, yes," a senior White House official said when asked if the Republican would sell or give away the Tesla. Tesla stocks had tanked more than 14 percent on Thursday amid the row, losing some US$100 billion of the company's market value, but leapt back in early trading on Friday. Trump, who does not drive as president, said he was buying the Tesla in March to boost support for his mega-donor, whose brand – and bottom line – has been hit hard by public outrage over his role in slashing US government jobs. At a choreographed publicity stunt that turned the White House into a pop-up Tesla showroom, Trump praised the EV as a "great product" and lashed out on social media at "Radical Left" attacks against the world's richest person and his company. Trump's Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and another senior aide posed in the car as recently as last week, in a photograph posted on Musk's social media network X. "Taking President Trump's Tesla out for a ride," Trump's communications advisor Margo Martin posted. But the shiny red vehicle has now become an awkward symbol of the fiery political divorce between Trump, 78, and former Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) chief Musk, 53. Trump said he was "very disappointed" by Musk and threatened to end his government contracts after his ex-aide criticised the president's flagship budget and policy mega-bill as an "abomination." (AFP)
RTHK
12 hours ago
- RTHK
Hang Seng Index ends day on a weak note
Hang Seng Index ends day on a weak note The Hang Seng Index ended trading for the day down 114 points at 23,792. File photo: AFP Hong Kong and mainland Chinese stocks ended slightly lower on Friday, as investors remained cautious after a call between President Xi Jinping and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, failed to provide clear signals of progress in easing trade tensions. Trump and Xi confronted weeks of brewing trade tensions and a battle over critical minerals in a rare leader-to-leader call on Thursday, leaving key issues unresolved for future talks. "If you look at the conversation between the Chinese and US presidents, there's nothing concrete that's positive. So little impact on stocks," said Guo Jianwen, partner at Shanghai-based hedge fund Haiyi Capital. In Hong Kong, the benchmark Hang Seng Index ended trading for the day down 114.43 points, or 0.48 percent, at 23,792.54. The Hang Seng China Enterprises Index fell 0.63 percent to end at 8,629.75 while the Hang Seng Tech Index fell 0.63 percent to end at 5,286.52. Across the border, the blue-chip CSI300 Index fell 0.1 percent. The benchmark Shanghai Composite Index ended up 0.04 percent at 3,385.36, while the Shenzhen Component Index closed 0.19 percent lower at 10,183.70. The ChiNext Index, tracking China's Nasdaq-style board of growth enterprises, lost 0.45 percent to close at 2,039.43. For the holiday-shortened week, the CSI 300 Index gained nearly 1 percent, while the Hang Seng Index rose 2.2 percent. (Agencies)
Asia Times
15 hours ago
- Asia Times
Hopes for a Xi-Trump summit are naively misplaced
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping's surprise phone call—marking the first direct communication between the leaders in months—may signal a temporary thaw in an otherwise frosty and structurally adversarial relationship. While America's restoration of Chinese student visas and China's resumption of blocked critical mineral trade suggest detente, this contact, like others in the history of US-China summits, could quickly prove to be more performative than substantive. The danger lies not in dialogue but in the illusion that the leader-to-leader call, which Beijing insisted Trump requested, will meaningfully alter the deep geopolitical, ideological and economic divergences that define Sino-American relations today. News reports said Xi told Trump to roll back tariffs and other trade measures that are roiling the global economy while warning him about intensifying the dispute over Taiwan. Trump claimed on social media that the call delivered a 'positive conclusion', including on China's restrictions on critical mineral exports, and that lower-level discussions on trade would follow. He said, 'We're in very good shape with China and the trade deal.' Both leaders invited each other to visit their countries. However, reports noted that there was nothing in either side's official statements to indicate the critical mineral issue had been resolved. And China has reasonable cause to remain on guard despite Trump's post-call positivity. Let us count the many impediments to real and lasting reconciliation: The most acute danger stems from Trump's lack of strategic coherence. Unlike the Kissinger-Nixon doctrine of detente, which was structured, calculated and guided by a realpolitik vision of global balance, Trump's approach is reactive and transactional and thus prone to Chinese manipulation. Concessions, including the reopening of student exchanges on the US side and lifting critcal mineral restrictions on China's—appear to be issued in exchange for vague 'reciprocity' rather than any long-term strategic realignment. For Beijing, such inconsistency is easily exploitable. Xi understands that Trump is prone to tactical surprises and policy reversals, allowing China to notch one-by-one concessions while offering minimal structural reforms or broad policy changes in return. This understanding of Trump's tactics and views may also embolden China to keep testing US resolve and commitment in the Taiwan Strait, East Sea and South China Seas, knowing that by doing so it strengthens its negotiating leverage in wresting future US concessions. Much has been made of US-endorsed 'de-risking' from China without actually 'decoupling.' The resumption of trade in critical minerals—crucial to US defense and clean energy sectors—signals a potential pause in America's techno-economic containment of China, which if lasting, would contradict the bipartisan consensus in Washington that China poses a 'systemic challenge.' This could also send mixed messages to allies such as Japan, South Korea and key ASEAN economies, many of which are now being pressured to restrict technology transfers to China, particularly in regard to AI and quantum computing. If Trump reverses this posture, potentially at a Trump-Xi in-person summit, it would necessarily undercut the anti-China coalition the US has been trying to build since 2017 and signal a climbdown of epic proportions. An in-person summit with Xi would give both leaders global optics, something they arguably both need as their hardline stances cause political tremors at home and restlessness abroad. Yet symbolism without substance carries its own risks. The 2019 Mar-a-Lago summit and the 2018 G20 truce in Argentina were celebrated photo ops that ultimately yielded few strategic gains. Indeed, they were followed by tariff escalations, cyber accusations and deepened distrust. Xi, ever conscious of China's 'national rejuvenation' drive, may use a summit with Trump to signal that China is not isolated—even amid Western efforts to contain it – and that he brought the US to heel through his tough negotiating posture. Should he succeed in presenting Trump as a president willing to do business without political preconditions, it will bolster China's power on the world stage. This symbolism would serve Xi well amid research that shows China is straining under the weight of assisting various countries when its own economy remains fragile. There will be a temptation to portray a Trump-Xi summit as a return to the two sides' previous 'managed rivalry' model. Yet this notion is predicated on mutual trust, which no longer exists. A brief thaw may offer breathing space for both, but there is no sign yet of lasting strategic stability. During the previous Cold War, the US and Soviet Union were able to negotiate arms control and crisis management protocols. No such guardrails exist between the US and China today. The resumption of critical mineral trade and educational exchanges, while welcome, won't be enough to reverse mutual mistrust, especially when military encounters in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea could easily still spiral out of control. Increasingly politicized charges against Chinese nationals in the US are fueling that mistrust. Those include new accusations that China is involved in 'agro-terrorism' that aims to wipe out US barley, wheat and corn yields by up to 50%. A PhD researcher of Chinese origin at the University of Michigan has been arrested in this connection. A potential Trump-Xi summit – despite stage-managed positive vibes and smiles for the cameras, could be yet another empty ritual—a theatrical handshake over unresolved and deep contradictions. To be sure, both leaders have reasons to engage. Trump seeks headlines as his popularity slips ahead of 2026 midterm elections; Xi seeks legitimacy for his tough negotiating posture that risks millions of Chinese factory jobs. But neither is offering a strategic roadmap that can reassure domestic or global audiences. Without a shared understanding of what strategic competition entails, and without mechanisms for escalation control, the optics of detente will only mask a rivalry that still threatens to spiral deeper and deeper into conflict.
