First Edition (May 2008)
National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba
Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
Telephone +81-29-850-2504
Japan LCS website: http://2050.nies.go.jp© NIES, Japan, 2008
This publication (excluding the logo) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it isreproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.

The material must be acknowledged as NIES copyrightwith the title and source of the publication specified.
This workshop summary and all presentation materials are also available on the Japan LCS website
Printed in Japan on recycled paper using soy-based ink

The third workshop and symposium of
the Japan-UK Joint Research Project

Roadmap to
Low-Carbon WorldWorkshop and Symposium

February 13-15, 2008
Tokyo, JAPANTable of Contents
Table of Contents ..............................................................................................................................1
Co-Chairs’ Summary........................................................................................................................3
Expert Workshop ..............................................................................................................................5
Agenda ................................................................................................................................7
Introduction...........................................................................................................................
Group Allocation...............................................................................................................12Group 1: Key Note Speech ...............................................................................................18
Lead Speech ......................................................................................................36
Group 2: Key Note Speech ...............................................................................................49
Lead Speech ......................................................................................................61
Group 3: Key Note Speech ...............................................................................................71
Lead Speech ......................................................................................................75
Group 4: Key Note Speech ...............................................................................................89
Lead Speech ......................................................................................................93
Open Symposium ..........................................................................................................................109
Agenda ............................................................................................................................ 111
Welcome Addresses ........................................................................................................ 112
High-level Speeches:
Dr. Emil Salim ................................................................................................ 115
Mr. Mitsuhiko Yamashita ................................................................................ 116
Mr. David Warrilow ........................................................................................ 118
Panel Discussion Summary
Topic 1 ............................................................................................................ 119
Topic 2 ............................................................................................................126
Topic 3 ............................................................................................................132
Topic 4 ............................................................................................................138
Interactive Discussion using electronic voting system ...................................................145
Closing Address ..............................................................................................................149
Appendices...........................................................................................................................................
I: List of Invited Participants ........................................................................................151
II: Biography of Invited Participants...............................................................................153
III: Call for Action and Executive Summary with Japan-UK ministers’ letter ...............177
IV: Press Release.............................................................................................................1871

2

Co-chairs’ Summary
Shuzo Nishioka

Jim Skea(nishioka@nies.go.jp)(j.skea@ukerc.ac.uk)

Senior Visiting Researcher

Research Director,

National Institute for

UK Energy

Environmental Studies

Research Centre

In February 2006, the Ministry of Environment (MOE) Japan and the Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK set in motion an ambitious research project aimed at
informing the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development
established during the UK’s 2005 G8 Presidency (DEFRA, 2005). The Dialogue has engaged G8
countries and other interested countries with significant energy needs. It has focused on: 1) thestrategic challenge of transforming our energy systems to create a more secure and sustainable
future; 2) monitoring implementation of the commitments made in the associated Gleneagles Plan of
Action; and 3) sharing best practice between participating governments.
The Japan-UK Low Carbon Society joint research project has contributed to the first and third ofthese objectives. It took as its starting point the need to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at alevel that would avoid dangerous climate change. It then went on to create visions of low-carbon
societies, identifying the concrete steps required to achieve the necessary transitions.
The two governments have worked with three of the top climate and energy research centres inJapan and the UK – the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), the Tyndall Centre on
Climate Change and the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC).

The Centres undertook asequence of three workshops and symposia, involving both researchers and stakeholders from adiverse group of some 20 countries, developed and developing. A key component was aninternational modelling comparison exercise undertaken by ten national teams.
This project was established to create visions of a low carbon society and to identify the steps
required to achieve the necessary transitions. It set the goal of a low-carbon society firmly within thecontext of broader sustainable development objectives. This project analysed and discussed anumber of issues including : a working definition for the low carbon society concept; the need for
and feasibility of achieving low carbon societies; establishing and developing low carbon society
visions; evidence of the scope for action offered by existing initiatives at the country, city andsectoral levels; the roles of business, the investment community, technology, city authorities andconsumers; aligning low carbon societies with wider sustainable development needs; and final
conclusions and policy recommendations.
This Project has shown that low carbon societies are achievable, but also that a major coordinatedeffort, nationally and internationally, will be required to achieve this vision. Although advancing the3technological frontier will be vital, changes must go to a deeper level if climate change anddevelopment goals are to be reconciled.
The Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Fukuda, in his annual speech to the Diet in 2008, described the
Low Carbon Society as Japan`s vision for future generations. We sincerely hope, anticipating the G8
Summit in 2008 at Toyako, that our research results will contribute to the deliberations of world
policy leaders and also guide people to act towards low carbon society and sustainable development.

4Expert Workshop
February 13-14, 2008
Tokyo

6

Expert Workshop
AgendaThe 3rd Workshop of Japan-UK Joint Research Project on Low-Carbon Societies“Roadmap to Low-Carbon World”
Date: 13rd-14th February, 2008
Venue: Hotel Metropolitan Edmont, Iidabashi, Tokyo.
Day1: 13rd February (Wednesday)
8:30-9:00

Registration

Orientation
9:00- 9:40 Orientation
Plenary Session (1)9:40-10:00

Charles Secrett, Special Advisor (Sustainability) The Mayor's Office/Visit London,
Low Carbon London Changing Behavior

10:00-10:20

Rae Kwon Chung, Director, Environment and Sustainable Division, UNESCAP,
Aligning SD with LCS

10:20-10:40

Refreshment break

10:40-11:00

Takejiro Sueyoshi (UNEP), Special Advisor in the Asia-Pacific region of the UNEP
Enabling LCSs (Low-Carbon Societies): Investment

11;00-11;20

Christopher Beauman, Senior Adviser, EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development)
Reducing CO2 in Carbon-Intensive Sectors (Especially Steel): Short-term
Competitiveness Issues / Long-term Paradigm Changes

11:20-11:40

Photo

Parallel (1)11:40-12:30

group discussions including 3-6 lead speeches (each 5 minutes)

Lead speakers of Group1:
1)

Jun Fujimoto (Tokyo University), ICT and lifestyle2)

Murari Lal (India),
New Delhi plan – Low Carbon Future Road Map to Low Carbon World Bhartiya
Climate Index

3)

Masaru Ohara (Tokyo Metropolitan), Tokyo Climate Change Strategy

4)

Ichiro Ozawa (Waseda Univ.), Behavioral Change of Planners & Developers

5)

Ho Chin Shion (Malaysia),
Malaysia vision and pathway towards Low carbon society (LCS)

6)

Yasuo Takahashi (MOEJ), Building a Low Carbon Society, (13th only)7

Expert Workshop
AgendaLead speakers of Group2:
1)

Mikiko Kainuma (NIES),
Some consideration to deliver LCS from sustainable development points of view

2)

Masato Kawanishi (JICA),
SD-PAMs and LCS : Co-benefit Approach to Mitigation in Developing Countries
and a Role of ODA

3)Andre Santos Pereira (COPPE, Brazil),
Biomass and SD : Ethanol in Brazil, a single case4)

Ram Shrestha (AIT),
CO2 Reduction and Transport Sector in Thailand: Some Insights Ram

Lead speakers of Group3:
1)

Eiichiro Adachi(The Japan Research Institute),
Roadmap to Low Carbon World through the evolution of a market

2)

Yurika Ayukawa (WWF Japan),Domestic Emissions Trading Scheme for Decarbonizing Japan

3)

Don Gunasekera (ABARE), Lowering Australia’s emissions profile

4)

Narito Shibaike (Panasonic, Japan),Market Transformation by Energy Efficiency Indicator, (13th only)

5)

Ralph Torrie (ICF Canada),
Prospects for a Low Carbon Society: The Case of Canada

Lead speakers of Group4:
1)

Kimiko Hirata (KIKO network), Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors and NGO role2)

Tetsunari Iida (ISEP), renewable energy policy and politics in Japan, (13th only)3)

Teruo Okazaki, Hironobu Nose (Nippon Steel Cooperation),
Our Challenge for Clean Development and Climate – Steel Industry’s Global
Sector-based & Technology-based Approach / Challenge –4)Wang Shu (Chinese delegation), Chinese LCS Approaches on International Level

5)

Isamu Yasuda (Tokyo Gas Co),Hydrogen Economy for Low Carbon Society

12:30-13:30

Lunch

13:30-14:40

Parallel (1) (cont.)

14:40-15:10

Refreshment breakInteractive (1)15:10-15:30

Group 1 Report

15:30-15:50

Group 2 Report

15:50-16:10

Group 3 Report

16:10-16:30

Group 4 Report8Expert Workshop
AgendaPost Parallel (1)16:30-17:00
17:00

Group discussions

Adjourn

17:30 Bus to British Embassy in Tokyo
18:00- Reception at British Embassy in Tokyo
20:00- Return Bus to Hotel Metropolitan Edmont
Day2: 14th February (Thursday)
8:30- 9:00

Registration

Plenary Session (2)9:00- 9:20 Yuichi Moriguchi, Director of research center for material cycles and waste
management, NIES,
Low carbon society in contrast to a society with mass consumption of energy andresources
9:20- 9:40

P.R.Shukla, Professor, Indian Institute of Management
Delivering Low-Carbon Society through Sustainable Development

9:40-10:00 Emma Howard Boyd, Head of Socially Responsible Investment, Director Jupiter
Asset Management
Deliverling a low carbon society – mobilising the finance sector
10:00-10:20

Masayuki Sasanouchi, Project General Manager, Environmental Affairs Div. Toyota
An automotive industry’s view

10:20-10:40

Refreshment break

Parallel (2)10:40-12:00

group discussions including 3-6 lead speeches (each 5 minutes)

Lead speakers of Group1:
1)

Renaud Crassous (CIRED, France), Towards a Low Carbon Society in France

2)

Shobhakhar Dhakal (GCP Office, NIES),
Low carbon cities and behavioral change : Personal reflections from a recent event

3)

Mariko Hanada (Osaka Sangyo University),
For “ Low-Carbon Society ” by Changing Citizens’ behavior

4)

Akiyasu Kurishima (MLIT, Japan),Japanese Urban Policies to Tackle Climate Change

5)

Teruaki Masumoto, Ikuo Nishimura (TEPCO, Japan),9Expert Workshop
AgendaBehavioral Change toward Low Carbon Society – Role of Business, Consumers andGovernment
6)

Naoki Matsuo (Climate Expert),
Institutional Framework to Foster People’s Behavioral Change for LCS

7)

Mike Norton (Shinshu Univ), Barriers to a Low-Carbon Society

8)

Jim Skea (UKERC, UK), Carbon Footprints and Consumers

Lead speakers of Group2:
1)

Rizaldi Boer (Bogor University, Indonesia),
Indonesia’s Plan towards Low Carbon Society (LCS)

2)

Haroldo de Oliveira Machado Filho (Brazilian delegation),
Low carbon society (LCS) and sustainable development (SD): Perspectives of Brazil

3)

Kensuke Fukushi (Tokyo University), Sustainability for all

4)

Ryokichi Hirono (Seikei University),
Integrating Low Carbon Society Concept into Sustainable Development Strategy in
All Countries

5)

Stanford Mwakasonda (ERC, South Africa),
Sustainable development policies and measures (SD-PAMs)

6)

Tomohiro Sudo (JBIC), Role of ODA Loans for enabling LCS

7)

Yoshiaki Yamanaka, (Shiga Prefectural Government),
Shiga’s scenario for a sustainable society in 2030

Lead speakers of Group3:
1)

Yoshihiro Fujii (Sophia Univ, Japan), Put Price on Carbon Liability

2)

Toshihiko Masui (NIES),
Lessons from results of integrated assessment on carbon tax in Japan

3)

David Warrilow (Defra), Carbon Market

Lead speakers of Group4:
1)

Jae Edmonds (PNNL, USA), Costs of LCSs and Technology – Five Principles of an
Economically Efficient LCS –2)

Guido Knoche (Federal Environment Agency, Germany),
A Milestone Towards Low Carbon Society: Germany’s 40% Reduction Target by
2020

3)

Keisuke Matsuhashi (NIES), Lifestyle in transportation sector

4)

Hannah Ryder (Stern Team, UK),
Low carbon society workshop: barriers and opportunities session

5)

Haruki Tsuchiya (System-ken),Strategy to Low Carbon Society – Barriers and Opportunities –12:00-13:00

Lunch

13:00-13:40

Parallel (2) (cont.)
10

Expert Workshop
AgendaInteractive (2)13:40-14:00

Group 1 Report

14:00-14:20

Group 2 Report

14:20-14:40

Group 3 Report

14:40-15:00

Group 4 Report

Post Parallel (2)15:00-15:30

Group discussions

15:30-16:00

Refreshment break

All topics
16:00-18:00

Discussions

18:00 Adjourn11Expert Workshop
Group Allocation

Allocation of Participants for Parallel Session
Group1: Behaviour change and its impact on delivering low-carbon societies
Key Questions
・ What are the main levers in behaviour change, what barriers need to be overcome?, and¾

What roles exist for different actors i.e. individuals, businesses, Governments, etc?

¾

What are the roles of policy options, including regulations and setting standards, forbehaviour change?

¾

In particular, how consumption patterns of the developed countries can be tackled in thecontext of behavior change?

Group chairs:
Jeremy Watson (Arup, UK)
Yuichi Moriguchi (NIES, Japan)
Rapporteur:
Steve Cornelius
Key-note speakers:
Charles Secrett, Special Advisor (Sustainability) The Mayor's Office/Visit London
Yuichi Moriguchi, Director of research center for material cycles and waste management,
NIES
Lead speech (alphabetical order):1)

Renaud Crassous (CIRED, France)

2)

Shobhakhar Dhakal (GCP Office, NIES)

3)

Jun Fujimoto (Tokyo University)

4)

Mariko Hanada (Osaka Sangyo University)

5)

Akiyasu Kurishima (MLIT)

6)

Murari Lal (India)

7)

Teruaki Masumoto, Ikuo Nishimura (TEPCO, Japan)

8)

Naoki Matsuo (Climate Expert)

9)

Mike Norton (Shinshu Univ),10) Masaru Ohara (Tokyo Metropolitan)
11) Ichiro Ozawa (Waseda Univ.)
12) Ho Chin Shiong (Malaysia)
13) Yasuo Takahashi (MOEJ)

12

Expert Workshop
Group Allocation

Group2: Delivering low-carbon societies through sustainable development
Key Questions
・ What are the differences among developing countries in terms of adapting to and mitigating theclimate change?
・ What are the differences between SDPAMs and LCS approaches

and what advantages do LCS

approaches provide to achieve SD?
・ How approaches to LCS can be integrated into SDPAMs?
Group chairs:
Ogunlade Davidson (University of Sierra Leone)
Taka Hiraishi (IGES, Japan)
Rapporteur:
Sunil Malla (Technology Consultancy Services, Kathmandu),
Tomoki Ehara (MHIR)
Key-note speech:
Rae Kwon Chung, Director, Environment and Sustainable. Division, UNESCAP
P.R.Shukla, Professor, Indian Institute of Management
Lead speech (alphabetical order):1)

Rizaldi Boer (Bogor University, Indonesia)

2)

Haroldo de Oliveira Machado Filho (Brazilian delegation)

3)

Kensuke Fukushi (Tokyo University)

4)

Joanna Gaches (Defra)

5)

Ryokichi Hirono (Seikei Univ)

6)

Mikiko Kainuma (NIES)

7)

Masato Kawanishi (JICA)

8)

Stanford Mwakasonda (ERC, South Africa)

9)

Andre Santos Pereira (COPPE, Brazil)

10) Ram Shrestha (AIT)11) Tomohiro Sudo (JBIC)
12) Yoshiaki Yamanaka, (Shiga Prefectural Government)

13

Expert Workshop
Group Allocation

Group 3: Enabling low-carbon societies through investment
How to inspire innovation, driving force to make it happen
Key Questions
・ What conditions (rules, institutions, price signals) will stimulate investment for LCSs?
・ How do we create the necessary incentives to drive and enhance innovation?
・ What are the roles of the governments to make necessary investments happen?
Group chairs:
Jose Garibaldi (Enegeia Mexico),
Takejiro Sueyoshi (UNDP)
Rapporteur:
Andy Bolhito
Key-note speech:
Takejiro Sueyoshi (UNEP), Special Advisor in the Asia-Pacific region of the UNEP
Finance Initiative
Emma Howard Boyd, Head of Socially Responsible Investment, Director Jupiter AssetManagement
Lead speech (alphabetical order):1)

Eiichiro Adachi(The Japan Research Institute)2)

Yurika Ayukawa (WWF Japan)

3)

Yoshihiro Fujii (Sophia Univ, Japan)

4)

Chikara Furuya (Institute for International Monetary Affairs)

5)

Don Gunasekera (ABARE)

6)

Toshihiko Masui (NIES)

7)

Narito Shibaike (Panasonic, Japan)

8)

Ralph Torrie (ICF Canada)

9)David Warrilow (Defra)

14

Expert Workshop
Group Allocation

Group 4: Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors
Wiping out concerns, bright futures, level playing fields, impacts to industry and other sectors
Key Questions
・ What sectors are most sensitive and/or vulnerable in the transition to LCS?
・ What kind of inertia hinders transition to LCSs (concepts, social systems, economic systems,
infrastructure, etc)?
・ What opportunities exist for such sectors in new “green” markets and what policy measuresexist to achieve international level playing fields?
Group chairs:
Jim Watson (SPRU, UK)
Naoya Tsukamoto (MoEJ, Japan)
Rapporteur:
Jiang Kejun
Toshi Arimura
Key-note speech:
Christopher Beauman, Senior Adviser, EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment)
Masayuki Sasanouchi, Project General Manager, Environmental Affairs Div. Toyota Motor
Corporation
Lead speech (alphabetical order):1)

Jae Edmonds (PNNL, USA)

2)

Kimiko Hirata (KIKO network)

3)

Tetsunari Iida (ISEP)

4)

Teruo Okazaki (Nippon Steel Cooperation)

5)

Hironobu Nose (Nippon Steel Cooperation)

6)

Wang Shu (Chinese delegation)

7)

Isamu Yasuda (Tokyo Gas Co)

8)

Guido Knoche (Federal Environment Agency, Germany)

9)

Keisuke Matsuhashi (NIES)

10) Haruki Tsuchiya (System-ken)11) Hannah Ryder (Stern Team, UK)

15

Expert Workshop
Introduction

Introduction of the 3rd Japan-UK LCS workshop
Naoya Tsukamoto

Junichi Fujino

Director, Research andSenior Researcher

and Information Office,National Institute for

Global Environment Bureau

Environmental Studies

Ministry of Environment(Japan)(Japan)The 3rd Japan-UK LCS workshop was unique and innovative, where, the meeting began with a2-day workshop (13th and 14th Feb 2008), and the results were presented at the symposium on the
final day (15th Feb, 2008) to elicit the reaction of the audience. Four important topics were carefully
chosen for group discussion by 79 experts and the results were compiledfor the symposium.
Selected 4 groups
Group 1: Behavior change and its impact on delivering LCSs
Group 2: Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development
Group 3: Enabling LCSs: Investment:
How to inspire innovation, driving force to make it happen
Group 4: Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors
Wiping out concerns, bright futures, level playing fields, impacts to industry and othersectors

Structure of the Expert Workshop
・ Plenary Session (20min each): Each key-note speaker will cover key discussion points for eachgroup.
・ Parallel Session (120min): Participants will be divided into 4 groups during parallel session.
Each group work will cover 4-8 (1-2 slides if necessary, 5min maximum) lead speeches anddiscussions to explore key messages and action plans in each area. Each expert will join 4groups.
・ Interactive Session (80min): All participants will get together to report back from each group
work in parallel session and have discussions with each other to fine-tune key messages andaction plans.
・ Post-Parallel Session (30min): Participants will divide into same groups as in parallel session
and polish their outputs while taking in account discussions during interactive session.
・ Overall Session (120min): Simulation for the panel discussion in symposium

16Expert Workshop
Introduction

Structure of the symposium on the 3rd day
1. Key note presentation was presented by Dr Emil Salim, Mr. Mitsuhiko Yamashita, and Mr.
David Warrilow.
2. The results of vivid discussion by groups were presented by co-chairs of the groups and key
questions were asked to the audience:
1) 15-minute presentations based on the lead speeches and discussions of the 1st and 2nd days, and2) one or two questions and choices of answers related to those presentations that were displayed
before and after these presentations and the audience were asked their opinions using electronic
voting system.
Outcomes from this workshop and symposium
・ Full report of the 3rd workshop
・ Executive summary of the 3rd workshop
International Steering Committee “Call for Action”

Day1: Orientation (60min): purpose and process ofthe 3rd WS from co-chairs and group chairs

Plenary session (20min x 4): Key-note speech

Parallel session (120min):group discussions including 4-8 lead speeches (5min)Group3
Group4
Group1
Group2
Enabling:
Barrier andBehavior
SD
Investment
Opportunity

Interactive session (80min):
Report back and “Challenge” each other

Post-Parallel session (30min): fine-tune discussions
Group1
Behavior

Group2SD

Group3
Enabling:
Investment

Group4Barrier andOpportunity

Group chairs will coordinate discussion at each group.
Each participant will join two different group discussion during day1 and day2.

