Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth

ALternative Pathways toward Sustainable development and climate
stabilization (ALPS) – Project Outline– Development of alternative scenarios under the world countries having multiple objects andthe different priorities
 Background and Objective
The purpose of this study is to develop alternative scenarios with realistic assumptions that nations, as actors
in the global community, have multiple objectives with different priorities. A variety of emissions scenarios forclimate change research have been developed so far, and made a due contribution to policy-making in the
climate change mitigation efforts. The traditional approaches in modeling exercises for scenario development,
however, tend to describe a simplified world under which mitigation or adaptation costs are minimized with theideal conditions. The reality is more complex: different actors have different policy priorities based on theireconomic level, natural circumstances and other constraints, which leads to difficulty in creating a coordinateduniform policy, as observed in the COP15 negotiations and in the domestic policymaking processes. Climatechange is not the only issue on the global agenda, so it should be addressed in a balanced manner across multiple
dimensions. Traditional global abatement scenarios may be too simplified to capture richness of detail andcontext of the real world situation. The results reveal that climate policy with the highly-idealized premises
sometimes does not deliver relevant outcomes, or rather causes unduly confusion to the society.
The ALPS project aims at providing alternative plausible future scenarios and through quantification ofmultiple aspects of society on the assumptions that the real-world society is intrinsically consist of a wide rangeof values. This approach allows us to inform decision makers of more appropriate strategies toward sustainable
development and climate stabilization from longer and wider perspectives. Another focus is to gain a clearer
understanding of CO2 emissions structure on a national, sectoral and technological basis in order to deal withshort and mid-term climate challenges. The scenarios on combinations of macro and micro views would generate
further insights into climate change mitigation and sustainable development.

 Socio-economic Scenario Development
Modeling simulations are powerful tools to support decision making even though they tend to assume
perfect information or perfectly rational behavior. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that the realworld is less elegant and simple. The gap between the real world and virtual model world creates a risk ofsending wrong message. Therefore this ALPS project starts from a deep understanding of the current world
situation and learns from historical trends in order to avoid such trap. Based on the insights gained from thesocio-economic analysis above, narrative storylines with great details are worked out from broader
perspectives.
There are three pillars for core narrative scenarios; 1) Socio-economic scenarios, 2) Climate Change Policy
scenarios, and 3) Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios. Furthermore sub-scenarios focus on
the subject matter of development and diffusion of climate friendly technologies, economic growth of least
developed countries and impacts of inter/intra national economic gap (see Figure 1).
With regard to the socio-economic scenarios, a key scenario driver is technological progress, which involves
significant uncertainty. Although policy can have impact on technology progress to some extent, other factors
can bring larger uncertainty about the future technological change beyond policy impact. It is quite difficult toforecast future innovation and technological progress with high accuracy, so we prepare two discrete scenarios
to cover the uncertainty. Scenario A (Medium technological progress scenario) illustrates a gradual shift fromdynamic economic development toward a well matured economy especially in developed countries. Scenario B(High technological progress scenario) describes a future world of very rapid economic growth with brilliant

1Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earthinnovation.
As for scenarios of climate change priority in the broader global agenda, we develop three different
narratives. Scenario I named “Pluralistic society scenario” is approximate to the current real world situation
with people’s diverse values in nature. This scenario is premised on the existence of various barriers totechnology diffusion. Scenario II is a “Climate policy prioritized scenario” is a one under which climatechange policy is prioritized and people’s behavior are rational in the sense that mitigation measures are taken ina cost effective way. This assumption was implicitly adopted by most of the traditional climate change
assessment. Scenario III called “Energy security prioritized scenario” in which each nation puts high priority
on domestic energy resources from energy security perspective.
Our future emissions scenarios are fully harmonized with a set of four RCPs for IPCC AR5. The RCPs havebeen selecting from existing literature to span the full range of possible trajectories for future greenhouseconcentration: a very high emission scenario leading to 8.5 W/m2, a high stabilization scenario leading to 6
W/m2, an intermediate stabilization scenario leading to 4.5 W/m2 and a low mitigation scenario leading to 2.6
W/m2 (RCP 3-PD). Additionally we go over 3.7 W/m2 scenario, which comes to five emission pathways intotal.

Scenario for natural
resources

Economic scenarios
Scenario for domestic
economic gap

ALPS core scenarios

Scenario for economic
development in least
developed countries

Scenarios for macro-level and socio-economic
conditions in the long term
Scenario A:
Medium technologicalprogress scenario

Scenario for preventing
population decrease indeveloped countries

Scenario for oil priceetc.