Day2: Overall session (120min): simulation forthe panel discussion in symposium
17

X2
for Day1& Day2

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Key-Note Speech‘Low Carbon London Changing Behaviour’Charles Secrett
Special Advisor to The Mayor’s Office and Visit London
Board Member of the London Development Agency
(UK)
From:
1)

Personal Research and The Mayor’s London Climate Change Action Plan – 2007.
There are many opportunities to reduce household carbon dioxide emissions – so why don tpeople do them?!

E.G. Switching off lights/appliances at home and office by all Londoners

could reduce annual CO2 emissions by 2.3 million tonnes; if all light bulbs were energy
efficient, London would save 575,000 tonnes of CO2 and £139 million from energy bills (2006
prices) per year; if Londoners bought the most fuel-efficient/lowest CO2 car in their preferredclass of vehicle CO2 emissions would fall by 30% in this sector.
2)

Mind sets: negative public attitudes to climate change = major blocks to personal change.
People as citizens and consumers are confused – who can I trust?

Which scientists, media,

politicians, companies, contractors?); cynical – why bother?

Where’s the leadership?;Unknowledgeable – climate change is all natural isn’t it?
can I make?
3)

Feel powerless – what difference

Apathetic – nothing to do with me – it’s someone else’s problem.

The Challenge 1 – how to turn widespread citizen/consumer aspirations to be greener into
actions that matter.

In UK, people now believe a sustainable home is: modern (90%);attractive (72%); hi-tech (79%); fashionable (78%); good value for money (72%).

BUT while

90% of people broadly accept the science, and 70% say they are willing to change – ONLY
20% are changing carbon behaviour slightly (buying local food, recycling, driving car less) andonly 5% changing significantly.
4)

The Challenge 2 – turning positive public attitudes into building critical political mass:
people also demonstrate that they believe the scientists and there is (just) enough time; that
we’re all in this together – let’s work together; the solutions exist and we’ve got the money
and resources – what’s missing is political will and we can overcome that; cutting carbon
emissions will bring me and my family practical and financial benefits in the here and now;
tackling climate change is a moral imperative – to improve the livelihoods of billions (andespecially the poor); that we need to safeguard Earth for future generations and look after
LIFE itself; and recognise that millions of people, hundreds of thousands of organisations, andthousands of State and local authorities are working the world over to cut carbon emissions andwaste.

18

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

5)

The biggest Block to stimulating low carbon lifestyles and company behaviour is market andpolicy-based: as long as it is cheap, convenient and legal to waste carbon and natural resources,
then that is what the great majority of individuals, households and companies will do.

6)

The second biggest Block is that too many aspirational climate-changers DON’T trust:
Government – expected to take the lead, but shows little urgency or action – there is noenabling policy framework (yet) - climate taxes seen as excuse just to tax + not deal withproblem or strengthen known solutions (e.g.

UK air levy);

Other people – the free-rider

problem … ‘if I drive or fly less, how do I know others will as well?’;

Other countries –

especially major emitters like USA, China and India to curb their emissions (‘President Bushrefuses to act – why should we?’; ‘they build masses of coal-fired power stations – whyshouldn’t I drive a gas-guzzler?).
7)

Changing carbon-heavy behaviour ultimately means changing: Attitudes; Values; Beliefs;
AND, MARKETS.

8)What works to change behaviour?
•

Laws and Regulations to ban/restrict unsustainable carbon-heavy behaviour (e.g. mandatory
high energy efficiency for buildings and vehicles)•

Polluter Pays Levies and Charges – if revenues are recycled into building up low carbon
solutions - infrastructure, technologies, products (e.g. congestion charge)•

Financial Incentives – low (or no) taxes, grants, discounts and rewards for low carbon
products, services, choices and behaviours (for consumers and companies)•

Focused Advice and Assistance programmes that are convenient to access for user, and help
them to find, buy and use quality and affordable low carbon and energy saving products andvehicles; and, for renewables and resource saving products.

•

Widely available information on problems, causes and solutions (especially which help
individuals, families companies in short-term)•

Exemplar Best Practice – ‘seeing is believing’ (e.g. best practice new zero-low carbon andwaste housing and retrofitted buildings)•

Partnerships across public, private, domestic and voluntary sectors•

Respected Champions•

Coordinated, collaborative and demonstrable international action to curb GHG emissions(e.g. C.40 Large Cities Climate Change Initiative)

9)

What doesn’t work …
•

Endlessly highlighting the problems of environmental degradation and unsustainablebehaviour•

Facts and figures on their own – data is not enough•Moralising and exhortations•

Official pronouncements about what should be done, without the right enabling policy
framework (regulations; fiscal; planning guidelines; procurement)
19Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

10) The London Climate Change Action Plan is primarily a sustainable DEVELOPMENT plan,
based on an enabling framework designed to:
1. Deliver needed economic and social benefits – tens of thousands of skilled and low-skilledjobs … inward investment … lower resource costs for households and companies …
boosting the City as a financial centre through carbon trading markets … increased
efficiency, innovation and modernisation … higher quality of life … a cleaner, more
live-able city
2. Create Partnerships – between public, private, voluntary and domestic sectors
3. Integrated cross-sector action in energy, waste, transport, buildings
4. Create the conditions for businesses, communities and families to act
5. Maintain standards of living (and improving for disadvantaged)
6. Best science-driven targets and a long-term perspective11) The LCCAP is based on four new programmes to help Londoners and businesses change
behaviour and reduce emissions:•

A Green Homes Programme
E.G. Green Information programme – DIY Planet; Public advice scheme (web; telephone,counter);

The Green Homes Service (audit, advice and implementation scheme forcan-pay sector – saving 500,000 tonnes CO2 target by 2010)•

A Green Organisations Programme
E.G. The Better Buildings Partnership – audit, advice and awards scheme for property
owners and developers; Green500 – audit, advice and awards scheme for commercial
tenants.

•

A Green Energy Programme
E.G move away from centralised non-renewable energy production to decentralised energy
systems based on energy efficiency, energy conservation, Combined Heat and Power, andrenewables and micro-renewables – 25% by 2025.

•

A Green Transport Programme
E.G. change the way Londoners travel (already modal shift of 4% away from car use to
public transport; operating vehicles more efficiently (Transport for London ‘eco-driving’scheme for 2008); promoting lower-carbon vehicles, infrastructure and fuels (e.g.
congestion charge) = 4 million tonnes of carbon saved p.a. by 2025.

12) There is an overwhelming need for government action and a new national policy framework
to meet our target 60% cut in CO2 emissions by 2025 (excluding aviation):•

Carbon pricing (mandatory cap-and-trade emissions market, including air travel; carbon tax)•

Regulatory and fiscal change to encourage and incentivise decentralised energy/waste
networks (CCHP + bio-gas from waste streams)•

Incentives and penalties – polluter pays taxation + hypothecation

20

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs•

Planning and policy support for rapid shift to renewable power (wind, wave, tidal, solar)
and energy efficiencies•

Statutory reduction targets, based on best science•

Trade-able national and personal carbon allowances/quotas

13) SUMMARY:

Imperatives to successfully change carbon-heavy behaviours

1. Long-term strategy with best science targets and policy drivers to transform markets tovalue zero/low carbon
2. Enabling policy framework of ‘carrots and sticks’ for companies and citizens (regulation;
taxation; expenditure; procurement; planning policy)
3. Widespread public information, audit and assistance programmes for households andcompanies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and resource waste
4. Cheaper, more convenient and integrated low carbon solutions
5. Verifiable, coordinated and effective international action by countries and cities
6. Partnerships between sectors – public, private, domestic, voluntary
7. Integrated changes across economic sectors – especially financial, energy, transport, waste,buildings
8. Leadership – political, professional, personal.

21

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Key-Note Speech
Low carbon society in contrast to a society with massconsumption of energy and resources
Yuichi Moriguchi
National Institute for Environmental Studies(Japan)Conventionally, “wealthy” life has been coupled with massive consumption of energy andmaterial resources.

There was strong correlation between economic growth and increase in CO2emission in the era of Japanese rapid economic growth.

A certain level of de-coupling between

GDP and CO2 emissions was observed after the first oil-crisis. This was mainly thanks to thewell-known effort of energy efficiency improvement in energy-intensive industries. However, GDP
and CO2 emissions were re-coupled since late 1980’s.

This seems to be driven, at least partly, by

consumption pattern of households.
According to our analysis employing an environmentally extended economic Input-Output
analysis, contribution of household consumption to total emissions has been increasing.

Householdconsumption contributes to CO2 emissions not only directly by consuming energy commodities suchas gasoline, kerosene, town gas and electricity but also indirectly by purchasing other goods andservices.

Labeling of carbon footprint of foods and daily necessaries will be informative for

consumers to be aware of their link to LCS.
Private cars are one of the typical emitters of CO2 from household consumption.

Both total

ownership and average size of Japanese private cars became larger since late 1980’s and this had
significantly contributed to the increasing emission in 1990’s. Thanks to energy efficiency
improvements, such as by hybrid cars, emissions from cars began to decrease recently.

From thebehavioral point of view, the distinction between mobility and accessibility seems to be essential, as
the latter is more desire-based. Although modal shift to more efficient transport mode is often
encouraged as a behavioral change, this is not effective without well-organized public transit andinfrastructural changes to more compact city.
Purchasing behaviors of energy-consuming consumer durables such as cars, air conditioners,
refrigerators, TV’s and other electric equipment also have significant impact.

Replacement to

up-to-date efficient models is often encouraged, but we have to keep in mind that shorter lifetime ofdurables lead to excessive consumption of material resources and indirect energy consumption andCO2 emissions.

Payback time in terms of cost, energy, and CO2 should be carefully examined for

typical consumer durables.

Reliable information with regard to cost payback time and CO2

payback time of expensive mitigating technologies such as photovoltaic should be disseminated toconsumers to guide their investment decision.
Undoubtedly, the improvement in energy efficiency is necessary to drastically reduce CO2
emissions from households. However, the question is if technological change is sufficient.

In ourexperiences, gains by efficiency improvements have been often offset by so-called re-bound effect.
In Japan, the necessity to make transition from a society characterized by mass-production,
22

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

mass-consumption and mass disposal to a “sound material cycle society (SMCS)” has beenrecognized to tackle with increasing solid wastes. 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) policy to minimize
solid waste disposal and natural resource consumption has been advocated and is being disseminatedinternationally through G8, OECD, etc. Behavioral changes towards LCS should be encouraged ina win-win manner with those towards SMCS.

23

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
ICT and Lifestyle
Jun Fujimoto
The University of Tokyo(Japan)
We consider hypothetical situation,” Diet-food problems”. In this case, overall goal is todecrease weight of people. Manufactures believes low calorie food contributes directly to decrease
weight of people. However if consumers don’t select this food or if they consume more because they
believe it`s healthy, the goal will not be reached. This is an example of the problems of how tointegrate technology with life style.
Current approaching to achieve a low carbon society has focused on linking Micro to Macrodirectly. Macro means overall goal of creating low-carbon society. Micro means technologicalinnovations and approaches supported by institutions. However, this approach doesn’t consider the
impact of technology on society and people behavior. Therefore, I propose the concept of“Meso-level” that provides a link between macro and micro levels. On the meso-level, we canaddress issues related to the effect of technology on social structures and human behavior withwide-ranging implications, e.g. education, lifestyle, business, and global economy.
To tackle such problems, we need meso-level methodologies that must include:•

Techno-ontological approaches: This involves understanding how ICT affect people’s
behavior including mental/emotional conditions, and finding ways of integrating ICT withlife-style•Dual-Traceable Ownership System: This involves making people aware that ownership of
product includes responsibility for energy consumption and recycling.

•

Eco-Life Navigation System using ICT: Such a system could include several awarenessraising features like easy visualization of energy consumption by individuals, information
on how to spend daily life in eco-friendly manner, and automatic energy management
practices.

24

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
DELHI Plan - Low Carbon Future:
Roadmap To Low Carbon World “Bhartiya Climate Index”
Murari Lal & Subhash Joshi
Reliance Energy Limited, Sector 63, Noida,(India)New Delhi is the capital of a fast growing economy, a democratic nation, India. The country
has to grow while maintaining its economic liberty against nations which are developed economies.
Development process entails upon the harnessing resources at affordable costs. Dispensability ofresources in a developing economy is always critical. However, in global economy competition has
neither political nor geographical boundaries. In such a scenario, Delhi as a Low Carbon city or state
has its own challenges to exist. Despite this, efforts have been made to place the Metro on global
map distinctly.
The Metro Rail system has provided a big relief to the city and placed it on higher demand forproviding relief to the 100% metro with adequate feeder system. Use of CNG on public transport has
experienced a journey of tough resistance to receive acceptance. It is further paving way for
utilization in private vehicles.
The growth of residential and commercial multiplexes is taking place both vertically andhorizontally. Management of logistics in such complexes provides an opportunity to use water andsewage for saving energy and gaseous emissions in climate as much as saving pollution of Yamuna
River. Beyond this, general awareness induced by this is a compound dividend,
Information Technology has not been distinctly identified as means of reducing carbon
emission. The technological advent has helped to reduce commuting as well emerge as a preferred
option to save time and energy. Despite, non availability of documented benefits this dimension has
been distinctly highlighted in this paper.
The science and technology which has so far been seen as adversary of nature has latentpotential of its nature savvy characteristics. Needs of its wise use has been highlighted. This is,however, with the accepted fact that such non conventional uses can not become commercial reality
unless reinforced with the necessary government regulations.
Disparity amongst economic conditions of local population, towns, states and countries has
made it impending to look for a system of governance where each anthropogenic production or
consumption activity is burdened financially. This system can not be limited to only manufacturinglevel. If climate damage has to be reversed it sensitivity has to percolate right up to consumer ofclimate endangering/savvy products and services. Then only a self regulating mechanism shalldevelop across consumers and producers across the globe.
These cris-cross perturbations have led to evolution of an index where all products and services
are ranked on the effect on climate ranging from (+)N to (-)N. Accordingly, each product and service
is taxed. Revenue generated out of such taxation is to be used for climate savvy efforts viz.
education, awareness and promotion. This would yield desired dividends only if it allows flow of25

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

resources transboundaries of municipals, states and countries. The index, underlying the philosophy,
has been coined as “Bhartiya Climate Index”

26

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
Tokyo Climate Change Strategy
Masaru Ohara
Director for Environmental Policy Division
Bureau of Environment, Tokyo Metropolitan Government(Japan)Tokyo announced "Tokyo climate change measures policy" on the 1st June of 2007. This
indicates a clear position on climate change measures in Tokyo for the next 10 years as well as ashift in the policy outlook.
In addition to the policy explained by this announcement, Tokyo has targeted 25% CO2
reduction by 2020 (as compared to 2000) by means of substantially new policies. These policies
consist of four mechanisms of intervention (as outlined in pages 4 and 5 of aforementioned
document). First, "the formulation of a mechanism for maximum CO2 reduction using Japaneseenvironmental engineering innovations". Second, "clarifying the role and responsibility of everylarge, medium and small enterprise and households to reduce CO2 by appropriate means". Third,"treating the first 3-4 years as "the kick-off period to convert to low carbon society" andimplementing strategically intensive measures for the same". Fourth, "making necessary and drastic
investments by utilizing private funds, global warming measure promotion funds and taxes, etc.".
To contrast the main policies with the relations between these basic mechanisms ofinterventions and explain clearly, I indicate the policy package in which these four mechanisms are
combined (figure on page 20). This policy package is a series of specific types of policies integrated
according to the following logic. More than one policies that are simple and do not have mutual side
effects on each other are combined. At first the potential of environmental engineering is utilized,
after which appropriate actions by each enterprise and household are expected according to its roleand responsibility. Then the implementation plan of intensive measures is drawn up and expected to
begin in the first 3-4 years. Finally, adequate funds are raised to meet the requirement of thehouseholds and small and medium-sized industries which have weak funding ability.
The first mechanism, "Obligation to reduce emissions," makes all large-scale businessestablishments which are required to reduce CO2 the stakeholders. This mechanism requires them toestablish the level of reduction target as per the top runner method and execute it. This method sets
new reduction target for an organization based on its reduction results achieved in the past five year.
Therefore, for the business establishments which have already undertaken stringent measures, easierCO2 emission reduction obligation is imposed. On the other hand, for the business establishments
whose measures have been insufficient so far, obligation of severe CO2 emission reduction is
imposed.
The second mechanism, "Emission Trading System," allows business establishments to buy
amounts of reduction from others which can reduce more than their reduction obligation (it premises
the principle that an organization is responsible for the execution of its own emission reduction). It
also allows buying the emission reduction amount of the small-to-medium-sized business
27

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

establishments which have no emission reduction obligation.
The third mechanism, "Program of encouragement and support for the installation ofenergy-saving facilities at small businesses and households," demands that Tokyo must aid by meansof technology and funds to promote aggressive CO2 emission reduction by small and medium
enterprises and households whose measures are behind the schedule. This is required because there
may not be adequate technological knowledge or access to funds in these sectors. The amount of
reduction here is connected with the second mechanism and is also used for support of the reduction
measures in large-scale business establishments.
Finally the fourth mechanism, "Energy conservation tax incentives, etc," provides the means tosecure funds for implementation of the third mechanism. Specifically, investments from private
funds are suggested and the flow of funds necessary to implement the reduction measures by eachstakeholder is estimated. This is facilitated by Tokyo's promise that long term secure funds will be
invested in energy conservation businesses.
The policy package explained above is a characteristic example. By combining all the policies
which have been already announced and inserted in handouts, and putting them into effect, Tokyo
can be transformed to a low carbon society.
Tokyo would like to host the Tokyo Olympic Games in 2016 following the London Olympics in2012. And we’re aiming to make the people from all over the world who will gather for the Olympic
Games realize the validity of the mechanisms suitable for achieving a low carbon society city.
Moreover, after these two Olympic Games, we hope that we would like to reorient the consciousness
in the world towards the recognition that "to discharge CO2" is different from "to become abundant".
It will be done in the whole world after witnessing successful examples in London and Tokyo,
and in this way, the reformation to low carbon society would spread all over the world. So thisOlympic movement would play a big role in human history.

28

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
ICT and LifestyleBehavioral Change
of Planners & Developers
Ichiro Ozawa
Waseda University(Japan)1. Behavioral change of public policies influencing CC.
2. Structural change of “City Planning” <policy & measures> for addressing CC issues in more
active manner.

(*1)

3. Delivery of “Energy – related planning system”(*2) (“Spacial – Energy planning”)*1: Carbon-related PPS & Carbon–related planning tools*2: Energy-related planning guidebook

Capacity - Building ofPlanners & Developers<Supporting Organization>
Supporting programmes* Setting–up model projects<good practice>* Toolkit (energy system)* Case study, seminar, workshop<Zero, low-carbon projects data-base, information network>
International cooperation

29

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
Malaysia vision and pathway
towards Low carbon Society (LCS)
Ho Chin Siong
Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi(Malaysia)
Malaysia being a young and fast growing nation, the role of economic growth and improving
the lives of the people is significant. Presently it is undergoing a rapid industrialization process andhas investment in manufacturing, infrastructure development and hence has high demand for energy
consumption.

The rapid economic growth places a heavy demand and stress on resources meansthat a continued dependence on energy, in particular on fossil fuel is important to propel further
growth. Although Malaysia was blessed with relatively large tracts of natural tropical forests,(almost 60% of its total land area), just like other developing countries, some of the forest areas may
be converted into agriculture and other urban use to generate job opportunities for the growing
population. The pressure for more forested land and peat land being converted into plantations is
becoming more serious with escalating crude palm oil (CPO) prices and the hype over bio fuel, oilpalm ventures. The fact remains that peat and forest are vital carbon sink and that disturbed peat orforest will be a significant source of carbon emission
The Roadmap to achieve a Low Carbon Society certainly requires a combination of policy
strategy implementation, institutional, technological innovation, and behavioral changes In the caseof Malaysia, the key options to achieve Low carbon society are summarized below:(i)Introduction of more pragmatic and cost effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases
emissions for example through greater use of public transport(ii) Protection of the carbon sinks such as forest and peat/ wetland as Malaysia has a large
green asset (forest)(iii) Motivation of desired behavioral changes in cutting wastage or use of 3R(reuse, reduce and recycle)(iv) Designing and building more energy efficient cities or eco villages.
(v) Allocating major investment in R &D in green technology and energy efficienttechnology / engines(vi) Conducting more research collaboration between experts from Asean and developed
nations on climate change and mitigation measures on CO2 emission.
Based on the Kaya identity, we may sum up the policy recommendations on how we canachieve Low Carbon society in Malaysia by manipulating the variables in the formulae The key
options in reducing GHG emission are to reduce Per capita activity, Energy intensity and Carbon
intensity.

The increase in population factor may be difficult to manage because Malaysia is still

experiencing rather high growth rate of 2.6% p.a.

30

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

- Population (Total population)
The population growth rate of 2.6% p.a. will continue to be contributed by natural increase andmigration. The rapid industrialization and modern agriculture will create job opportunities in urban
as well as rural area. However, household size may fall due to high urbanization and increasing
percentage of female in the workforce. The high percentage of about 50% of young population (agecohort 0-14 years old) of existing demographic profile show high potential of population growth.
This increase in population will contribute to the increase in the total GHG emission. It is important
for the nation building program to focus on both developing the economy and in improving thequality of the life of Malaysians. Through education, innovation and good moral values such as“safeguarding the environment” (one of the 10 principles of Islam Hadhari (Civilization Islam), thepresent and future generation of Malaysian will hold to noble values to protect the environment- Per capita activity (Activity/ Population)
This parameter refers to the activity or service per population. The affluent lifestyle,environmental awareness education and urban planning may affect the CO2 emission per capita
activity. With the growing disposable income of the Malaysians, the total emission will increasesignificantly if lack of environmental awareness continues to persist.

In order to reduce CO2

emission, more campaigns for environmental and eco friendly lifestyles such as practicing the 3Rs(reduce, reuse and recycle) should be encourage. In addition, National Physical Plan (2005) andNational Urbanization policy(2006) promoting Transit Oriented development and compact city will
be able to promote greater use of public transport and non motorized transport. Both of these policies
will need to be translated into development plans at local and regional levels such as Structure Planor Local plans so that it can be implemented by the local planning authorities.
- Energy intensity (Energy/ activity)
This parameter measures the energy per activity. Reduction in energy intensity may be achievedby energy efficiency or material efficiency measures. With the setting up of the Malaysia Energy
Centre (PTM), efforts to improve Energy Efficiency (EE) through the promotion of low energy
building and passive architecture design in buildings would be further enhanced. Energy efficiency
devices should also be used not only in buildings, but only for vehicles and industrial process.
- Carbon intensity (Carbon/Energy)
This parameter refers to the carbon content in each energy source. The present trend of ourenergy sources need to be further diversified to wider use renewable energy such as bio fuel, hydro,
solar and possibly alternative fuel such as possibly nuclear power in the future. It is also important toestablish and support cleaner production programs with the use of CDM.
- Preservation of Forest as Carbon sink
Malaysia as a tropical country which is endowed with more than 50% forest cover is a precious
green asset capable of acting as carbon sink. Malaysia, among countries blessed with a wealth oftropical rainforests in recent Tropical Forest Leader meeting in New York (Joint statement, 24
31

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

September 2007) agree to intensifying collective efforts for the management, conservation andsustainable development of all types of forests, along with achievement of the internationally agreed
development goals, including the Rio Conference’s Declaration on Forests, Agenda 21 and theMillennium Development Goals.
For a fast growing nation with rapid urbanization such as Malaysia, implementation of planningof low carbon cities/ region concept can be an effective policy strategy to achieve the Vision andPath way towards LCS

32

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech“Building a Low Carbon Society”
Yasuo Takahashi
Ministry of the Environment, Japan(Japan)1. Background
In May 2007, Japanese Government has announced “Cool Earth 50” and identified building
Low-Carbon Society and promoting Innovative Technology Development as two keys to makeglobal emission half in 2050.
Ministry of the Environment, Japan has started to develop ideas on Low-Carbon Society’s
principles, images and strategies to realize, mainly for Japan.
Images and strategies for Low-Carbon Society should be diverse among countries, dependingon their natural environment, developing stages, industrial structures. But we believe elements Japandescribes will be useful for other countries and we would like to work together for further
development of ideas with international colleagues.
The discussion is still underway in the Central Environmental Council and a interim report will
be formed in March.
2. Principles for a Low-Carbon Society
1)

Carbon Minimization in all sectors¾

2)

Minimization of carbon-dioxide emissions from all sectors

Toward a Simpler life style that realize richer quality of life¾

Shifting from mass-consumption society towards QOL oriented society. Revolution
led by consumer’ choice. “Mottainai” spirit.

3)

Coexistence with Nature¾

Maintaining and restoring natural environment that is essential for Low-Carbon
Society

3. Images of a Low-Carbon Society
Describe a plain image of low carbon society in 2050 by following areas;1)

Regions (cities, towns and rural areas)

2)

Mobility

3)

Living & Working Scene

4)

Energy supply

5)

Industry

6)

Forests, Agriculture and Ocean

7)

Consumers’ choice8)

Finance, Investment and Information disclosure.

33

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

4. Strategies to realize a Low-Carbon Society
1)

Desirable actions for citizens

2)

Desirable actions for companies

3)

Policy instrument of governments¾

Institutional infrastructures: Incentives (Prizes, regulations, economic instruments)¾“Soft”-infrastructures: Human resources (capacity building, education), information(visualization), financial resources¾“Hard”-infrastructures: Urban structure, buildings, transportation network, energy
supply, adaptation¾

Natural capitals: Conservation of natural environment, biodiversity. Management ofagricultural and forest land. Adaptation to climate change.

5. Sharing experiences and ideas among countries & International cooperation
1)

Sharing the “Japan Model” with developing countries

2)

Establishment of information center for a Low-Carbon Society and Promotion ofinternational joint research activities and human development

3)

Proposal to strengthen global-level incentives toward a Low-Carbon Society34

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
Towards a Low-Carbon Society in France
Renaud Crassous-Doerfler
CIRED(France)
So far the performance of France on meeting climate change targets has been satisfactory. GHG
has been kept below the Kyoto target. From 1990 to 2005, there has been 5% increase in CO2 but it
has been more than offset by 18% decline in other GHGs. However, Transportation and Buildings
are two challenging sectors as they have witnessed increase in CO2 emission by 18% and 11%
respectively.
Some of the medium and long term targets for France are as follows:•

20% reduction in 2020 (EU Commission mandate)•‘Factor 4’ in 2050 (requirement of the National Energy Law)•

A trajectory compatible with 450ppm CO2 pathway and a Contraction and Convergencescheme for burden sharing (long-term international commitment)

There have been positive changes in the institutional structure in France to facilitate the desired
climate and related actions. One such change is the setting up of a new ministry of ‘environment,sustainable development and sustainable planning’. This ministry is responsible for promoting
environment friendly and sustainable choices in the sectors of buildings, transportation, andinfrastructures. Another example is the creation of a broad consultation forum called ‘Grenelle del’Environnement’ that involves diverse communities like NGOs, administrations, unions, local
authorities and scientists.
Despite such positive developments, France faces several challenges to achieve low carbon
society. Some of the ideas and schemes under consideration are as follows:•

Reorientation of infrastructures: This could involve re-evaluating the need for highways,
extension of high-speed networks, and assessment of new carbon value profile forcost-benefit analysis•

Establishment of new standards: This includes decreasing emission standards for vehicles,
major renovation plan for existing buildings, and upgrade of construction standards for newbuildings•

Broad fiscal reform: This includes a proposal for climate-energy tax currently under study,
and an ongoing debate on the need for broader taxes•

GHG information on all products: This proposal, if implemented, would raise the climate
awareness of consumers and citizens manifold

35

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
Low carbon cities and behavioral change
Shobhakar Dhakal
Executive Director, Global Carbon Project y(Nepal)Urban/city at nutshell and behavioral changes
Almost half of the world population lives in urbanized areas. Cities generate a large share of
global GDP, consume a high share of global commercial energy, and emit a large share of global
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions already. In the future, the CO2 emissions per capita in cities ofdeveloped countries is already high and will resist to decline while additional 1.8 billion new urban
dwellers- most of them from developing countries- will be added in next 25 years who would
demand more energy per capita and demand to emit more than before. Therefore, great challenges lie
on to find how to develop low-carbon cities or to re-orient existing cities towards low carbon
pathways. However, the scientific and policy responses to urban energy and carbon management
challenges have been inadequate and wrongly placed. They are fragmented, follow reductionism
approach (in sectoral fashion), ignore urban as a single unit, lack integration of urban system, andoverlap/mismatch urban governance. Three things are urgent towards low-carbon cities: (1) better
integration of urban system- infrastructure and activities (2) technological advancements to improve
efficiency and effectiveness, and (2) behavioral shift to make rational choices and lifestyle changes
in cities. It is important to note that the first and second are necessary but, for deep-cuts, utterly not
sufficient without the third.
Limitation of current debate
Individual behavior of urban dwellers matters for carbon emissions through energy saving, lessmaterial consumption, choice of public transport over private transport, and how one choose to livein their physical space (houses, offices etc) amongst others. However, there are several limitations on
current debate on behavioral change towards low carbon cities:-

The vision of low carbon city in next 100 year is unclear – the acceptable and desirable form of
low carbon city solely depend on our envisioned behavioral change-

Existing discussions focus on incremental change; such conventional way is not sufficient-

Behavioral change discussions are often technology dominated, price-tagged, top-down andlacks psychology, various attributes of personal choice associatedwith individuals’

irrationalities to the price signals-

Behavior change process in cities will be non-linear with surprises; current discussions lack thecritical mass of change-agents needed and the tipping points for accelerated changes-

Behavioral shift and levers for change has to be dramatically different in post-modernizednations, rapidly developing nations and less developed nations (generality vs. specificity)36Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Who to lead change?
Current debates on low carbon cities and urban carbon management are largely municipal
government-centric. Such municipal government-centric approach is necessary but not sufficientsince that capacity and relevance of municipal government to lead the required changes are limited.
Governments of multiple levels are key actors to induce behavioral changes in cities throughsetting-up operational framework (educational, awareness, technology, economics and regulation).
Businesses can play role in by shaping choices, providing alternatives and promoting green
businesses in cities. Citizen groups have role to play by campaigning to make rational choices andcreating awareness and media to educate and inform public and put political pressures to act. In
essence, a multi-level governance of urban carbon is necessary based on local circumstances andbased on what wedges of influences are available to whom to make realistic changes.

37

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
For “Low-Carbon Society” by Changing Citizens’ Behavior
Mariko Hanada
Osaka Sangyo University(Japan)The role of household sector on CO2 emission is not small in Japan. Though the ratio of CO2
emission of household sector amount to over 20% of all, it keeps increasing and cannot be reduced
without changing of individuals’ manner and behavior.

Then, how could we make individuals

behave environmental-consciously?
For changing individuals’ manner and behavior in daily life environmental-consciously, there
are key factors such as;
1.

Sense of Crisis: we exactly confront a global environmental crisis

2.

Sense of Responsibility: our conventional mass consumption/waste lifestyles is to blame3.

Confidence in Effect: changing lifestyles will really improve global environment

4.

Proper measures of practice: tools to make effectiveness of our practices visible easily

5.

Motivation for practice: find the appropriate incentives for each individual

There are two effective drive forces to change individuals’ lifestyle; to cultivate awareness forenvironmental value and to change social systems.
First, “environmental education” develops key factors 1, 2, and 3. As a result, individuals begin
to have interests in environmental values and begin to check their lifestyles with environmental axis.
Then, if they have key factors 4 and 5, they might behave environmental-consciously in their daily
lives. From my research, main reasons of not to behave environmental-consciously are “not to knowwhat they should do” and “believe thatone person’s action is limited and meaningless”.

Environmental education and tools for evaluation of individuals’ own behavior can change theirwrong believe. Actually, there are such tools in Japan. One example is “environmental household
account book” made by local governments、companies、and citizen groups. We can calculate theamount of CO2 emission of household just by filling in the amount of usage of energy and water on
the web. We can evaluate our environmental performance with amount of CO2 emission using“check list of eco-life”. As information for decision-making, visualization of our daily lives is very
important.
Additionally, the change of social system is necessary. For example, new tax system pricing toan environmental load, such as the amount of CO2 emission, motives consumers to purchaselow-carbon products and motives companies to design/produce/sell low-carbon products. Social
systems which reward the decision with environmental axis accelerate individuals’ behavioral
changes.

38

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

At the same time, the experiences of participation in pleasant projects, which people prefer tojoin, strengthen ties in the participants among the community. Examples of such projects are“Environmental Learning Project to support children’s environmental activities in Nishinomiya
City”, “Nanohana(Bio-Diesel-Fuel) Project to make buses run by BDF made from rape blossoms in
Osaka Prefecture”, and “Mission Uchimizu, sprinkling water by hand, to remind Japanese oldcustom”.
In conclusion、I carry on a campaign, environmental-consciousness is ”Economical、Fun-to-do、and Ethically”. The mass media could make the consensus that ecological lifestyle is comfortable,
kind of “Cool earth is so cool!”
Overall, to move many individuals, positive manner is important.
Not“DON’T”, But “LET’S

39

DO!”

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
Japanese Urban Policies to Tackle Climate Change
Akiyasu Kurishima
MLIT(Japan)There are several measures in place to reduce greenhouse gases from urban areas in Japan:••

Energy conservation measures for houses and buildingsoCompulsory notification of energy conservation effortso

Tax incentives

Low carbon urban design: Compact cities, urban greening, and utilizing the potential energyof sewage•

Promotion of public transportation system: LRT, IC card tickets, bus location system•

Low carbon distribution system: modal shift and efficient truck transport•

Improvement of traffic flow: ITS and elevation of railroad•

Improvement of fuel efficiency of automobiles: Establishing top runner standards and tax
incentives

Despite these measures the urban GHG emissions have grown. Main reasons for this are
growing dependence on cars, decline of urban green areas, and increase of energy consumption inhouses and commercial buildings.
There is now a thrust to the urban policies to reduce GHG emissions, for instance, by promoting
compact cities, increasing urban green space, improving sewerage system, and fostering area-wide
energy use. Some examples of such measures are as follows:•

Promoting public transportationo

New urban railways has been put in service from FY2003 to 2005oSystems for convenience of train-to-bus transfers have been introducedoIntroduction of bus location system and non-step buses has made public transport
more convenient to use•oIT has been used to introduce IC train card tickets in several rail and bus carrierso

LRT (light rail) is being promoted in several cities

Greening sites and rooftops of buildingsoMunicipal authorities are designating Greening Promotion Zones in which greeningof certain proportion of building sites is mandatoryoHalf of the property tax is being waived for green spaces on sites and rooftops ofbuildings for business use in designated urban areas including Greening Promotion
Zones

•

Exploiting potential energy of sewageoReduction of N2O emission by raising temperature of incineratorsoMore efficient use and saving of electricity in sewage treatment
40

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSso

Extraction of renewable energy from sludge and use of thermal energy of sewage,
resulting in refined sewage biogas which is usable as fuel for CNG bus

41

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
Behavioral Change toward Low Carbon Society: Role of business, consumers and government
Teruaki Masumoto, Ikuo Nishimura
TEPCO(Japan)The broad roles of business, consumers and government to achieve low carbon society are
outlined below.
Businesses:•

Reduce GHG emissions from own facilities by-Installation of the best available
technologies in the own production processes-consideration to the optimal energy
mixture• Develop & propose low-carbon or energy efficient products and services to the society• Promote technological innovation
Government:••

Create enabling environment for deployment
Support virtuous cycle for business and consumers’ value creation for low-carbon orenergy efficient products and services• Facilitate international cooperation for RD&D
Consumers:••

Make a wise choice for low carbon products & services
Create social appraisal for environmentally responsible (corporate) activities

Japan has many examples to offer for such interventions:•Top-runner program: Introduced in 1998, it now covers 21 product categories withtarget standards for energy efficiency which are determined by independent experts.
This program provides incentives to manufacturers to develop more efficient products,
and provides comparative information to the consumers. For instance, as a result of thisprogram, energy efficiency of TV and video recorder has increased by 25.7% and73.6% respectively during 1997-2003, of air-conditioner by 67.8% during 1997-2004,
of refrigerator and chiller by 55.2% and 29.6% respectively during 1998-2004, and ofvehicles by 22% during 1995-2004.