Scenario B:
High technologicalprogress scenarioetc.

Scenarios for emission
reduction levels

Climate change policy
scenarios

RCP3.0PD

I：Pluralistic society scenario

Nuclear power scenario

RCP4.5

II：Climate policy prioritized
scenario

CCS scenario

RCP6.0

Renewable energy
scenario

RCP8.5

Scenarios for energy
technologies

III: Energy security
prioritized scenario

Scenarios for otherclimate change policies

EV scenario

Smart grid scenario

Scenario for the timing ofcountries’ participation in theframework of emission reduction

Scenarios for other technologies
Scenario for agricultural productivity

etc.

Scenario for international
offset mechanisms(e.g. REDD)
etc.

Scenario for Geo-engineering

etc.

Figure 1: Scenarios to be developed in the ALPS project Model GroupThe ALPS project performs comprehensive modeling scenarios supplemented with the existing models
developed by RITE. Scenarios associated with climate change need to be developed in the context ofsustainable development with a wide-ranging set of models to reflect a multifaceted reality. The DNE21+
Model assesses CO2 emissions from fuel combustion with great details of national, sectoral and technologicaldescriptions. Along with the food demand-supply model, fresh water model, and land use model, a wide
variety of plausible future scenarios and narratives are assessed in an integrated and consistent manner.
The models are chosen appropriately in accordance with time frame and objectives of the assessment. For
near and medium term analysis, detailed descriptions of the nation, of sector and of technology are underscored.
For longer term analysis, interactions between climate impacts and socio-economic activities are more
highlighted.

2

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth

Population, GDP

GHGs excluding energy-related CO2

Non-CO2 GHG Model
Main focus: 2020-2030,
until the year 2150

Gap in domestic income
Distribution of urban population
Energy security assessment
model

EnergyDNE21+
Main focus: 2020-2030, until theyear 2050
Industrial structural change
FinanceModel for the analysisof environmentallyfriendly cities

DEARS

DNE21

Main focus: 2020-2030, until the year
2050, with whole economy andintegrated with climate model

Until the year 2150,
with whole economy,
integrated with climate
model

EconomyLand use, food, water resource

Model for the analysis of food demand/supply,
water resource and land use change(until the year 2150)
Water security assessment model
Food security assessment model

Climate change

Simplified climate change model
Grid-based estimation of climate change

Assessment model for impact on
biodiversity (using BIOME model)

Assessment model for
health impact
Impact of global warming

Figure 2: Models for the development of ALPS quantitative scenarios Future perspectives based on quantitative understanding of the world
Adequate understanding of complicated real world situation is necessary to address climate change because
challenges of global warming are closely linked to the various global agenda. They may not be captured by asimplified index. In this study, we explore a range of indices from both macro perspective and micro perspective,
to understand current situation and to depict future prospects.

- Socio-economic trends and future perspectives
Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively show global population and global GDP of the socio-economic scenarios,“Scenario A: Medium technological Progress Scenario” and “Scenario B: High Technological Progress
Scenario.” For Scenario A, we assume medium population growth, referring to the UN medium population
projection of the “2008 Revision of the World Population Prospects” In this scenario global population will get
to 9.1 billion by 2050, and expected to grow stably to reach 9.3 billion by 2100. Alternatively Scenario B ischaracterized by rapid economic growth due to higher technological progress. In this scenario global population
moderately increases from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 8.6 billion people by 2050, and then peaks out at 7.4 billion by
2100. The average global GDP growth rate over the period of 2000-2050 is 2.5% per year for Scenario A and
2.8 % year for Scenario B. Over the 21st century GDP increases at a growth rate of 2.0% per year in Scenario A
and 2.3% per year in Scenario B.