•

Programs for raising consumer awareness: Several such programs are in place, forexample TEPCO’s Lifestyle Laboratory that introduces consumers to comfortable,
convenient and energy efficient lifestyle with electricity. Consumers can compare theperformance of home appliances of different manufacturers.

•

Innovations like Eco-Cute, the energy efficient water heater: Eco Cute, developed
jointly by DENSO Corporation, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry,
and TEPCO, is the world’s first water heater for residential use that applies the natural
42

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

refrigerant (CO2) which has very little impact on global warming. Compared with aconventional combustion type water heater, Eco Cute can save primary energy by about
30% and reduce CO2 emission by about 50%.
The key challenges for inducing behavioral change among businesses are as follows:•

It is important to focus on all the inter-linkages through the supply-chains and not justthe upstream end•

There is a need for industry and cross-industry standards and metrics, as well as global
harmonization of formats for disclosure of relevant information by businesses•

It is critical to create conditions for a transformational zone of Public-Private
Partnerships (PPPs) to stimulate desired change along the value chain

43

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead SpeechInstitutional Framework
to Foster People’s Behavioral Change for LCS
Naoki Matsuo
Climate Experts, Ltd.&PEAR Carbon Offset Initiative, Ltd(Japan)
It is a challenge to change the behavior of consumers who have no obligation to do so. Twoconcrete and one imaginary proposals are presented below.
Carbon Management Practice Driven by Carbon-Offset
PEAR Carbon Offset Initiative considers that the offsetting can serve as a “trigger” to change
the behavior of people (while it also provides real reductions somewhere else).
The original concept of carbon offsetting provides opportunities to let them realize andrecognize carbon footprints of various consumption modes (possibly calculated by LCA).

This

information can be disseminated at each consumption point with the collaboration of B-to-C
companies.
In addition, PEAR considers the importance of “carbon management” practices and provides a
Web-based “carbon account” for each individual as a platform to manage his/her carbon footprints aswell as to offset them.

New IT system enables the automatic recording of carbon footprints in theaccount at the time consumption occurs. Provision of simple advices on energy-saving is also an
additional service.

Household-level ETS in Minami-Senrioka Civic Zone
More than 1,200 households will live in a new civic zone “Minami-Senrioka” from March 2010.
It incorporates not only the top-level hardware standards for buildings, etc, but also many innovative
but replicable measures to change the people’s behavior for a low carbon society.
One is the accurate and real-time monitoring system with custom-made energy saving advice
system.

The major obstacle for people (to change their behaviors) is that they neither know how

much CO2 they emit from what kind of behaviors, nor know how to save energy effectively.

Even

if some incentive framework is introduced, it will not work properly without such information.
Minami-Senrioka is to introduce precise and real-time (every 5 minutes) household-wise CO2inventory information for major appliances together with other parameters such as temperature.
Using such information, optimized interactive energy-saving advices are provided.
In addition, household-level ETS is to be introduced as the incentive framework. At thismoment, auction-based cap-and-trade ETS is envisaged to be introduced.

It is unrealistic topenalize non-compliant households for the time being. Instead, such households will be ruled out
from incentives (in the form of local currency) that will be provided to compliant households.

44

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Individual-level ETS as the Ultimate Form of ETS [Dual-economy System]
In general, ETS cannot cover whole economy.
from fossil fuel combustion.

This proposed ETS covers all CO2 emissions

The key is to allocate CO2 quota to each individual and regulate

up-stream companies which import or produce fossil fuels.

The companies shall surrenderemission quota at the end of the period which is equivalent to the amount of fossil fuel they sold.
Companies add the “carbon price (with the unit of kg CO2e)” for their commodities or services to thetheir usual market prices (e.g., in $), so that the consumers shall pay for the “CO2 quota”.
The CO2 quota can be realized as a currency and recognized similar to VAT which is levied for“additional value” at each consumption mode, so that CO2 quota plays the role of “currency” which
is deeply implanted into the whole economy.

45

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
Barriers to a Low-Carbon Society
Mike NortonInnovation Management, Shinshu University(UK)The current situation is that climate change is proceeding at the pessimistic end of the
IPCC-predicted range.

Carbon emissions are accelerating and the targets to constrain globalowarming within 2-3 require CO2 emissions to peak within the next 10 years.

So we need a majorchange and fast, not just adjustments at the edges!
Yet the current growth drivers are powerful. These are population, per capita emissions indeveloping countries and failure to reduce carbon intensity in developed countries. There are
pernicious secondary effects.

As wealth increases there are direct effects on emissions (moreenergy consumed) and indirect effects via lifestyle (e.g. increased meat = increased deforestation).
Some “solutions” (e.g. biofuels) may make matters worse.
Will consumers lead the way by becoming green? No way!
market’s ability to present significant choices.

Green choices are limited by theThose trying to consume sustainability areoutnumbered by those who claim to be ‘green’ but do not act, and by those who are not evenconcerned. While we see green themes in advertising, innovations which are more carbon efficientare offset by those which add to emissions.

People may be starting to accept that there may be

implication for lifestyle but resist anything other than trivial measures.

Politicians are not prepared

to challenge this.
The current situation is a product of our economic system; yet we have not yet engaged thesystem in solving the problem.

Energy companies prefer to challenge the science rather than invest

in finding a solution. Coal companies expect the government to pay for research into clean coal.
With carbon, the polluter pays principle is evaded. The Keidanren opposes emission reduction
targets even though Japan’s Innovation 25 initiative identified sustainable industries as having the
double dividend of environment protection and economic benefit. National policies abound with
examples where individual infrastructure decisions take priority over national strategy on emissions.
So moving to low carbon is like pushing water uphill. It will have little effect until the slopechanges and helps it to go downhill. Environmental protection is still a cost or a duty.

It needs to bemade a profit centre and the only way to do this is by having a universal and unavoidable carbon
price. Then consumers will start to have more realistic choices and green choices will be rewarded.
However, consumers will not in the short term accept constraints to their lifestyle by foregoing their
air trips, their cars, or even their patio heaters. So while a carbon price may help it will not move to a
low carbon society fast enough.

The only area which can be targeted to achieve large reductions isenergy production, which must be decarbonised as a matter of urgency.

In particular, coal must be

decarbonised - effective technology must be developed with an urgency equivalent to the Manhattan

46

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

project. Those investing in coal must expect to convert to CCS well within the lifetime of the plantor pay high costs. Zero carbon electricity must receive appropriate credit for its lack of carbon
emissions including nuclear.
If we can decarbononise the energy supply, then it gives more time for the slower acting
processes of innovation in products, marketing and consumer tastes towards a lower carbon
footprint.
Finally the 32% of emissions which come from land use/change cannot be ignored in a
low-carbon society. These emissions are driven by some political ‘no-go’ areas - population growth,
dietary changes, demand for timber, food and now biofuels. Tackling deforestation requires
reduction of these growth drivers. Costs of reducing deforestation need to be transferred to theactivities driving deforestation and the principle of sustainable use needs to become the essential
precondition for development activities by the international organs such as the World Bank, as well
as for international trade under WTO rules.
In short it is much easier to visualise what a low carbon society might look like than to getstarted on the long road to achieving it. That requires some ‘inconvenient truths’, so let’s give thesummit a realistic assessment of the difficulties and avoid false hopes and benign remedies which weknow will be inadequate.

47

Group 1
Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering LCSs

Lead Speech
Carbon Footprints and Consumers
Jim Skea
Research Director
UKERC
(UK)
In the UK, the Carbon Trust has been developing a methodology for assessing the lifecycle
greenhouse emissions associated with consumer products and assessing ways of communicating thisinformation to consumers. There are two desirable outcomes: this will help consumers decide which
products and brands to choose; and it will drive producers to reduce the carbon footprint of theirproducts to improve their market position.
A set of trials with a range of companies is currently under way. At the same time market
research is being conducted to assess how consumers might react to carbon footprint information. In
one survey, 2/3 of consumers said that a label indicating that a supplier was working to reduce theircarbon footprint would make them more likely to buy a product. 70% also said that it was importantto see a quantitative indicator of the carbon footprint on the label. This was not necessarily because
consumers could interpret this number in a meaningful way. However, they wanted assurance thatcompanies had done the calculations and were working to reduce their footprint.
The Carbon Trust’s work is currently following three streams. There is very high agreement thata uniform methodology be used to assess carbon footprints. The Carbon Trust and DEFRA havetherefore co-sponsored the British Standards Institution (BSI) to develop a Publicly Available
Specification (PAS 2050) for the “Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas
emissions of goods and services”. This may be available by June 2008 but a number of issues remain
to be resolved relating to Life Cycle Assessment procedures and the need, or otherwise, for third
party certification. The PAS could be the starting point for an international standard at a later date.
The second stream is developing procedures to determine whether companies have reduced thecarbon footprint of a product over a period of time (say two years). This will provide a frameworkrather than a specification or standard. There is least consensus among industry and retailers about
the third stream dealing with communication of information relating to carbon footprints. A numberof companies do not believe that a label communicating the grams of carbon associated with aproduct is the way forward. The Carbon Trust is developing more flexible guidelines forcommunication in this area.
The methods for calculating carbon footprints are probably not sufficiently developed for
consumers to compare products like with like at the moment. But they can give consumers theassurance that companies are working to improve lifecycle emissions along a supply chain, thereby
creating trust in brands.

48

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Key-Note Speech
Aligning SD with LCS
Rae kwon Chung
UN ESCAP(Korea)Two key issues of Sustainable Development (SD) and Low-Carbon Society (LCS) are: (a) How
to make LCS compatible with growth, and (b) How to engage developing countries in post-Kyoto
climate regime?
A paradigm shift is required from quantity of growth towards quality of growth. Quality must
include measures of ecological and social quality, besides economic quality. Hence, not just market
cost efficiency, but also ecological efficiency needs to be emphasized. Increasing ecologicalefficiency implies maximizing resource efficiency and minimizing pollution impact byinternalization of ecological costs into market price.
The governments have an important role to play in effecting this shift. They must modify theprice structures so as to close the gap between market and ecological prices, and provide
ecologically efficient infrastructure like public transport and energy efficient buildings to support
ecologically efficient performance of economic activities. The concept of ecological efficiency has
to be applied in the designs of cities, public transport systems, and consumption and production
patterns.
We have to replace the negative perception that mitigation is a burden on economy with thepositive view that mitigation is not a burden rather an opportunity to improve energy efficiency andsave energy costs tus improve economic efficiency and competitiveness. Climate actions could evencreate new markets, employment and growth.
However, while the gains will mostly accrue in the long run, there may be certain costs to bearin the short run. Hence policy options are required to minimize short-term burdens and maximize
long-term gains.
Following are the best ways to induce emission reduction in developing countries:
1. Internalize Ecological Costs into the market price of energy: Internalization of ecologicalcosts into market price of energy can be achieved by changing tax base from Income to
Carbon. Ecological tax reform of reducing income tax while increasing carbon tax could bean effective tool to move towards low carbon society by putting a price on carbon.
2. Market-Based Climate Regime and CER Discounting: CDM can be reformed to function asa full-fledged

market mechanism to provide incentives to developing countries to initiate

mitigation projects. Project scope of current CDM has to be further expanded by removing
project and fiancial additionality criteria. Mitigation costs per ton of CO2

is cheaper indeveloping countries. If developing countries could be allowed to turn their mitigation into
carbon credit and sell at a higher price than their actual costs, then investment for mitigationof GHG emission in developing countries will have commercial viability. Net global
49

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

recution is possible not only by imposing target on developing countries but also
introducing a rule of CER discounting scheme.

The CER discounting scheme means thata part or all of CDM credits, i.e., CERs, made by developing countries through unilateral
CDM projects will be retired rather than sold to developed countries to increase theiremissions. Then unsold protion of CER will be net global reduction. Agreeing on the CERs
Discounting Scheme will have a better political chance than agreeing on imposing emission
reduction targets on developing countries.
3. Domestic Voluntary Efficiency Targets as Climate Action: Explicit recognition of domestic
and voluntary targets and efforts towards improvement of economic efficiency or energy
efficiency as a part of climate action will provide further incentive and recognition to thosecountries and governments. A case in point is China’s target of 20% improvement in energy
efficiency. Voluntary emission reduction efforts must be allowed for carbon credits. As a lotof such voluntary actions are being taken by countries to further their own energy security
and economic growth objectives, recognizing such efforts as climate action will create
win-win synergy between climate and economic goals.

50Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Key-Note Speach
Delivering Low-Carbon Society
through Sustainable Development
P.R. Shukla
Indian Institute of Management(India)A lot of debate on stabilizing GHG concentration has been limited to actions at the margins of
the conventional development path. This approach involves high carbon price and is risky andunsustainable. A paradigm shift is needed to bring climate actions within the mainstream
development strategy. The latter will require sustainable (alternative) development path and GHG
stabilization to be pursued simultaneously.
Sustainable path to LCS will require a much wider/diverse portfolio of interventions than theconventional and high carbon path to LCS. While the latter will require mainly energy supply related
options, the former will require interventions in both supply and demand sides and in a variety ofareas. For example, the results of the two scenarios analysed for India indicate that the conventional
path requires major penetration of CCS (with coal) and fuel switch in power sector, besides minor
introduction of renewable energy and improvement of device efficiencies. The sustainable path, on
the other hand, will require a variety of interventions like fuel switch in power sector, renewableenergy, and a wide set of demand side measures like improvement in buildings, transport modeswitch, appliance efficiency improvement, urban planning, greater recycling, reduction of
consumption, and material substitutions that will result in reduced demand for steel, paper, cement
and other energy intensive industries.
Key drivers of sustainable pathway to LCS are:
1. Innovations: Both changing behaviour and technology/R&D transfer are the key to LCS
transition. Technological, social/institutional and management innovations will be necessary.
In particular, the developing countries will need major reformation of their governancesystems and institutions.
2. Co-benefits: Integrating GHG reduction with local benefits is important for developing
countries. This will require aligning of different markets, exploring win-win options thatdeliver join benefits, and a mechanism to share the costs and risks among global and local
actions. So far the climate negotiations have followed the ‘burden sharing’ metaphor which
poses climate stabilization as a high cost and zero-sum game, and this has cause conflicts.
The sustainable development approach, by delivering co-benefits and reducing the cost of
stabilizing climate, poses stabilization as a positive-sum game that would induce
cooperation between different players including developed and developing countries. For
example, energy cooperation among countries in South-Asian region has a potential toreduce GHG emissions by enhancing trade of hydro, gas and oil, besides delivering
co-benefits like addressing the problems of water, food security and flood control, andlowering the energy prices.
51

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

3. Sustainability: This requires long-term vision and modification of preferences so as to avoid
lock-ins due to investments that have long life. Sustainable low-carbon societies shall needexclusive climate-centric actions for stabilization and adaptation, but their costs and risks
are much lower.

52

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead SpeechSome consideration to deliver LCS from sustainable
development points of view
Mikiko Kainuma
National Institute for Environmental Studies(Japan)There is a development path effective for each country, but we can share the vision. Among all,it is essential to have a vision how to mitigate GHG emissions in the context of sustainable
development. To realize sustainable development, actions should be taken in a bottom-up way.
Combination of different approaches is required to move forward to sustainable development by
taking climate actions.
Technologies that come from regional specific needs should be integrated with local natural
resources. Infrastructure should be designed adequately to promote dissemination of energy-efficienttechnologies.
Besides large-scale technology development and transfer, local-scale technology development
is important for sustainable development such as biomass cook-stoves, biogas plants for publicbuildings, solar cookers, and stand-alone solar PV (photovoltaic) systems. It is necessary to selectand market technologies that are effective for local way of living. For this the technologies would
have to: (i) contribute to economic livelihoods of local communities, and (ii) integrate with local
natural resource base.
Training local youth/women is very important. Local youth/women must be equipped to take up
entrepreneurial services for design, manufacturing, assembly, delivery and post-installation
maintenance of new technology systems.
It is also important to provide logistical systems to support prompt availability of parts,
components and equipments required for such technologies to work efficiently at the local levels.
These logistical systems need to link centralized, urban sources of designing and manufacturingcomponents/equipments to decentralized, local points of assembly, delivery, installation andmaintenance of end-use technologies.
There is another point relating to local development of technologies: the existing policy regimeof international trade and Intellectual property rights (IPR) may need to be re-examined (since
existing policy may not facilitate easy transfer of know-how to developing countries). Thus R&D
capability in developing countries may need to be strengthened.
For such local-scale technology development to work effectively, the government must provide
crucial policy support to establish initial infrastructure base comprising technical resources, training
facilities, and transportation and logistics networks.

It is also important to provide 'financing

services' to local entrepreneurs so that they can easily make investments required to startdevelopment, assembly, delivery or maintenance activities locally.

53

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
SD-PAMs and LCS: Co-benefit Approach to Mitigationin Developing Countries and a Role of ODA
Masato Kawanishi
JICA(Japan)Japanese ODA on Climate Change
Addressing global issues, including climate change, is one of four priorities outlined in the
Official Development Assistance (ODA) Charter, Japan’s basic policy of ODA, which was revised in
2003. Japan’s Medium-Term Policy on ODA, formulated in 2005, also underlines the importance oftaking measures against climate change. Japan introduced the ‘Invitation to Cool Earth 50’ initiativein 2007 and announced that it would support ‘developing countries with high aspirations’ that makeefforts to achieve both greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and economic growth. Most
recently, Prime Minister Fukuda announced that Japan would establish the ‘Cool Earth Partnership’,a financial mechanism for assistance to developing countries on climate change.
As the agencies of implementing ODA, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) andJapan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)1 carry out a number of developmental projects
which also produce climate benefits2. A co-benefit approach is emphasized, given the fact that the
primary concerns of developing countries are their own development, not the climate. With
co-benefit approach, ODA gives an incentive for developing countries to take a climate-friendly
development path.
SD-PAMs and Co-benefits
The use of Sustainable Development Policies and Measures (SD-PAMs) is proposed as one typeof mitigation action by developing countries (Bradley et al, 2005). It comes from the idea that ‘amore sustainable development path has lower emissions, even without any explicit climate policy’(South Africa, 2007). In other words, SD-PAMs are based on co-benefits, more specifically climate
benefits of sustainable development. In this sense, SD-PAMs share the common basis with
JICA/JBIC approach to mitigation in developing countries. SD-PAMs are expected to play a role ofengaging developing countries in the post-2012 framework.
There are a range of issues, however, that need to be defined to implement SD-PAMs, such as
those on which countries and what types of policies and measures would be eligible for SD-PAMs(Ellis, 2007). How SD-PAMs could be monitored is also an important question in light of the Bali
Action Plan, adopted at COP13, where the international community agreed to consider ‘mitigation
actions by developing countries in the context of sustainable development ... in a measurable,
reportable and verifiable manner’ (UNFCCC, 2007).
1
In October 2008, JICA and the Overseas Economic Cooperation Operations (OECOs) of JBIC will merge to formthe ‘New JICA’, which will offer a one stop service for technical assistance, grant aid and ODA loans.
2
For our co-benefit project examples, please refer to JICA and JBIC (2007).