3

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth

SRES A2（IIASA1996 High）

160

Range in SRES

ALPS-Scenario A

140

SRES B2

UN2008 High

（UN1998 Medium）

人口（億人）(100 million)
Population

120

UN2008 medium

IIASA2007100（10-90 percentile）

Range in ALPS

80

Range in UN2008
60

UN2008 Low
SRES A1/B1

40（IIASA1996 Low）

ALPS-Scenario B
20
0
1950

1975

2000

2025

2050

2075

2100

Figure 3 Global Population Scenarios
Range in SRES

400
SRES B1

SRES A1

GDP (Trillion 2000 USD)

350
300

ALPS-Scenario B
250

Range in ALPS200

ALPS-Scenario A

150
SRES B2
EIA-IEO2010

100

SRES A250

IEA-ETP2010

01980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Figure 4 Global GDP Scenarios
Note: Historical data to 2008 and RITE projection after 2009. SRES stands for the “Special Report on Emissions
Scenarios”, a report prepared by the IPCC. We adjust them at 2000 prices since SRES is based on the 1990 prices.
EIA-IEA 2010 data at 2005 prices is also aligned with the base-year. PPP based IEA-ETP 2010 is converted into MER
accounts in accordance with the global average ratio of PPP/MER under the ALPS Scenario A’s assumptions.

2005
Latin America
7%

Africa2%

2050
Other Non
Annex I
3%

2100
Other Non
Annex I
5%

Africa5%

United Latin America
8%States30%

Other Asia
5%
India
2% China
6%

India
7%

Japan
6%

China
22%

EU27(+12)
1%

Figure 5 Share of world GDP in Scenario A

India
11%

EU27(+12)
1%

Japan
3%
China
16%

EU27(+12) Other Asia
12%
2%

Other Annex I
6%4

UnitedStates15%

Africa11%

Latin America
11%

EU15
13%

Other Annex I
6%

EU15
24%

UnitedStates
19%

EU15
9%

Other Asia
7%

Japan
14%

Other Non
Annex I
7%

Other Annex I
4%

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth- The current state of energy efficiency
The widespread deployment of a range of energy efficient technologies can lead to a more secure andsustainable future. Keeping track of details of technology situation at sector and national level, sector wiseenergy efficiency is estimated on a technology basis. This allows to analyze potential impact of CO2
emissions reduction through accelerating technology deployment.
6

2005

30

25
20
15
10
5

2005
5
production (GJ/t-clinker)

2000

Therm al energy c onsumption of clinker

Primary energy consumption of basic
oxygen furnace steel (GJ/t-crude steel)

35

4
3
2
1
0

0

Figure 6 Energy efficiency in steel and cement sector
Note: The analysis above was carried out by RITE through other research project.

- Power generating costs and their projections
As for power sector, current and future generation costs and technology perspectives were widely
surveyed. Figure 7 shows projections of power generating costs including grid costs. Costs of coal-fired
power plants and nuclear power range between 8yen/kWh and 12yen/kWh, of gas-fired power plants
between 10yen/kWh and 14yen/kWh, of wind power plants between 16yen/kWh and 18yen/kWh, and of
solar PV between 55yen/kWh and 63yen/kWh. Costs of renewable sources themselves are expected to
decline as capacities expand, whereas their ancillary costs are expected to grow because locational
conditions become less favorable and because additional investments are required for grid stability tosecure reliable power supply. While the costs of wind power generation is nearly equivalent to the costs offossil power plants when its installed capacity is small, wind power is getting lack of competitiveness inthe power market as its capacity grows.
Power generation costs (Yen/kWh)
発電単価（円/kWh）

70

60

50

40

PV

30
Wind

20

Natural gas

Electricity
prices

Coal

10

0
2005

Nuclear power

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Figure 7 Projections of power generating costs by generation type in Japan

5

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth- Future outlook of crude steel production
The Iron and Steel sector is one of the largest energy intensive industries and has a significant impact
on global energy consumption and CO2 emissions. As shown Figure 8 and Figure 9 we extrapolate future
crude steel production and scrap availability. Crudes steel production in China has expanded rapidly in thepast decade, but their production level will be saturated sooner or later, judging from historical data on
apparent steel consumption per capita. Alternatively steel production in India is expected to increase. We
estimate global steel production is expected to reach approximately 2.2 billion tons per year by 2050.
There are mainly two types of steel production process, the scrap/EAF route and the BF/BOF route. In
terms of energy/carbon-intensity, the scrap/EAF is less intensive because there is no need to reduce ironore to iron and because it cuts out the need for the ore preparation and coke-making steps. In that sense itis crucial to estimate scrap availability and potential of EAF in projecting global CO2 emissions from ironand steel sector. One of the biggest challenges in the estimation is to know the volume of social stock ofsteel scrap and their availability. With limited information and data, we explore two approaches to assess
future scrap availability in the world, referring to previous studies. Global availability of process scrap andobsolete scrap increases ranging from 0.8 to 1.0 billion tones per year in 2050. The volume of home scrap
is estimated to reach 0.15 million tones and the sum of the total scrap availability, including home scrap,
process scrap and obsolete scrap, is expected to range from 0.95 billion tones to 1.15 billion tones whereas
IEA(2009) estimates around 1.25 billion tones scrap availability in 2050. This suggests the fact that IEA
overestimates scrap availability by about from 0.1 billion tones to 0.3 billion tones.
Latin America

Scenario

Africa and Middle East

2,000

Crude steel production (Million ton/yr)

Statistics

Other developing Asia

1,500

India

Economies intransition

1,000

China

500

OECD Pacific
OECD North America

OECD Europe
0
1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Figure 8 Historical crude steel production and its projection by region
1,600

Scrap consumpition （Million ton/yr)

Scenario (based on estimation logic no.2)
1,400
1,200
1,000

Scenario (based on estimation logic no.1)
Estimate (based on logic no.2)
Estimate (based on logic no.1)

800
600
400

Prompt scrap + obsolete scrap(Fe-equivalent)

200
0

1950

1975

2000

2025

2050

2075

2100

Figure 9 Global historical scrap (prompt scrap and obsolete scrap) consumption
and projection of future scrap availability

6Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth GHGs emissions and their emissions reduction projections
Global GHGs emissions were 32 Gt CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq) in 1990 and 39 Gt CO2-eq. Without
climate policy, they are estimated to reach 55 Gt CO2-eq in 2020 and around 79 Gt CO2-eq in 2050, which
is more than twice the current emissions level. Particularly emissions from developing countries are
expected to grow faster as their economy expands.
80
70
Other Non Annex I

GHG emission [GtCO2eq./yr]

60

AfricaLatin America

50

Other Asia
India

40

China
Other Annex I

30

Japan
20

EU27(+12)EU15

10

United States

0
1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Figure 10 Global GHG emission outlook
Note: Historical data to 2008 and RITE projection after 2009 based on the “Scenario A: Medium technological Progress
Scenario” in combination with “Scenario I: Pluralistic society scenario”, which is approximate to the real-world social
behavior. GHGs cover the Kyoto’s six gases. Emissions from LULUCF, international aviation and maritime transport
are excluded.

Other Non
Annex I7%
Af rica5%
Latin
America
7%

1990

Other Non
Annex I
8%

UnitedStates19%

UnitedStates15%

2020

Annex I exc. US: 22%

Af rica
6%
EU15
9%

Latin
America7%

Other Asia
6%
EU15
13%

India
5%

China
12%

Annex I: 58%

Other
Annex I
18%

Other Non
Annex I7%
Af rica6%EU27(+12)
2%

Other Asia
9%

Other
Annex I
8%

India
8%

EU27(+12)
4%

China
25%

Japan
4%

2005

UnitedStates
18%

Japan
3%

Annex I exc.
US: 27%

Other Non
Annex I8%2050

UnitedStates12%EU15
7%EU27(+12)3%

Af rica9%

Latin
America
8%
EU15
11%

Other Asia
9%
India
6%
China
19%

Other
Annex I
10%

EU27(+12)
2%
Japan
4%

Japan
1%

Latin
America8%

OtherAnnex I
7%

Other Asia
10%
India
11%

Figure 11 GHG emissions by region
7

China
24%

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth

Figure 12 and Figure 13 illustrate regional and technological contribution to cut global emissions inhalf by 2050 respectively. They imply significant contribution by energy efficiency to CO2 reduction.
From longer perspective, nuclear power generation, renewable energy and Carbon capture and storage(CCS) will play an important role in 2050. From regional perspective, developing countries have larger
potential to reduce emissions, which suggests that global actions are necessary to meet the target.

Energy-related CO2 Emissions and Reductions[GtCO2/yr]

60

Electricity generation: CCS

Baseline emissions:
57 GtCO2/yr

50

17%
Electricity generation: Renewables

14%

40

15%
11%

30

Electricity generation: Nucleaer
Electricity generation: Efficiency improvement& Fuel switching among fossil fuels
Other energy conversion sector

43%

20

Transportation sector

Emissions when halving
global emissions: 13 GtCO2/yr

10

Residential sector

Industrial sector
CO2 Emission

0
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Year

Figure 12 Reduction contribution by technology for halving global emissions by 2050 (Scenario A-I)

Energy-related CO2 Emissions & Reductions[GtCO2/yr]

Note: Estimated by RITE DNE21+. CO2 from fuel combustion only. Emissions from international aviation and maritime
transport are excluded.