54

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

In addition, the real effectiveness of SD-PAMs needs to be examined. Given the scale of theclimate problems we face, SD-PAMs on their own may not be enough. For more advanced
developing countries in particular, SD-PAMs would need to be implemented together with otherstrategies, such as sectoral approaches.
Conclusion
SD-PAMs as well as a co-benefit approach are a good starting point for engaging developing
countries into mitigation action. In order to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention,
however, SD-PAMs would need to be complemented by other strategic approaches. This would beparticularly the case with major emitting countries, where the approaches to Low Carbon Society(LCS) should be integrated into SD-PAMs.

References:
Bradley, Rob and Jonathan Pershing (2005) Introduction to Sustainable Development Policies
and Measures, in Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development
First, (http://pdf.wri.org/gig_chapter1.pdf)
Ellis, Jane, Richard Baron and Barbara Buchner (2007) SD-PAMs: What, Where, When andHow?, (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/12/39725449.pdf)
JICA and JBIC (2007) Climate Change Co-operation by JICA and JBIC, Tokyo, Japan
South Africa (2006) Sustainable Development Policies and Measures,(http:// unfccc.int/files/meetings/dialogue/application/pdf/working_paper_18_south_africa.pdf)
UNFCCC (2007) Bali Action Plan,(http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_bali_action.pdf)

55

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
Biomass and SD: Ethanol in Brazil, a single caseAndré S. Pereira and Emilio L. La Rovere
COPPE, UFRJ
(Brazil)1)

Public subsidies, now phased out, were fundamental to the Ethanol Program in Brazil. But
such public effort would be in vain if the subsidized sector hadn’t invested in R&D looking for
productivity growth and technical progress, which have been verified in sugarcane crops, insugarcane processing and in ethanol fired and flex fuel cars manufacturing.

2)

High level oil prices, energy security concerns and the global GHG emissions reduction
efforts have been pushing domestic production and exports.

3)

According to government scenarios, ethanol production in Brazil is expected to grow from 18
billion litters to reach 67 billion liters in 2030, of which 12 billion liters would be exported. To
make it in a sustainable way is a non-negligible challenge.

4)

Kojima & Johnson (2005) show that gasoline/anhydrous ethanol blend are heavier taxed thanhydrous ethanol in Brazil. This taxing policy is a very good example of how government may
act if he wants to have some influence on ethanol demand levels in Brazil. The question is toknow if the current policy of taxing gasoline/anhydrous ethanol blend heavier than hydrous
ethanol would be enough to foster demand or if this policy would have to be deepened in orderto do so.

5)

A technological breakthrough in ethanol production would be using the cellulose contained in
the bagasse as an input. This may double or triple ethanol productivity per hectare, and also
reduce land needs in a high production scenario. (For instance, the main ethanol production
equipment manufacturer in Brazil claims that after twenty years of development, the flash acidhydrolysis is now able to deliver 109 to 180 liters of additional ethanol per ton of bagasse, atcompetitive costs, based upon results obtained at its 5,000 liters/day demonstration plant, yet to
be scaled-up to 50,000 liters/day. This may nearly double ethanol output per hectare, supplying
additional up to 5,600 liters/ha/year on the top of current 6,800 liters/ha.year yield (Fairbanks,
2003). This new market for bagasse would also favor an optimization of energy use at thedistilleries, allowing for maximizing bagasse surplus after meeting the heat and power processneeds.

6)

Pre-harvest burnings are still a problem for local air pollution next to sugar cane fields, but thepractice has been progressively banned in São Paulo State, where 60 % of the production is56

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

located. This allows for a more efficient use of the sugar cane biomass (the straw and thebagasse).
7)

Bagasse is already a very important energy source in its own right, used for generating heatand electricity. The increase of energy efficiency in this process may add almost 100 TWh/year
to the system, considering present levels of sugar cane production, and this only with bagasse.
If 20% of the straw is also used (most of the straw should be left in the field for agronomic
reasons), this extra supply might reach 140 TWh/year.

8)

In Brazil, not only ethanol production tends to increase. Biodiesel has also a great potential to
be developed. As for the ethanol case, at the beginning, public policies and investments arenecessary and desirable to foster investments and futures economies of scale, productivity gains
and to improve its contribution to sustainable development. The Biodiesel National Program
intends to fill this gap, learning from the ethanol program experience. However, much has to bedone yet in further detailing its guidelines to reach a consistent regulatory framework.

9)

There is also scope for a potential synergy between biodiesel and ethanol programs.
According to Dedini, building a biodiesel transestherification unit integrated to an ethanol
distillery may reduce investment costs by 20% to 25% (Olivério, 2005).

10) Ethanol fuel in Brazil contributes to energy matrix diversification. Moreover, it also
contributes to improve reliability of internal energy supply, to reduce balance of payments
problems related to fossil fuel imports, to foster sustainable long term energy supply, topromote regional social development and to reduce local pollution and GHG emissions.
11) Even though those positive externalities are evident in the Brazilian case, they are very
difficult to be quantified. If so, these externalities might foster even faster biofuels
development.
12) Biofuels development represents a major opportunity to rethink rural development and topromote a new rural development cycle, especially in Brazil due to its natural advantages,
which include the largest biodiversity in the world, the largest land area still free to agricultural
use and several different climates and excellent hydro resources (Sachs, 2004).
13) Biofuels are only a part of biomass use. Biomass can be used to produce not only biofuels but
also food, fibres, plastics, construction materials, industrial feedstock and pharmaceuticals.
Several developing countries can foster their development on the condition of exploring theirbiodiversity. Biotechnology should be used both to enhance biomass output and to widen the
spectrum of its by-products. In this way, such countries “may engage ahead of industrial
countries into a genuinely sustainable and fairly labour intensive development pattern, on the57Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

condition of respecting the rules for an ecologically sound management of forests, land andwater” (Sachs, 2004).
14) On the long run, it is important to conduct a strategic social and environmental assessment ofsugarcane production expansion, with an appropriate zoning, in order to ensure biofuels
development sustainability. Air, soil and water pollution, soil erosion, impact on food prices andin land use, especially deforestation; energy balances; LCA and well-to-wheels analysis for
GHG emissions reductions estimates and social conditions of manual workers are the questions
at stake.
15) Sugar cane ethanol in Brazil is unique case. The energy and GHG balances are definitely very
favorable due to some local factors, such as agricultural practices, including low fossil fuel use;a high yield of the culture per hectare; a high yield of fuel per unit of feedstock processed; and alarge use of sugarcane biomass to replace fossil energy in the ethanol processing. Therefore, thepositive conclusions of sugar cane ethanol in Brazil might be not applicable to other biofuels.
16) It is worth therefore quoting IPCC 4AR WGIII SPM “Biofuels might play an important rolein addressing GHG emissions in the transport sector, depending on their production pathway”
References:
La Rovere, E.L (1981) "Les Impacts Sociaux et Écologiques du Plan Alcool Brésilien", in
Économie et Humanisme, no 260, p. 36-47. Paris.
La Rovere, E.L, Pereira, A.S., Simões, A.F. Biofuels and Sustainable Energy Development inBrazil, Forthcoming.
Fairbanks, M. (2003). Tecnologia amplia oferta e reduz custo do álcool. Revista Química e
Derivados n 417 July 2003.
Olivério, J. L (2005) Dedini has sold the first biodiesel plant integrated to ethanol and sugar millsin the world. Personal communication.
Sachs, I. (2004) Inclusive development and decent work for all. International Labour Review;143(1-2): 161-84.
Kojima, M., Johnson, T. (2005). Potential for Biofuels for Transport in Developing Countries.
ESMAP. UNDP - United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank. October.

58

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
CO2 Reduction in Transport Sector in Thailand:Some Insights
Ram M. Shrestha
Asian Institute of Technology(Thailand)

Thailand is the second largest economy in the ASEAN region. It is also the second largest in
CO2 emission in the region. Thailand’s total CO2 emission was 206 million tons in 2004, which was
2.62 times the corresponding figure in 1990. Thailand’s share in the global total CO2 emission
increased from 0.4% in year 1990 to 0.8% in 2004. The total CO2 emission increased by 162%
during 1990-2004 in the country, which shows a much higher growth rate than that of the global CO2
emission (28% during the period). The annual growth rate of the country’s CO2 emission per capita
during 1990-2004 was 5.99%, which is substantially higher than that of OECD (0.32%) and Asia
excluding China (3.06%). The transport sector accounts for 29.5% of the total CO2 emission in
Thailand due to its heavy reliance on fossil fuels. The figure is not only substantially higher than thatof major emerging developing countries like China (6.3%) and India (8.8%) but is also higher thanthe corresponding figures of the developed countries (27.1% in OECD and 20.8% in Japan). The
transport sector in Thailand is predominantly road based. This is evident from the fact that at present
the total length of highway is 64,000 km and the total length of railway is less than 4,070 km. The
transport sector is heavily based on fossil fuels and accounts for more than one third of final energy
demand.
The Thai Government has some environment-friendly strategies and plans in the transport
sector, which include substitution of existing diesel-run trains with electric trains, developing mass
rapid transit to substitute private vehicles (813 km long double track trains) and intercity trains to
reduce private vehicles within city area. The government has developed a very ambitious plan forbiofuels promotion in the transport sector, which aims at substituting 10% of diesel use with
bio-diesel by 2012. This plan requires the utilization of 85 million liters of blended biodiesel per day
and production of 8.5 million liter per day of pure biodiesel production by 2012. The production will
be based on palm oil and Jatropha. Also the government has a Gasohol Strategic Plan which would
increase the utilization of E10 Gasohol from one million liters per day in 2006 to 3 million liters of
ethanol per day by 2011.
Our study on CO2 reduction potential in Thailand shows that increasing the use of biofuels inthe base case during the planning horizon of 2000-2050 (i.e., increasing the use of biodiesel from500 ktoe in 2005 to 30,000 ktoe by 2020 and to 40,000 ktoe by 2050 and similarly increasing the useof Gasohol from 500 ktoe in 2005 to 10,000 ktoe in 2030 and to 20,000 ktoe by 2050) would reducethe cumulative CO2 emission during the period by 0.8% from the total emission during the period in
the absence of biofuels1. Also, it was found that increasing the availability of biofuels during
1

The study used a bottom-up energy system model of Thailand, which we developed using the Asia
Pacific Integrated Assessment Model (AIM)/Enduse framework.
59Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

2020-2050 (i.e., biodiesel availability increasing from by 30,000 ktoe in 2020 to 80,000 ktoe in 2050
and Gasohol increasing from 10,000 ktoe in 2030 to 40,000 ktoe in 2050) would reduce thecumulative CO2 emission during 2005-2050 by only 0.27%. This demonstrates that without amassive biofuels production/procurement program, that is far bigger in scale than conceived
presently, biofuels cannot contribute significantly to total national CO2 emission reduction. On theother hand, a program for a substantial increase in biofuels production would face the standard
conflict of having to use the agricultural land for fuel production instead of food production.
Our study (Shrestha et al., 2008) shows that if passenger travel demand based on cars, vans andpickups is shifted to that based on electrified MRTS and railways by 10% in 2015 with the shift
increasing up to 30% by 2050, there would be a reduction in cumulative CO2 emission during
2015-2050 by about 1.87% as compared to the CO2 emission in the base case. This shows thatshifting the passenger transport demand away from the low occupancy road based personal transportsystem to MRTS and railways would have a significantly large CO2 reduction potential.
How large could be the effect of carbon tax in reducing CO2 emission from a country likeThailand? Our study shows that introducing a uniform (i.e., constant) tax of $100/tCO2 during
2013-2050 would reduce total CO2 emission by about 16.4% from that in the base case (i.e., withoutboth carbon tax and modal shift to MRTS and railways and with limited hydropower availability andwith a limited nuclear power generation capacity). If the carbon tax is applied along with themodal shift (as stated in the previous paragraph), the study shows that CO2 emission would fall byadditional 2.2% (i.e., the total emission would be reduced by about 18.6%). This clearly shows thatclimate policy related economic instruments like carbon tax would be more effective, when there isan option for investment in public transport systems like MRTS and electric railways. This, however,requires a major shift in the government’s policies and plans to favor the development of MRTS andrailway based public transport infrastructure.
Furthermore, the options of additional hydropower import (up to 93,040 GWh by 2050) fromneighboring countries, enhanced nuclear power generation capacity (up to 40,000 MW by 2050) andthe modal shift (as described earlier) are considered along with a carbon tax of US$100/tCO2, ourstudy shows that the total CO2 emission would be reduced by an additional 6.3% as compared to thecase with the carbon tax alone. In other words, the total emission in such a case (with modal shift,
additional hydropower import and nuclear power generation combined) would be about 22.7% lessthan that in the base case. These results show that the carbon tax would be much more effective in
CO2 reduction if the wider options of investments in non-road public transport infrastructures,
regional hydropower development and nuclear power generation are considered.
Thus, if a developing country like Thailand is to pursue a development path towards a low
carbon economy, it is important to orient the public policies toward those favoring climate friendly
infrastructure developments (e.g., electrified MRTS and railways, regional transboundaryhydropower development) besides programs to improve energy efficiency and promote greater useof renewable energy.
Reference:
Shrestha, R. M., S. Pradhan and M. Liyanage, 2008, Effects of Carbon Tax on Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation in Thailand, Climate Policy (accepted for publication).
60

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
Toward Low Carbon Society Forestry Sector
Rizaldi Boer
Bogor Agricultural University(Indnesia)

Climate science identifies that to avoid dangerous climate change the average global
temperature increase (over pre-industrial level) should be kept below 2oC.

To ovoid this, theCO2e concentration at the atmosphere by 2050 should not be more than 450 ppm.

The worldshould be able to reduce their emission by at least 50% below 1990 level emission by 2050.
Following the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’, developed countries should
target an emissions peak between 2012 and 2015 with 30% cuts by 2020 and at least 80% cuts by
2050.

For developing countries, their emissions can increase up to 2020 and then have to be cut byaround 20% against 1990 levels by 2050.
would fall towards zero in net terms.

By the end of the 21st century, per capita emissions

Based on historical data, it is clear that rate of emission percapita has positive linear relationship with income per capita. Main source of emissions are also
related the level of country development.

Emissions from land use, land use change and forestry

appear to be the main source of emissions from less developed country.

In least developed

countries, the contribution of LULUCF to the total GHG emissions is almost two third, while indeveloping countries is about one third.

In developed countries, emissions from LULUCF arealmost none and this sector is believed to be a net absorber of CO2.

This suggests that in thecontext of least developed and developing countries, controlling emissions from LULUCF would
play significant role in combating global warming.

As most of community in least developed anddeveloping countries still depend very much on forest, reducing emission from land use, land usechange and forestry from these countries would be difficult without assisting them in improving theirland/forest management practices, providing technologies that can reduce the use of fire in opening
and clearing land for agriculture practices, improving land productivity and restoring degraded land
as well as diversifying economic activities to reduce their dependency on forest.

Creating incentive

system for reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) will be very
important to assist these countries to reduce their emissions from LUKUCF.

Government ofIndonesia is now preparing strategies and pilot projects for REDD. A number of challenges are
identified for the implementation of REDD activities which include governance, payment
mechanisms, payment distribution, social issues and legal/regulatory.

61

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
Low carbon society (LCS) and sustainable development (SD)
Perspectives of Brazil
Haroldo Machado Filho
Ministry of Science and Technology(Brazil)
In December 2007, under the multilateral climate change regime, Parties reached an agreementon the framework to address climate change during the post-2012 period. One of the most importantpillars of this framework is the Bali Plan of Action, which sets a negotiation process to be finalized
by 2009 on long-term cooperative actions to address climate change by enhancing implementation of
the UNFCCC.
According to the Bali Plan of Action, all countries must take part in the global efforts to reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but these efforts must be based on the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. In this regard, the negotiation processaddresses options on how to enhance national and international mitigation actions, including“nationally appropriate actions by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable
development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in ameasurable, reportable, and verifiable manner.”
Each developing country must pursue its path of development, in a sustainable manner, basedon its national circumstances, and should make all the efforts to reduce GHG. These efforts must be
strengthened through the provision of positive incentives, including technology transfer andfinancing, from the international community. Developing countries will need improved access toadequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources and technical support.
Based on its national circumstances, Brazilian efforts towards a LCS include tackling
deforestation and using ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. Deforestation is the main source of GHG
emissions in Brazil. However, the rate of forest loss in the last three years has decreased by almost
60%, which represents an unprecedented success in reducing deforestation. Moreover, the use ofethanol as a substitute for gasoline has avoided emitting 644 Mt of CO2 over the last 30 years. In
Brazil, ethanol production from sugarcane not only reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and issocially sustainable, but it is also energy and cost- effective.
In fact, biofuels from developing countries (DCs) have a great untapped potential to reduce
global GHG emissions. However, major energy consumers in the developed world have placed all
kinds of barriers to biofuels from DCs. Barriers to biofuels distort markets, raise energy prices,
spread poverty, endanger food security and are totally inconsistent with climate concerns. Therefore,barriers to biofuels should be removed promptly and unconditionally.
A successful conclusion to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Round of negotiations,with the inclusion of ethanol and biodiesel in the list of environmental goods and services, isfundamental for the reduction of tariff barriers related to biofuel exports. Efforts should be deployed
to ensure that ethanol and biodiesel will be produced in a sustainable way, but these efforts shall not
62Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

create unnecessary non-tariff barriers to international trade, especially to exports from developing
countries, or validate the current unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels.

63

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
Sustainability for all
Kensuke Fukushi
The University of Tokyo(Japan)Sustainable development has so far been considered in the domain of natural resources andenvironment. Climate change is a relatively recent issue. While it potentially large impacts fordeveloping countries, the developed countries fear of losing current quality of life and property.
Large cities and medium-to-large industries in developing countries like Thailand, Malaysia andIndonesia realize the problems of waste-water, air pollutants and solid wastes, and have somemechanisms in place to treat these while simultaneously emphasizing development.
The waste-water and other local pollution treatments consume a lot of energy in developed
countries. To take the example of river water treatment in Tokyo, about 20-90% of water is treated atvarious river bridges in Tokyo. But purification of waste-water needs energy. Purification of 1 ton ofwaste-water consumes equivalent of 0.5 litre of crude oil and releases 0.2 kg CO2.
A typical sewer system in developed country cities consists of the following:•

Pipeline to drain storm water•

Pipeline to drain waste-water from houses and buildings•

Treatment facility to treat waste-water; this process is energy intensive

While the cost of treatment facilities is not so high, the cost of setting up sewer pipes for all
cities of the world is beyond its economic level.
Hence the developed country practices may not be suitable for developing countries.
Key issues for establishing a sustainable urban environment in developing countries are as
follows:•

Model of developed country cities may not be suitable for setting up urban environmental
systems in developing countries, and we may have to look for an alternate model to ensuresustainability•

Requirements of development and urban infrastructure must be balanced•

While local environmental issues are being considered in urban areas of developing
countries, climate change issues are not the major driving force for action

64Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
Integrating LCS Concept into SD Strategy in All Countries
Ryokichi Hirono
Seikei University(Japan)The concept of SD focusing on poverty reduction and capacity development of especially thepoor, ever since introduced by the Commission on Environment and Development in 1986, has beenendorsed by all member states of the United Nations and become a key concept in the mainstream ofnational and international development.
Today a new concept of Low Carbon Society (LCS) has been proposed by many countries
including the United Kingdom and Japan, in the context of exploring into Post-Kyoto internationalarrangements for climate change up to 2050. To deliver LCS through SD, all countries, bothdeveloped and developing, are expected to do their level best in integrating LCS concept into theirrespective national SD strategies as well as the international SD strategy for the 21st century.
It is understood that because of vast differences not only between developed and developing but
also within them in the stage of economic, social and political development, economic growth rates,
resources endowment and ecological conditions, the major concerns of SD, while observing
commonality, are different among countries, allowing different priorities and approaches toward SD
and LCS. Today most of what is once called national environmental issues such as air, water, soil
pollution and hazardous industrial wastes have become global under the on-going pressures of
economic, social and political globalization. Climate change, along with deforestation andtrans-boundary emission such as acid rain, sandstorms and haze, has increasingly become serious,
threatening not only the economic prospects of countries concerned but also the ecologicalconditions of the planet Earth. It is therefore a global imperative for all countries to take immediate
actions to prevent the adverse impact of climate change through adaptation and mitigation andfacilitate to achieve SD by transforming their economic activities and lifestyles into lower carbon
intensity and build a LCS.

Developed countries, as major sources of GHG emission, have aninternational responsibility for transforming as soon as possible their own countries into LCSs, whileadvanced developing countries and other developing countries could follow under the internationallyagreed principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibility.”. Expanded international
cooperation in technological transfer/development and finance, involving all stakeholders concernedaround the world, is essential to assist all those developing countries in delivering LCS through SD.

65

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
The Sustainable development Policies andMeasures (SD-PAMs)
Stanford A.J. Mwakasonda
Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town
(South Africa)
South Africa made a submission to the United Nations Climate Change Convention negotiation
process in Bali, Indonesia, on sustainable development policies and measures (SD-PAMs) pledge
that builds on existing commitments of developing countries. The basis of this approach lies in thefact that almost all developing countries are signatories to the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol,
both of which take into consideration issues of sustainable development. Convention Articles 2, 3.4,
and 4.1, as well as Kyoto Protocol Article 10 dwell on matters generally pertaining theimplementation of commitments in a manner that promotes sustainable development.
The SD-PAMs approach is built on the premise that developing countries would need to make apledge to implement and accelerate national sustainable development plans. The pledge, andsubsequently a ‘commitment’, would not necessarily be measured directly in GHG emissions units,
but rather in Sustainable Development (SD) units – building a 50 000 energy efficient homes, rather
than a specified reduction in tons of CO2 emissions.
SD-PAMs commitments would initially be voluntary, although they could be made mandatory
for at least some developing countries. To formalize the approach, some need for reporting andoversight through the Climate Change Convention would be necessary. Reporting would assist inmonitoring whether SD-PAMs are actually implemented, and this would require some institutional
capacity in the pledging country. At the same time, reporting can help to correct the mis-perceptionthat developing countries are doing nothing on climate change.
At the international level, reviewing the pledges would require a decision of the Conference of
the Parties to establish a registry of SD-PAMs.

Rather than creating an entirely new institution,suggestions have been made to create a special SD-PAMs reporting registry within the existing
framework of the UNFCCC. Such a registry would record data based on regular reporting by Parties
on their SD-PAMs, and support from the Secretariat for maintaining the records of implementation.
If voluntary reporting proves successful, a next step would be to make reporting of SD-PAMs
mandatory for a group of middle-income developing countries. Some developing countries mightview this as intergovernmental control over national policy making, which could present a politicalobstacle. However, there need be no prescribed list of SD-PAMs, leaving it to the country to define
its own policies, much as this study has examined energy policies that would make South Africa’s
development more sustainable.
In short, developing countries would formulate, implement and report on SD-PAMs. Reportingand international review seem consistent with a facilitative approach to compliance.

66

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead SpeechRole of official development assistance (ODA) loans
for enabling low carbon society (LCS)
Tomonori Sudo
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)(Japan)ODA loan is one of modalities of Official Development Assistance providing loans withconcessional terms and conditions. To achieve its objectives, ODA loan has several characteristics,
such as:ODA Loans• provide from Government to Government (G-G),• focus on development objectives in developing countries• support public projects and public-private partnership projects which are low commercially
viable• create enabling environment for private investors to invest in Developing countries.
Through its characteristics, ODA loans aims to encourage developing countries’ ownership andself-efforts for their sustainable development.
Japanese ODA Loan offers very concessional terms and conditions for environmentally soundprojects with interest rate in the range of 0.55% to 0.65% per annum and repayment period of about
40 years with 10 years grace period. ODA loans focus on development objectives; support public-,
public-private partnership-, and low commercially viable- projects; and create enabling environment
for private investors to invest in developing countries (DCs).
ODA loans have worked as an effective policy incentive tool. ODA loans have introduced
special terms and condition for environmental projects/programs as a part of Kyoto Initiative in 1997.
Since then, the number of environmental projects has been increased as shown below. ODA loans

6,000

70

5,000

60
50

4,000

40

3,000

30

2,000

20

1,000

10

0

0
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Loan Amount
Share in Total ODA Loans

2002

2003

2004

Number of Loans

Figure 1. Trends of environmental ODA loans

67

2005

2006

FY

Number/Per centMillion USD

have worked as stocktaking of “know-how” to address to climate change.

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

ODA loans will be provided through several sorts of finance schemes, such as project loans that
could support construction of LCS, development policy Loans (DPLs) that support SD-PAMs, two
step loans and engineering service loans. ODA loans are sometimes provided through co-financing
with the World Bank, Regional Development banks such as Asian Development Bank, Global
Environment Facility and/or other bilateral donors. Technical assistance through special assistancefacility (SAF) is also provided by JBIC for smooth implementation of its funded projects.
These financing schemes could be applicable to LCS as complement of private finance.
One of the key points of roadmap to low-carbon world is to create environment in realizing
LCS through ownership with strong political will, result-oriented development policies and actions
and access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources with incentive. The other key
point is to understand the investment and development environment that are different among
countries due to their potential such as political stability and resource endowment.

68Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Lead Speech
Shiga’s scenario for a sustainable society in 2030
Yoshiaki Yamanaka
Shiga Prefectural Governmen(Japan)We are facing…
○Global warming○Overuse of natural resources○Ecosystem crisis●Climate change & extreme weather events●Environmental damage●Damage and loss to the economy/society●Depletion of natural resources●Destruction of the ecosystems

Urgent and firm actions for building a sustainable society are needed.
Vision in 2030
A resource-rich, secure and prosperous society where its naturalenvironment – first and foremost, Lake Biwa’s ecosystem – is protected,
and citizens’ well-being is being improved continually through sustainable
development in environmental, social and economic dimensions.

Why is a Vision essential?
(1) To establish a guiding principles shared by citizens, businesses, and government to build asustainable society in Shiga.
(2) To improve well-being and increase business opportunities that will lead to sustainable
development in Shiga by making full use of the creative ideas and vibrancy of citizens andindustries of Shiga.
From Vision to Reality :A scenario for a Sustainable Society in Shiga¾ GHG emissions are halved by the renovation of social systems and technology.
¾ All industries develop in an environment-friendly manner.
¾

We live in harmony with Lake Biwa ecosystem and make wise use of natural resources.

¾

Compact urban development is carried out in appropriate scale and form.

¾

Social infrastructure improvement accelerates the use of public transport.

¾

Lake Biwa retains an important role as a source of recreation for citizens.

69(Etc.)

Group 2
Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Goals to achieve the scenario
Building a low carbon society○ GHG emissions in Shigais reduced by 50% fromits 1990 level by 2030

Restore Lake Biwa healthy ecosystem○ A healthy ecosystem in Lake Biwa and its
surrounding areas, as well as a safe water
environment are well protected.
○ The functions of Lake Biwa, supplying food,shelter and place for recreation revitalized.

Measures to build a low carbon society•

Local production, local consumption to reduce “food mileage” and “wood mileage”•

Promotion of public transportation•

Designing compact cities•

Locally-based carbon offset system(With other implementations)70

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Key-Note Speech
Enabling LCSs (Low-Carbon Societies) : Investment
Takejiro Sueyoshi
UNEP Finance Initiative(Japan)The key messages relating to LCS investments are as follows:•

Strong, early action is critical to reduce emissions as it can dramatically limit the long term
cost of addressing climate change•

Government is expected to push behaviour of change through mitigation and adaptation
policy; Clear policy initiatives, regulations and incentives are needed that encourage
public-private collaboration in the desired direction of investment•

Response from financial markets is not enough, thus new regulatory framework is required
to steer much greater investment from the private sector; at present the investors may find it
difficult to make desired investment

Main recommendations for the policy makers are:•

To end the uncertainty over international climate policy post 2012 by coming out with clear
phase-2 of Kyoto or its successor and setting binding commitments as the investors needinvestment horizon of 10-20 years•

To provide compatible regulation on carbon markets and further globalize the carbon
markets, so as to initiate early actions in developing countries as well; this will involve
widening the scope of ETS, reducing transaction costs, setting international standards;
carbon market is one of the ways to achieve increased investment in renewable energy•

To overcome policy barriers by reducing subsidies in less efficient or less clean options, andremoving standards that inhibit implementation of low carbon solutions•

To encourage desired investments by introducing carbon tax, tradable rights, fiscal
incentives, direct support for low carbon activities, and providing data/information helpful
to investors•

To encourage innovations through international collaborations and informal arrangements
such as APP

Financial flows need to increase substantially in the next 10-20 years. The financial sector has
the following roles to play in mobilizing the right investments:•

Act more aggressively by cutting off financial support to high carbon investments•

Factor climate risks into lending policies, investment decisions, and insurance risk
calculation and pricing•

Financial institutions need to integrate climate change related risks and opportunities into
their core financial operations•

Engage with government decision makers to optimize the allocation of available funds tocombat climate change and to promote innovation and technology development
71

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment•

Reduce one’s own direct impact contributing climate change and report emissions
transparently.

Financial institutions have a pivotal role to play in guiding investments towards climate friendly
direction so that the world economy becomes more stable and viable72

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Key-Note Speech
Delivering a low carbon society- mobilising the finance sector
Emma Howard Boyd
Jupiter Asset Management(UK)

Jupiter Asset Management has been managing green and socially responsible investment funds
for over 20 years with an experienced Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) team. Whilst our
early funds do have negative screens (i.e. avoiding unethical investments like arms and tobacco),
we have a strong focus on investing in performance-driven environmental themes.
Over the last two decades or so the key drivers underpinning growth of environmental
investments have been: growing legislation and government support, increasing commitmentsof corporates to allocate capital expenditure to improving environmental performance and achange in consumer purchasing habits.
For instance, the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders recently announced that in2007 the sale of large gas guzzling cars dropped by 15% whilst the sale of low emission
vehicles in UK increased by 17%. It also predicted that sales of small, greener cars will outstrip
large cars in 2008. This is due to a mix of factors such as concerns about increasing fuel costs
and introduction of fiscal measures such as congestions charges. A utility company in the UK
claimed that over 1.5 million households in UK wanted them to conduct energy audit of theirhouses in response to a mailed questionnaire survey. Such trends are yet to be factored in thevaluations of stocks and investments.
Some indicators that point to increasing trends in low-carbon investments are:
•
•
•
•
•

Total retail sales for ethical funds in the UK increased by 3.5 times during 2007
Total inflows into European SRI funds increases by 43% during 2007
Venture capital in the European Cleantech sector doubled from 2006 to 2007
Money invested in clean energy increased by 35% from 2006 to 2007
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which has 385 investors with combined $ 57.5
trillion of assets, seeks information on business risks and opportunities presented by
GHG emissions data from the world’s largest companies•

Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), an investor initiative in partnership with
UNEP-FI and UN Global Compact, includes over 200 investors with more than $ 11
trillion in assets•

Enhanced Analytics Initiative (EAI), an international collaboration between asset
owners and asset managers, encourages investment research that takes account of the73Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

impact of extra-financial issues on long-term investment, and represents total assets ofEuro 1.85 trillion
The following are some results from the above-mentioned initiatives that are now visible:•

CDP: Morley Fund Management reports that of the 29 companies they are engaged with,
15 provided full answers to the CDP•

PRI: 88% of investment manager signatories to the PRI are conducting at least someshareholder engagement on ESG issues, while 82% of asset owners are doing so•

FairPensions: The Fund Manager Responsibility Survey by FairPensionsreveals that
75% of the top 20 fund managers do not disclose responsible investor policies that
address environmental and social issues, such as climate change and human rights, aswell as corporate governance matters•

EAI: Big mainstream financial companies like Citigroup, J P Morgan, Morgan Stanley,etc., have been evaluated as providing the best analytics of extra-financial issues

P8 initiative is an important initiative led by University of Cambridge Program for Industry(CPI) and representing over $ 2 trillion assets. It is made up of some of the largest global
pension funds (of public money) and is looking at how to incorporate climate risks into
investment strategies.
In conclustion, while there is significant investment opportunity in green and climate friendly
options/businesses, there is a tension between short term investment objectives and long-termclimate issues. Therefore there is a need for clear and strong signal from the government on theway policy is heading.

74

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Lead Speech
The Japan Research Institute, Limited
Eiichiro Adachi
Japan Research Institute(Japan)In order to achieve the Low Carbon Society, there are several paths that we should discuss on.
Of course, it is technologies that can solve many challenges we face. And making policies
appropriately is also crucial for building the Low Carbon Society.
But, I would like to emphases the approach through the evolution of a market in mypresentation today. Just please focus on goods and services market, labor market and financial
market. The term, the evolution of a market was invented in “the 21st Century Declaration” by Japan
Association of Corporate Executives on December 25, 2000.
If consumers attach importance to the ethical or socially responsible aspects of companies when
they choose goods or services, companies are forced to clean up their acts into a sustainable manner.
If new graduates attach importance to the ethical or socially responsible aspects of companies when
they choose the place of employment, companies are forced to do the same. If investors attach
importance to the ethical or socially responsible aspects of companies when they buy or sell stocks,
companies are also affected. Consequently, if we make a market capable of valuing not only
"economic aspects" but also "social aspects" and "human aspects", we are able to approach the Low
Carbon Society even through the market mechanism.
The 21st Century Declaration mentioned as follows. Along with the strengthening of thefunctions of the market, we must make efforts as corporations to facilitate the evolution of a market
capable of valuing not only "economic aspects" but also "social aspects" and "human aspects." Themarket is equipped with a mechanism for effective allocation of resources through the process ofprice formation. Should market participants, as a result of social changes, place added emphasis onvalues other than "economic aspects," namely "social aspects" and "human aspects," the market has
the internal dynamism needed for refining its functions to effectively reflect these values. In otherwords, the market is able to evolve in step with changes occurring in society.
Then, let me briefly introduce the Japanese current situation at glance. In either market, eachsurvey indicated lower rates of people who paid more attention to the ethical or socially responsible
aspects of companies. However, with regard to consumers, about 20% of consumers were very
concerned with Corporate Social Responsibility matters. The number of new graduates who consider
contribution to society a primary option was growing. And with regard to individual investors, about
three fourth of them are interested in Corporate Social Responsibility matters when they buy or sell
stocks though the actual investors’ share in capital market is only 1.2 percent.
Nonetheless, the Japanese socially responsible investment market has a history of nine years.
The volume of assets achieved more than 60 billion JPY, approximately 285 million GBP. We would
like to promote this evolution of a financial market enthusiastically. In this context the UK has
75

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

fruitful precedent experiences, I believe. I would like to discuss on how to promote these ethicalfinance behaviors in Japan, also in the UK. And I think we have many things to learn from the UK
experiences.

76

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Lead Speech
Domestic Cap & Trade Emissions Trading Scheme
Yurika Ayukawa
WWF Japan(Japan)1)

IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report has revealed the seriousness and the urgency of climatechange very clearly.

The WGI has shown that the temperature increase in the past 100 years

was 0.78 degrees Centigrade, and it will increase by 0.2 degrees C per 10 years until 2030.
This means that it is inevitable to see an increase of temperature of 1.48 degrees C by 2030.
WGII showed how the impacts of climate change will increase according to temperature
increase.

The 2 degrees threshold was plainly laid out where the extent of impacts get worse

when the temperature goes beyond this threshold. However, in the WGIII report, it showed
several scenarios, which included one scenario that would enable the temperature rise to 2-2.4
degrees C, if the emissions peak out at 2015 and bring a deep declining curve to a 50-85%
reduction from 2000 levels by 2050.

This scenario is named “Category I”, and only with this

scenario will we be able to keep the earth from collapsing and all living nature including humanbeings to survive.
2)

In order to make this Category I scenario happen, we need to take drastic steps now to enable
deep emission cuts.

Kyoto Protocol is only a very small step, but even during this firstcommitment period, we must start deeper cuts than obligated, and prepare for the further deep
cuts that will be needed post Kyoto.
3)

Most important factor to make this happen is to put a price on carbon emission.

In fact, theKyoto Protocol has already put a price on GHG emissions, and the cost of GHG emissions
should be implanted into every sector economy-wide, as an economic measure.

And for this,carbon tax, or cap&trade emissions trading scheme is the most efficient way.

If GHGemissions are penalized by having to pay for it, people will start to think seriously how to avoid
it, and this will promote innovative technology developments and make the whole society mostefficient.
4)

With such a system in place as a political framework, existing energy efficient technology will
be dispersed more widely at a cheaper cost, shift investment to cleaner technology to make itless costly, provide incentives to research and development for new technologies for cleaner
energy technology, and most of all, make general public aware to change their lifestyles to alower carbon society.

5)Especially, making big reduction is only able from big emitting sectors, which happens to be
the power sector and the industry sector. In Japan, about 65% of direct emissions comes fromthese two sectors.

For big emitting sectors, cap& trade domestic emissions trading system isthe most efficient tool, as it will secure emissions reduction and that with flexibility of trading.
It also enables companies to select their strategy where to make the reductions and where they77

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

need to buy credits in order to increase their business. It will make companies recognize therisk of climate change will have on their businesses and enable them to prepare for it as acompany strategy for the future.

Finally, the most attractive part of this scheme is that

reductions will be made at the most inexpensive area, and will save the company, and thecountry of unnecessary costs that they would need to pay for making reductions without such ascheme.
6)

In order to implement such a scheme, the government’s decision to introduce the system iscrucial.

Only with such leadership from the government will the industries understand theseriousness of climate change and how the government is trying to fight against it and also
avoiding the unnecessary cost that will arise from its impacts, such as strong typhoons,hurricanes, droughts, heat wave, strange disease, virus coming in that never existed before.
Once the decision is made, the whole society will become serious in making necessary
investments happen and industries cooperating to designing the most efficient system for theircountry.
7)

As a matter of fact, the carbon market is developing worldwide. EU ETS has been taking
place since 2005, New South Wales in Australia has been operating their own emissions trading
scheme since 2003, the Australian government announced its intention to introduce a ETS by2012, 10 northeastern states of the USA will start their Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in2009, 7 western states and 2 Canadian provinces have announced a Western Climate Initiative
including ETS with the regional goal of reducing aggregate reduction of 15% below 2005 by
2020, 9 midwestern states and one Canadian province signed the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Accord, focusing on cap & trade ETS last November, and Florida is also considering
a similar scheme.