60
Baseline emissions:
57 GtCO2/yr

Other non-OECD

50

30%

40

6%
10%

30

24%

Other OME
India
China

17%

20

Other OECD
13%

Emissions when halving
global emissions: 13 GtCO2/yr

10

USA
CO2 emissions

0
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Year

Figure 13 Reduction contribution by region for halving global emissions by 2050 (Scenario A-I)

8

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth Scenarios on the climate change priority in the broader global agenda
The differences among three scenarios (I, II and III) toward 2050 is analyzed by DNE21+ model withsocio-economic assumptions of Scenario A. In our real world, energy efficient appliances and technologies
are not necessarily chosen by consumer due to the existence of the efficiency gap. We assume relatively
shorter payback period (or higher implicit discount rate) as observed in the real world situation for
Scenario I, “Pluralistic society scenario”, while Scenario II, namely “Climate policy prioritized scenario”,
is characterized by the longer payback period. Figure 14 provides an idea of difference in technology
choice between Scenario I and Scenario II. Scenarios III “Energy security prioritized scenario” isdifferentiated in higher tariff barriers for oil and gas export.
The total cost of standard technology islower than the one of efficient technology
with these implicit costs.

Scenario I

These implicit costs are higher indeveloping countries, and lower inJapan. In general, these costs arehigher in residential sector.

The total cost of efficient technology will
be lower than the one of standard
technology if these implicit costs are
removed through bottom-up measures.

Scenario II(Source) IEA ETP 2010

Figure 14 Image of technology choice
Figure 15 and Figure 16 identify differences in total primary energy supply and power generation mix
respectively for the baseline case among Scenario I, II, and III. The share of nuclear power generation ishigher in Scenario III than in Scenario I. Power generation mix of Scenario II is characterized by higher
share of nuclear power generation and of highly efficient fossil fuel power plants regardless of theirexpensive initial costs.
24000
Primary Energy Supply [Mtoe/yr]

22000
Others

20000
18000

Biomass & Waste

16000

Hydro & Geothermal

14000
12000

Nuclear

10000

Natural Gas

8000
6000

Oil

4000

Coal

2000

Y2020

Y2030

Scenario III

Scenario II

Scenario I

Scenario III

Scenario II

Scenario I

Scenario III

Scenario II

Scenario I

0

Y2050

Figure 15 Baseline of total primary energy supply (Scenario I, II and III)
9

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth

50000

PV

45000

Wind

Power generation [TWh/yr]

Biomass-High
40000

Biomass-Low

35000

Hydro&Geothermal
Nuclear

30000

Gas-CHP

25000

Gas-High

Gas-Middle
20000

Gas-Low
Oil-CHP

15000

Oil-High
10000

Oil-Middle
Oil-Low

5000

Coal-High

2020

2030

Scenario III

Scenario II

Scenario I

Scenario III

Scenario II

Scenario I

Scenario III

Scenario II

Scenario I

0Coal-Middle
Coal-Low

2050

Figure 16 Baseline global power generation (Scenario I, II and III)
Figure 17 compares marginal abatement costs to reduce global emissions in half among Scenario I, III,and II. Scenario I and III imply higher carbon prices due to longer payback period in accordance with thereal world situation, while Scenario II leads to lower marginal abatement costs. This result suggests that
explicit carbon prices can be very high to meet the targets, which causes great difficulty in implementation,and that detailed measures to remove market barriers to energy efficiency can lower mitigation costs as
described in Scenario II.

CO2 marginal abatement cost [$/tCO2]

500

Scenario I and III

Scenario I

450

Scenario II

400

Scenario III

350
300

Scenario II

250
200

150
100
50
0

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Year

Figure 17 CO2 marginal abatement cost in Scenario I, II and III

10Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth Socio-economic scenarios and emissions pathways
The divergence between Scenario A and Scenario B and among the RCP scenarios are analyzed withthe underlying assumptions of Scenario I, using DNE21 model, which has a simpler structure but longer
timeframe than DNE21+ has. Figure 18 shows global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for thebaseline cases of Scenario A (Medium Technology Progress) and Scenario B (High Technology Progress),and emission pathways of each RCP category. Given the uncertainty of economic growth andtechnological change, it is assumed that the baselines for global CO2 emissions make little difference
between Scenario A and Scenario B. Their global CO2 emissions are expected to double by 2050 and triple
by 2100. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100 will range approximately from 700 to 770
ppm-CO2.

CO2 emissions from energy (GtCO2/yr)

120

RITE ALPS-A

ベースライン

Baseline

100

RITE ALPS-B
ALPS-A650ppmCO2(RCP6.0)
ALPS-A550ppmCO2(RCP4.5)
ALPS-A450ppmCO2

80
60

ALPS-A375ppmCO2

40

RCP8.5 (MESSAGE)

20

RCP6.0 (AIM)0
1975

RCP4.5 (MiniCAM)

2000

2025

2050

2075

2100
RCP3-PD (IMAGE)-20

Figure 18 Baseline scenario for global CO2 emissions from energy

Atmospheric CO2 concentration (ppm-CO2)

800
RITE ALPS-A

700
RITE ALPS-B

600

ALPS-A650ppmCO2(RCP6.0)

ALPS-A550ppmCO2(RCP4.5)

500

ALPS-A450ppmCO2

400

ALPS-A375ppmCO2

300
2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Figure 19 Trajectories of atmospheric CO2 concentration
Figure 20 provides an insight into a loss of per cent GDP to meet the required mitigation target for agiven RCP scenario. There are little differences in GDP loss between 2050 and 2100. The 375 ppm-CO2(corresponding to 350 ppm-CO2 eq) scenario gives approximately 4% GDP loss and the 450 ppm-CO2(corresponding to 550 ppm-CO2 eq) scenario is about 3%. The gap between Scenario A and Scenario B is
also small.

11

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the EarthALPS
GDP loss
GDPロス
(%)

(%)

Figure 20 Global GDP loss for each stabilization level (Compared with IPCC AR4)
 Analysis of indicators on sustainable development
限界削減
Maintaining a subtle balance between mitigation efforts and other global challenges enhances social
費用 and ensures sustainability of mitigation actions because a particular set of values and norms
welfare($/tCO2)
constitute our real world collectively. We therefore assess our scenarios from a broad set of aspects tounderstand climate change mitigation measures in the wider context of sustainable development.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 illustrate examples of energy security evaluation according to the IEA’s index.
The baseline scenario indicates that vulnerability to energy security risks is expected to increase toward2050. It is noteworthy that energy system can be more vulnerable than the baseline in the scenario cutting
global CO2 emissions in half by 2050. Energy security will be enhanced in the “Energy Security Scenario”
of our scenario III based on our assessment. Figure 23 shows water-stressed population. Scenarios are also
examined by other indexes with multiple criteria.
14000
Y2000
Y2050 - Baseline
Y2050 - 50% reduction in 2050

10000

Level ofvulnerability

8000
6000
4000
2000
World average

Korea, ASEAN

India

China

Japan

ME, Turkey,
North Africa

FSU

E.Europe

W. Europe

0
US

Energy security index

12000

Figure 21 Energy security index by region (Scenario A-I)

12

Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth

5000

Gas

Oil
Level ofvulnerability

3000
2000
1000

Y2000

Baseline

Scenario III

Scenario II

Scenario III

Scenario II

Scenario I

0Scenario I

Energy security index

4000

50% reduction in 2050

Y2050

Figure 22 Global weighted average of energy security index for each scenario
2000

1200
2030 Baseline

1000
800

2030 50%
reduction in 2050

600
400

2050 Baseline

200
Oceania

Other South Asia

India

Southeast Asia

Other East Asia

China

Japan

Southeast Africa

Southwest Africa

RussiaNorth Africa, Middle East

Western Europe

Eastern Europe, other FSU

BrazilOther South America

CanadaCentral America

0
U.S.

Water-stressed population (million)

1400

2050 50%
reduction in 2050

Figure 23 Water-stressed population by scenario, period and region
 Expected Outcome
Synthetic scenarios toward sustainable development and climate stabilization are expected to be generated
in a consistent and quantitative manner by the end of project period, March 2012. This study will provide
substantial insight into alternative pathways and catches the implied meaning from the quantitative assessment inorder to guide our future actions.
Findings and lessons learned from this research project, including scenario analysis, are returned to society.
The results of this study are expected to not only make scientific contribution to the IPCC but also to serve as
fundamental information for decision making on global and domestic climate change policy.

 Project Period
From April 2007to March 2012

Contact to:
Keigo AkimotoGroup Leader, Systems Analysis Group
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)
9-2 Kizugawadai, Kizugawa-shi Kyoto 619-0292 JAPAN
PHONE: +81-774-75-2304 FAX: +81-774-75-2317 E-mail: aki@rite.or.jp
Update: April 201113