On the federal level in the USA, one bill among the 10 bills submitted to

the Congress in 2007 which included a cap&trade system, was voted out by 11-8 at the Senate’s
Environment and Public Works Committee and will be brought to the Senate floor this year.
The bill’s name is Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

Along with these development in

the United States, an International Carbon Action Partnership was formed by a coalition ofEuropean countries, US States, Canadian provinces, New Zealand and Norway in the end of
October, 2007.

ICAP mission is to provide a forum in which governments and publicauthorities adopting mandatory GHG cap&trade ETS to share experiences and best practices on
the design of emissions trading schemes.

This cooperation is to ensure that the programs are

more compatible and are able to work together as the foundation of a global carbon market.
8)

As such, the global carbon market is about to be made, and if Japan does not commit itself
soon, Japan will be totally left out of the system and be isolated.

Japan must also be awarethat for example in the Lieberman-Warner bill, there is a provision that requires importers ofprimary goods from countries that do not have comparable GHG controls to buy and submit
special allowances to cover their products’ GHG emissions.

If Japan sticks to just “Voluntary

Actions”, it may be regarded “not comparable” to the cap&trade system that may be adopted in
the USA. It is really about time to seriously consider about introducing a cap&trade emissions
trading system in Japan, in order to bring about a low carbon society worldwide.

78

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Lead Speech
Lowering Australia’s emissions profile
Don Gunasekera
ABARE(Australia)¾ Australia’s economy is more emission intensive than most developed countries because of thestrong reliance on coal as an energy source. In Australia, continued population and economic
growth is projected to lead to increased demand for energy services. Continued reliance on fossil
fuels to meet the demand for energy is projected to lead to considerable increases in greenhousegas emissions in the medium to long term in Australia.
¾ The enhanced development and uptake of energy efficient and low emission technologies andenergy sources is key to weakening the relationship between economic growth, energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and thus enabling simultaneous emission reductions
with continued growth in living standards.

¾ The uptake of more energy efficient and lower emission technologies across the economy has thepotential to significantly reduce Australia’s emissions relative to what would otherwise occur undercurrent policy settings. With uptake of more energy efficient and lower emission technologies,
Australia’s emissions are projected to decline to a level about 23 per cent below 2004 levels in 2050,
which is about 51 per cent lower than the projected levels under a business as usual case.
¾ However, numerous market barriers exist that prevent the socially optimal level of investment in
low emission technologies. These include barriers to technology development such as the public
good nature of research and development and short term time preferences. There are also barriers to
the uptake of technologies that have been developed and are commercially viable. Examples ofthese barriers are technology lock-in, distortion of energy prices, imperfect information and lack ofpurchasing power.
¾ A range of measures have been introduced by the Australian Government to improve energy
efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These policies include an emissions trading
scheme from around 2010, a clean energy target and a range of reporting requirements.
¾ A full range of policy responses will be required to shift the economy to a low emissions
pathway. Carbon pricing will internalise environmental costs associated with greenhouse gas
emissions, encourage energy efficiency by increasing the cost of energy from emission intensive
sources, increase the relative returns of using low emission and energy efficient technologies andcan increase investment in clean technology research and development (R&D). Carbon pricing,however, will need to be combined with other measures to overcome other market barriers andinduce clean technology development and uptake across all sectors of the economy.
79

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment¾ Examples of other policy options include providing R&D funding for clean technology,
government regulation such as performance and technology standards and international
collaboration on technology development and uptake. Adaptation strategies will also be required
to minimise the impacts of climate change on the economy.

80Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Lead Speech
Low Carbon London Changing Behaviour
Narito Shibaike
Panasonic(Japan)Market transformation is a holistic, market-based approach designed to promote the
manufacture, purchase, and use of energy efficient products, services, and/or practices. At its core, it
is an integrated and dynamic strategy that coordinates separate technology push and market pullpolicies and programs to produce a permanent shift in the target market.
Manufacturers have two important tasks for creating market. One is to develop the energy
efficient appliances and sell them at reasonable prices. The other is providing and delivering accurate
and simple information to present the environmental performance of their products for customers tounderstand it.
Indicators on energy efficiency should be effective in both of technology push and market pull.
Manufacturers can measure the position of products with the indicator, so that they will develop
better ones. Consumers can know the progress of products by the indicator, so that they will buy
better ones.
Worldwide indicators must respect and reflect individual economy’s background. If not, theindicators cannot give practical results and environmental problems will not be solved eventually. It
is difficult to make absolute evaluation on energy consumption of each industry and product.
Improvement of efficiency is easier to understand and more acceptable for each market.
“Eco Efficiency” can consider two significant aspects of products; their functional performanceand environmental impact. “Factor X” is a specialized indicator which can show the improvement ofeach product’s value or benefit and environmental friendliness at the same time.
Major electronics companies in Japan have voluntarily agreed to develop the guideline for“Common Factor X” by “Eco Efficiency” evaluation to provide meaningful indicators for the market
as a new powerful communication tool between manufacturers and consumers. An evaluating
methodology about four energy consuming products such as air-conditioners, refrigerators, lamps,
and lighting apparatus was made with designating the GHG emissions as their environmental impact.
At present this collaborative works are still actively going to expand the target products and alliancecompanies.
Combination of measures is making up for effect which a single measure lacks, and eachmeasure is concurrently being a “catalyst” for acceleration of market transformation; thedevelopment and diffusion of energy efficient appliances.

81

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Lead Speech
Prospects for a Low Carbon Society: The Case of Canada
Ralph Torrie
ICF Canada(Canada)Low Emission Scenarios for Canada
The first low emission scenario for Canada was developed for the David Suzuki Foundation andfocused on what it would take to cut Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, 1 as
illustrated in Figure 1. Utilizing a standard, bottom-up, end use focused methodology; the analysis
systematically evaluated the technological potential for reducing emissions in Canada with existingand economically feasible technologies. By far the most important conclusion from the study wasthat the key to achieving deep and sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is on the
demand side of the energy economy, and it also introduced to the policy debate in Canada the idea
the low emission future could bring with it significant economic benefits.
Figure 1. A Low Emission Scenario for Canada(R. Torrie, et. a., “Kyoto and Beyond: The Low Emission Path to Innovation and Efficiency”, 2002)

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy subsequently sponsored amore detailed “bottom-up” analysis of the technological potential for a deep emission reduction in
Canada, this time for a 60% reduction from current levels by 2050.2 The results were published in
the form of a modified Socolow wedge, as shown in Figure 2. Based on this work, the National
Round Table developed an advisory note for the government that began to set out the road map to a
low emission future for Canada.3 The key findings of the NRTEE Advisory began to shape theemerging policy for a low carbon society for Canada:
1

Ralph Torrie et. al., “Kyoto and Beyond: The Low Emission Path to Innovation and Efficiency”, David Suzuki
Foundation, Vancouver, October 2002. Available on line at www.torriesmith.com.
2
Ralph Torrie et. al., “Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canada in 2050: A Low Emission Scenario”,
ICF International for NRTEE, Ottawa, 2006.
3
National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, “Advice on a Long Term Strategy on Energy and Climate
Change”, Ottawa, June 2006.

82

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment•

A low emission future for Canada is possible with domestic solutions, but can beachieved only if energy is used more efficiently and if energy is emitted while
emitting less carbon. Improvement in energy efficiency is key to the low emission
future.

•Canada’s growing oil and gas production sector could be compatible with a low
emission future, but only if carbon capture and sequestration can be perfected.

•

Increased deployment of cogeneration and renewable electricity will be needed totransform the power sector to a low emission regime, along with clean coaltechnology incorporating CCS.

•

There is an urgent need for a long term policy signal to give the private sector theconfidence it needs to bring GHG considerations into investment decisions.

•

Air pollution and other co-benefits of GHG emission reduction measures areimportant to both the implementation and the acceptance of the low emission future.
Figure 2. GHG Reduction Wedges for Canada(From Ralph Torrie et. al., “Energy Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Canada in 2050 – A Low Emission
Scenario”, prepared for the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, 2006)

Work is continuing on refining our understanding of what a low emission future would like for
Canada, and the policies and programs that would get us there. Recent work has coupledmacroeconomic models with multi-sector energy and emissions models in order to evaluate theeconomic impacts of greenhouse gas reduction policies. While the policies typically subjected tosuch analysis fall short of those that would be required to achieve deep emission reductions, they doindicate that the net economic impacts of the portfolio of GHG reduction policies currently in vogue
in North America (e.g. carbon cap-and-trade; efficiency standards for buildings, cars and appliances;
renewable portfolio standards, etc) will have modest and possible net positive impacts on
employment, net output and per capita disposable income, even without, even without valuing the83Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

environmental damage avoided by the lower emissions.
Conclusions and Strategic Directions
The roadmap to a low carbon society has begun to take shape in Canada, first in the form of anunderstanding of the changes in the way we use and produce energy that will have to take place, andmore recently in the form of a debate over the policy responses to get there.
With regard to the technological shape of the low emission future, there are a number of key
elements that must be achieved:9

New residential and commercial buildings constructed with best available energy
design and technology

9

Retrofit all existing buildings (except where technically not feasible) for 30-50%
improvements in energy efficiency

9

Double and redouble the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles.

9

Double or triple the fuel efficiency of trucks.

9

Efficiency standards for office equipment, home appliances, motors, lighting toensure rapid deployment of the new technologies

9

Cogeneration of heat and power as standard practice going forward

9

Continued rapid deployment of wind and other renewable electricity options

9

Continued development of environmentally sustainable biofuels, commercializationof lignocellulosic ethanol technology

9

Emission caps on energy-intensive industry to encourage innovation for more
efficient production technologies

9More efficient utilization of industrial process heat9

Eliminate landfill methane emissions

9

Alternative industrial processes for non-energy industrial GHG emission sources9

Low emission techniques and technologies for agriculture

9

Reforestation and afforestation programs to alleviate net Canadian emissions on a 50
year time frame.

9

Carbon capture and storage technology successfully deployed, especially in the oiland gas production industry.

There is a large variation in the types of barriers that stand in the way of more rapid andwidespread deployment of the technologies and techniques we need to bring about the low carbon
society, but in general these barriers are neither technological nor fundamentally economic. Moreoften there weaknesses in the logistical or financial infrastructure needed. For example, acombination of front-end costs and a dearth of skilled and available labour hold back theacceleration of building retrofits, suggesting the need for financing and manpower training andcertification. The development of more fuel efficient trucks is held back by a risk-averse
manufacturing sector with limited R, D&D resources, suggesting the need for market development
policies. For technologies such as home appliances and office equipment, where the energy costs are84Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investmenta small contributor to the total cost of ownership and operation, well designed performancestandards can be the most effective, and the most cost effective, policy approach.
The “geology of low emissions is complex” – for each of the key wedges needed to bring about
low emission futures, a unique policy approach is needed that targets the particular barriers to
deployment for that option.

85

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Lead Speech
Put Price on Carbon Liability
Yoshihiro Fujii
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies for Sophia
University(Japan)Constructing new canal for LCSs with shared roles
Stern report said that expected cost of cutting emission consistent with a 550 ppm Co₂e will be
1% of global total GDP per year, almost $500bn by 2050. Is is huge or not? I could say no. Because
there is over $125trillion in global household wealth only as of 2000 estimated by UN-WIDER. A
character of this huge money is uneven distribution. The richest 2% of adults own more than half ofthem. If we can make new canal for those money pouring LCSs, we can secure $500b every year
through new markets trading carbon and related goods. In order to make such canal, we need sharedrole among governments, financial authorities, accountant organizations and financial players.
Governments have to regulate GHG gas as pollutants in legal framework. Financial authorities
should treat carbon liabilities of companies as material issues. Accountant organizations should set
up common international standards of carbon liabilities on B/S of companies.
Is it same pricing carbon and pricing carbon liabilities?
Almost similar, but slightly different. For companies, it is very big different. Because pricing
carbon affects for only companies who traded carbon credits. But pricing carbon liabilities affects allof companies values not only present ones but also future ones. Carbon is priced whether regulated
or not, such as voluntary carbon trading. But if governments regulate GHG gas emission, every
company other than small emitter have to cost them as a certain amount whether buy or sell. That
cost affects company’s value. That means setting international accounting standard for carbon assets
and liabilities are very important. Accountant organizations should try to corporate and coordinate to
set up them with transparent, appropriate and accurate way.
Two roles for financial institutions.
Evaluating those carbon liabilities, financial institutions have two roles. One is evaluating
carbon liabilities of investment and loans to companies. Second is providing suitable carbon
financial products for global investors including above richest households. Carbon liabilities should
be calculated in the acquisition price of the assets, and measured by an expected present value
technique to estimate fair value.

86

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Lead Speech
Lessons from results of integrated assessment
on carbon tax in Japan
Toshihiko Masui
National Institute for Environmental Studies(Japan)From the simulation analysis based on the different 3 models -enduse model, global economy
model, and country economy model-, it is concluded that the existing or practical technologies can
reduce the CO2 emissions in Japan to the target of the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period.
In order to achieve the target of the CO2 emissions reduction, the necessary carbon tax rate from2004 onward is estimated to be about 45,000 yen/tC. When the carbon tax is introduced andsimultaneously its tax revenue is utilized as a subsidy to lower the fixed costs of the countermeasures
to reduce CO2 emissions, the necessary carbon tax ratio becomes 3,400 yen/tC. The GDP loss inJapan by introducing this carbon tax policy with subsidy is estimated to be 0.061% compared to the
GDP in the reference scenario in the first commitment period. The activity in the sectors producing
the energy saving equipment such as electrical machinery industry are promoted, and as result, it can
mitigate the losses caused by increase of the energy price.
One year later, the input data were updated, and the carbon tax policy was simulated again. The
shorter the time period until the 1st commitment period is (it was assumed the carbon tax policy
started in 2005), the more expensive CO2 reduction options must be introduced. As a result, the priceof the carbon tax is changed from 45,000 JPY/tC to 60,000 JPY/tC. The increase of the carbon pricecan be interpreted as the cost of inaction.

87

Group 3
Enabling LCSs: Investment

Lead Speech
Carbon Market
David Warrilow
Defra
(UK)

The carbon market is an important element of the financial package. By engaging private
finance and private actors in mitigation efforts, it creates a transformational effect. If properly
designed, it has the potential to deliver investments at the desired scale.
Emission trade figures in 2007 have been impressive. Total emission trade was worth $ 60
billion, up by 64% from $ 33 billion in 2006. Of this, $ 41 billion was in EU ETS and $ 17.5 billion
in CDM. Emission trading, by creating a price for carbon, reduced the cost of mitigation efforts andengages the private sector. Similarly, other mechanisms like CDM and JI reduce costs and deliver
investment.
However, to convert trade into substantial investment in particular sectors and countries, new
supporting instruments may be necessary. Such new instruments can ensure continuity in CDM andallow those that are willing to go further in new arrangements.

88Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Key-Note Speech
Reducing CO2 in Carbon-Intensive Sectors(Especially Steel): Short-term Competitiveness
Issues/ Long-term Paradigm Changes
Christopher Beauman
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development(UK)A world that seeks to decarbonise poses sharp problems for carbon-intensive industry.
Energy-intensive sectors make a disproportionate contribution to CO2 emissions from industry: threesectors, iron and steel (integrated works), non-metallic minerals (mainly cement), and chemicals andpetrochemicals account for 70% of direct industrial CO2 emissions.

But other sectors, such asaluminium, iron and steel (electric arc furnaces), and pulp and paper, are electricity-intensive, andaccount indirectly for substantial emissions in power supply.
Most of these industries are international.

They compete on cost, on quality and on service. If

climate change policies increase costs in one country, but not in another, then operations and jobs
could move to where costs are lower – “carbon leakage”. If they move from an efficient producer toa less-efficient producer, this might actually increase CO2 emissions.
Of these industries, the iron and steel sector is the most challenging case-study. The integrated
route accounts for 60-65% of steel made and about 2bn tons of CO2. Globally, the production ofsteel is now rising fast, principally because of China, whose production has increased from 150mt in2001 to 489mt in 2007. This has transformed the competitive situation in the steel industry, making
access to raw materials critical and placing new pressures on the integrated steel businesses of theEU,Japan and Korea which rely on sea-borne raw materials. In this situation, they strongly oppose
additional burdens from climate change policies.
What are the implications of this for a steel industry pathway to 2050? Unfortunately there are
no quick technological fixes – the classic integrated works cannot easily be decarbonised. Steelindustry leaders, coordinated through the International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI), are now
co-funding work on more radical “breakthrough technologies”, including CCS, new smelting
processes based on hydrogen and electricity, and carbon from sustainable biomass.
One solution proposed to address CO2-intensive industries is Sectoral Approaches or
Agreements (SAs). SAs could set benchmarks of CO2 intensity and encourage the fast diffusion ofbest practice; they could also provide a framework for public-private partnership to achieve
technological breakthroughs. Beyond this, SAs could also provide incentives to reward best practiceand penalise less-good practice.

But if they are to avoid competitive distortions, they would also

require global participation. If global SAs prove impossible, then the steel industry will call for“border tax adjustment” to limit “carbon-unfair” imports.
On the road to 2050, the steel industries of the EU and Japan will need to demonstrate theircontribution to decarbonisation by (a) accelerating the development and implementation of“breakthrough technologies” (b) engaging with the steel industries of emerging – and competitor –89

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

countries such as China to accelerate similar implementation and (c) cooperating with customer
industries in developing lower-weight, higher value products.
These changes will be disruptive. They require “deep paradigm changes” (IISI).

But thestakes are high – 2bnt of CO2 in integrated steelworks (and growing), more indirectly in electric arc
furnaces.

90

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Key-Note Speech
An automotive industry’s view
Masayuki Sasanouchi
Toyota Motor Corporation(Japan)In the Kaya identity, the terms denoting population and GDP per capita are fundamental humanrights for the nation to grow, whereas the terms CO2 intensity of energy and energy intensity of GDP
need to be addressed by means of innovation, evolution and deployment of technologies. While theworld population is expected to grow from 6.3 billion in 2003 to 8.9 billion in 2050, in the same
period the owned vehicles in the world are expected to grow from 0.8 billion to 1.1 billion (assuming
13% ownership rate, same as in 2003) or 1.3 billion (assuming 15% ownership rate).
Historical experience has shown that passenger-km per capita has grown with the GDP per
capita in all nations, although the growing rate differs among different countries. Passenger-km per
capita has grown in the USA at a much faster rate than in Western Europe and Pacific OECD. This
indicats that the rate of transport demand growth can be influenced by appropriate strategies,
especially in developing countries who are likely to witness higher growth in GDP per capita in the
future.
CO2-equivalent GHG emissions up to 2050 can be reduced to approximately the same level asin 2000 by a combination of following options:•

Diesel vehicles (LDVs)•

Hybrid vehicles (LDVs and MDTs)•

Biofuels (from 80% low-GHG sources by 2050)•

Fuel cells (from fossil originated hydrogen)•

Fuel cells (from 80% low-GHG hydrogen by 2050)•

10% improvement in fuel economy•

10% vehicle travel reduction

Setting benchmarked standards can play an important role to achieve efficiency improvements,
as happened through the ‘front runner’ approach in Japan. In the ‘front runner’ approach, fuelefficiency standard for each category of vehicles are set based on the most efficient vehicle on thelatest available year. This mechanism urges innovations towards improvement of engine efficiency
and powertrain, and results in a faster deployment of hybrid systems. Front runner standard wasintroduced in Japan in 1998, and CO2 emissions from its transport sector began declining from thenonwards to their current level of about 262 million tons CO2 per year.

91Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Innovative technology such as plug-in hybrid can significantly reduce the well-to-wheel GHG
emissions. Combining with biofuels will further reduce the emissions. Several approaches are being
pursued using hybrid technology, including the further development of gasoline, diesel andalternative fuel engines, and fuel cell hybrid vehicles (FCHVs) which could have a major impact onemission reduction.

92

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors and NGO role
Kimiko Hirata
Kiko Network(Japan)The Japanese policy relies more on ‘voluntary actions’ rather than formal standards toachieve improvements in efficiency and environmental performance in various sectors. For
instance, 54.3% of the measures towards achievement of Kyoto Protocol targets have been
undertaken via voluntary action plan, whereas only 11.7% of the measures could be categorized
as induced by formal efficiency improvement standards.
A case in point is the Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan. It is an environment action plan
devised by the Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) that makes no commitment to theJapanese government that GHG mitigation targets will be met. It uses “easy targets” through“indicators convenient to the industry,” and does not aim to reduce emissions of greenhousegases significantly. Such voluntary plans cannot become an alternative for emissions trading
system.
While the energy efficiency in Japan varies from industry to industry, the average efficiency
trends have saturated since the past decade or so, and Japanese industries are no longer the best in
this aspect. Therefore, ‘industrial structural change’ (ISC) is inevitable towards achievement of low
carbon society (LCS). However, to induce ISC the following issues will become important:•

New business style: in order to bring about ISC it will be difficult for heavy industry
and energy conversion sectors to continue with the current business model; these sectors
need to diversify their business and make best efforts to improve energy efficiency•

Pricing carbon: innovative ways to price carbon, for example environmental tax, fiscal
reform, and auctions under ETS, will have to be devised to give strong signals to induce
the desired shift
NGOs will play an important role to achieve these objectives. They can act as ‘watchdogs’,
monitor government policies, suggest better alternatives, and create pressure to counter vested
interests. For instance, the KIKO Network, an NGO, has observed through a study that speedy
adoption of bold government policies is required to achieve the target of 30% CO2 reduction by
2020. In particular, strong governmental measures are needed to deal with homes and otherbuildings, promote energy conservation technologies and renewable energy sources.
Independent actions by citizens will also be needed.
However, the current situation of NGOs in Japan leaves a lot for improvement. The NGOs
lack critical resources like funds and human resources. Thus empowering NGOs is the key toachieve LCS in Japan.

93Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
Renewable energy policy and politics in Japan
Tetsunari Iida
ISEP
(Japan)Energy policy in Japan has not been very successful. Despite GHG increasing by 8% and CO2
increasing by 14% from 1990 to 2005, there is still no political consensus on effective policy
measures like carbon tax, cap and trade. Although there is potential for renewable energy, political
will has been poor, as reflected in too small national targets of 1.3% by 2010 and 1.63% by 2014. On
the contrary, there has long been strong political and financial support for nuclear energy although it
has high risk with respect to both safety and economics.
Energy market restructuring in Japan began in the late 1990s and it has retained the regionaland functional monopolies in the electricity supply sector. Current market monopoly in electricity
sector is 97.6%. The regional electricity companies are large and have big influence with the national
and local governments. While the ruling party is supportive of the management of electricity
companies, the main opposition party is close to their labour union.
The markets for wind and solar PV power have not grown fast enough in Japan. In 1992, ten
power companies started voluntary net-metering program for solar PV and wind power as part ofclimate change mitigation efforts. In 1998 the ten monopolies announced to introduce “15 years
fixed price program for wind” instead of fade-out of voluntary net-metering program. This program
boosted the wind power market in Japan. Hokkaido Electric Power Co. raised the ‘grid stability
issue’ as an excuse to limit the introduction of wind power. Following this, other companies joinedand METI set barriers for wind power instead of finding solutions. Small target and slow progress
set by Japanese RPS allow the monopolies to set the ceiling for new renewable and bidding.
In case of solar PV the government’s bold subsidy program began in 1994 and it boosted the PV
market in combination with ten power companies’ voluntary net-metering program. However, thesubsidy had cut down every year and finally ended in 2005. And RPS has been introduced in 2003,
that worked reverse on solar PV rather than boosted it. Japan’s RPS targets are the least among
regions/countries like EU, Germany, UK, France, China, and states in the USA. The powercompanies and METI have exercised strong influence to limit the quota on wind and solar PV.
Thus the wind power market has been falling into “political risk trap” in Japan, and the PV
market has been falling into “absence of support policy” trap. This experience shows that there is aneed for a combination of strong political commitment and innovative integration for renewableenergy program in Japan.

94Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
Our Challenge for Clean Development and Climate– Steel Industry’s Global Sector-based & Technology-based
Approach/Challenge Teruo Okazaki, Hironobu Nose
Nippon Steel Cooperation(Japan)Japan’s Iron and Steel industry has reduced the CO2 emissions by maximum amount between
1990 and 2006 (by average of 10.45 million tons CO2 per year) as compared to other industries.
Most other industries actually increased their emissions. Reduction in Iron and Steel industry wasachieved by reducing energy consumption by 5.2% at the same time when production rose by 5.4%.
Sector based approach involves looking at reduction potentials within a given sector across theglobe. In case of steel industry there are several national and international level institutionalarrangements that play an important role, like:•

International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI): It includes sixty countries and cover 100% of
the industry•

Kyoto Protocol (KP): Countries bound by KP cover 40% of the world steel industry; thisinvolves unilateral commitment by each country, for example the JISF (Japan Iron andSteel Federation) action plan of Japan•

APP Steel Task Force (Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate): This
includes seven countries (USA, China, Japan, Canada, India, Australia, Korea) and covers
60% of the world steel industry; it also involves bilateral arrangement between China andJapan

KP and APP together cover about 90% of the world steel industry.
Unilateral Initiatives by Japan:
Under the JISF action plan, launched in 1996, Japan initiated the following actions for its steel
industry:•

Target of 10% energy saving by 2010 (as compared to 1990)•

Utilization of waste plastics•

Utilization of waste energy outside the steel plants•

Contribution to society by making eco-products and by-products•

Promotion of international technology transfer

As a result of these efforts, CO2 intensity of Japan’s steel industry reduced from 203.7 million
tons CO2 per year in 1990 to 193.3 million tons CO2 per year in 2006. By contributing eco-products
and by-products outside the steelworks, another 12.4 million tons CO2 per year was reduced.

95

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Bilateral Initiatives between Japan and China:
There have been several exchange meetings between steel industry experts of Japan and China
with the objective of environmental protection and energy saving.
APP, initiated in 2006, aims to address the issues of .energy security and climate change via
regional

partnerships.

Bypromotingtechnology

oriented,

sector-based

approach,andgovernment-private partnerships, APP recognizes a huge potential for CO2 reduction. Based on theactual technical situations of each sector, it is possible to evaluate accurate and practical potential of
CO2 emissions reduction. Energy efficiency of developed and developing countries can be evaluated.
Best practices can be shared in the easier way. Therefore, practical projects can be implemented
under the mandate of APP.
APP Steel Task Force has drawn up an action plan that involves review of diffusion of efficient
processes/equipment in different countries, estimation of reduction potentials, identification of
specific technological implementation projects for different countries, and setting of targets. For
instance, experts from Japan have visited several steel facilities in China and India to identify
improvement possibilities. From this survey they have identified CO2 reduction potential of 127
million tons CO2 per year.
Multi-lateral Initiatives:
IISI’s CO2 breakthrough program, started in 2003, is an example of such an initiative. It
includes phase-1 of seeding R&D until 2008 and phase-2 of starting pilot projects after 2008. IISI’s
new climate policy statement lists the following commitments:
1. Expanding the use of current efficient technologies.
2. New technology solutions to radically reduce the CO2 intensity.
3. Continuing to optimise and maximise the recycling of steel scrap.
4. Maximising the value of steel industry by-products.
5. Using the new generation of steels to improve the energy efficiency.
6. Developing common and verified reporting procedures
7. Adopting a global sector-specific approach
It has set out six action items for the governments including the replacement of cap and trade
emission regimes with policies that allow the most efficient steel companies (in terms of CO2
emissions) to expand and the least efficient to decline.

96Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
Chinese LCS Approaches on International Level
Wang Shu
Chinese delegation(China)Chinese LCS approach on the international level is best captured by the following points inrelation with the Bali roadmap:•

Chinese government expects further actions on Bali Roadmap•

Mitigation: measurable, reportable, and verifiable actions; developed countries reduce
emission first, and developing countries implement positive measures to address climatechange•Adaptation: very important for developing countries; international cooperation needs to bepromoted, increase of Adaptation Fund is necessary•Technology transfer: mechanism with guidance of governmental sectors, participation ofenterprises, and market-based operation need to be designed•

Financial mechanism: fund support from developed countries are required to stimulate
investment towards low carbon economy

At the domestic level, China is taking the following actions:•

Mitigation efforts are being emphasized for energy production/conversion, and energy
efficiency improvement and conservation in industrial processes, agriculture, forestry andmunicipal waste sectors•

Adaptation efforts are being emphasized in agriculture, forests and other natural
ecosystems, water resources, and coastal regions•

Programs have been initiated for promotion of climate change science and technology,
public awareness on climate change, and setting up of institutions and mechanisms for such
purposes

As energy sector is one of the key sectors for transition to LCS, China is taking active steps inthis sector, as outlined below:•

Increasing access to energy by meeting growing energy demand and reducing energy
poverty, increasing access to sustainable energy resources and infrastructure, andincorporating energy issues in national development plans and strategies•

Increasing energy R&D by identifying priority research areas, promoting energy technology
collaboration, developing climate friendly products and processes, and examining the optionof nuclear technology•

Promoting energy efficiency and diversity by increasing energy efficiency in production anduse, making fossil fuels more climate friendly, and expanding renewable energy

97

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors•

Providing benefits and incentives via energy-related climate policies like encouraging use of
economic instruments, furthering climate adaptation efforts, and maximizing the potential ofCDM

98Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
Hydrogen Economy for Low Carbon Society
Isamu Yasuda
Technology Research Institute, Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd.,(Japan)As the largest gas utility company in Japan, we Tokyo Gas are willing to contribute torealization of the future low carbon society (LCS) by developing and promoting low
carbon-intensive energy supply and utilization technologies. It’s not realistic to try to jump into an
ideal LCS, and it’s reasonable to define a transition scenario that can be implemented in the realworld. The figure shows our multi-stage pathway which has 3 phases towards the LCS.

Transition to Low Carbon Society
Shortｰterm

Longｰterm

Mid-term

２．High efficient equipment for energy supply & consumption
３．Maximizing the usage of renewable
４．Development of energy network in cities

CO2
emission

５．Realization of H2 economy

CO2 emission reduction

１．Energy saving and switching to low carbon fuels

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

For short-term solutions, 1) energy saving and switching to low-carbon fuels and 2)
highly-efficient equipment for energy supply and utilization are effective and they’re already inprogress. Switching from heavy oils to natural gas for large-scale industrial heating purposes has
quickly been penetrating in the market with the help of skyrocketing rise of crude oil price. Greatefforts in industries and government have been devoted to promote wide use of highly-efficient
appliances such as fuel cell CHP (combined heat and power) systems for residential markets and gas
engine and gas turbine CHP systems for industrial and commercial markets. The Japanese
government especially METI is leading the world’s effort to fully commercialize the residential fuelcell CHP with annual funding of over 30 billion yen. The number of residential fuel cells installed atcustomers’ homes all over Japan will be around 1,000 at the end of FY 2007. These systems can
reduce CO2 emissions from residential houses by 45% under the best conditions. The key issue forthe market penetration is cost reduction.
99

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

For mid-term solutions, 3) more use of renewable energy and 4) energy network in populated
cities will be effective. Many projects are in progress to demonstrate the viability of gasification andutilization of biomass resources. In the near future, biomass wastes from industries and commercial
sectors will be widely and highly utilized to reduce energy consumption and as a result CO2
emissions. A “Compact City” concept in which thermal and electrical energy demands in densely
populated areas are integrated and aggregated will effectively maximize the overall energy use
efficiency and thereby reduce CO2 emissions from urban areas. The key issues for these mid-term
solutions are the best mix of the available energy sources and efficient utilization technologies which
depend on energy supply/demand characteristics of the targeted areas. Micro-grid technology will beessential for successful realization of the best mix, which can mitigate the fluctuating energy
supplies from renewables by integrating them with more stable energy conversion systems such asfuel cells and other conventional CHP systems.
For long-term solutions, 5) hydrogen economy is expected to play an important role. Hydrogenin combination with stationary and mobile fuel cell technologies will greatly reduce CO2 emissions;
it can even realize a carbon-free society when hydrogen is produced from renewables or an ultra-low
carbon society even when hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels with proper management of the
byproduct CO2 such as CCS. There is a big project called “JHFC (Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Celldemonstration project)” going on led by the Japanese government to demonstrate technicalfeasibility of hydrogen production and supply to fuel cell vehicles (FCV) and environmental
advantages of FCV. More than 10 hydrogen refueling stations have been built and successfully
operated in mega cities (Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya). The fuel economy of FCV has been proved tobe 3 times as high as that of conventional gasoline engine vehicles and the CO2 emissions on the
Well-To-Wheel basis are estimated to be reduced by 50% or more even when hydrogen is assumed
to be produced from fossil fuels. Recently major stakeholders such as car OEMs, energy supply
companies and engineering companies get together at the same table to discuss and share a scenario
of transition to hydrogen economy in the transportation market sector. They have reached aconsensus that the present demonstration phase will move on to an early market entry phase around2015 and hydrogen supply infrastructure will have to be in place ahead of roll out of FCV. The key
issues to pave this pathway are identified as significant cost reduction of both vehicle manufacturingand hydrogen production and supply equipment, who will pay for the new infrastructure
establishment and byproduct CO2 management including CCS when hydrogen is produced fromfossil fuels. Government leadership and support are strongly expected.

100

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
Five Characteristics of an Economically Efficient LCS
Jae Edmonds
Chief Scientist and Laboratory Fellow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s (PNNL)
Joint Global Change Research Institute(USA)
Reductions in emissions associated with a Low Carbon Society (LCS) will require dramaticchanges to the global energy and land-use systems. Carbon emissions reductions needed to achievethat goal globally could be 50 percent or more by 2050 and emissions reductions could be greater indeveloped nations. The challenge of affecting such changes cannot be overestimated.
Economics offers several important insights that can help minimize the cost of achieving suchdramatic transformations. Here we articulate five.
1. Carbon emissions should be priced.
The global climate is a public good. Anthropogenic climate change is therefore a public goods
problem in which private decisions taken in the context of private markets will not achieve a socially
optimal solution. The anthropogenic climate change problem cannot be adequately addressed bysimply asking individuals to make better private decisions. Better and more environmentally aware
private decision making helps, but public intervention is required to create a market consistent withthe public interest in the climate that in turn reflects the social value of carbon. Until carbon isvalued, emissions will always exceed the socially desirable level and key technologies, such as CO2
capture and storage, that directly address climate change but at additional cost, will remain on the
shelf.
2. All carbon emissions count the same to the atmosphere.
All carbon affects the Earth’s climate and the introduction of an additional ton of carbon fromany source has exactly the same effect regardless of the activity that produced it or the location of
the emissions. Whenever the marginal cost of emissions reductions varies from one activity toanother or one place to another, there is room for society to have more reductions and at lower total
cost. This means that costs are higher every time an exemption is granted to an individual economic
sector or particular regions or countries undertake emissions reductions while others do not. This
also means that all of the carbon in the terrestrial biosphere needs to carry the same value as fossil
fuel and industrial carbon emissions. Leaving that carbon unvalued creates the potential for ancillary
environmental consequences from over-deployment of bioenergy in the context of a LCS.
3. Expectations should be that the price of carbon will rise at a regular rate.
Unlike other airborne pollutants, such as NOX, SOX and CO2 is a stock pollutant. To stabilize
CO2 concentrations at any level, emissions must eventually be driven to zero, requiring increasingly
stringent emissions reductions over time and, therefore, an increasing price of carbon. Cost

101

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

minimization over time calls for a price path that rises at roughly the rate of interest adjusted by therate of ocean carbon uptake. This does not mean that future prices can be set today at this rate and be
entirely predictable for a century. Uncertainty about a range of factors, including improvements totechnology and the damages from climate change, will necessitate regular review of the adequacy ofpolicies and measures; however, it does mean that subsequent to each time the price is revised thatthe price rate of change of the price over time should return to its upward trajectory roughly
consistent with cost-effective reductions over time.
4. Climate policy should be predictable.
Many elements of energy and related infrastructure have lifetimes in excess of 50 years.
Decisions regarding investment in this infrastructure are based primarily on expectations about
future economic conditions, including the price of carbon. If decision makers anticipate substantial
uncertainty in the viability or character of future carbon policy, it will retard critical investments
needed to address climate change. If decision makers can anticipate that prices will rise at a regularrate, the date at which emissions reducing technologies will be selected will be earlier and thepresent price of carbon and other GHG's can be lower and still induce investment consistent with an
economically-efficient path towards stabilization. A succession of a dozen emissions limitation
regimes that each last five years without a meaningful expectation about the consistency between
regimes is a recipe for high cost and delayed introduction of technologies associated with capitalstocks living longer than five years.
5. Technology instruments are fundamental to a climate policy portfolio.
The role of technology is to help control the cost of achieving an LCS. While it is always
feasible to stabilize concentrations of CO2 at any level with any technology, the cost society bears
will depend to a large extent on the suite of available technologies. Near term emissions mitigationmust inevitably rely on existing technology, but in the mid- and long-term, better technologies could
potentially be made available. Policies are needed to establish the conditions that encourage thecreation of improved versions of existing technologies and completely new technologies can comeinto being. Both public and private sector investments will be needed. This includes public sector
investments in the basic sciences. Basic science is a field of human endeavor in which the private
sector classically under-invests because no individual firm can fully appropriate the benefits of its
investments. More than two thirds of all emissions mitigation in an LCS occurring after 2050, morethan enough time for investments in science and technology to lay down the foundations for lower
cost, better technologies of the future—and not simply improved versions of today’s technologies,
but also potentially completely new technologies for which there are as yet be no names.
In addition to the characteristics noted above, technology will never deploy absent facilitating
institutional infrastructure. Large-scale deployment of any technology will be mediated byinstitutions. And, while the particular institutional requirements will be different for suchtechnologies as bioenergy, hydrogen systems, CO2 capture and storage, nuclear power, wind, solarand end-use energy technologies, institutions will play a critical role in shaping deployment. The
choice of institutional mechanism will vary both from place to place and over time.
102

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
A Milestone Towards Low Carbon Society:
Germany’s 40% Reduction Target by 2020
Guido Knoche
Climate Change Division, Federal Environment Agency,
Dessau-Rosslau(Germany)
In order to limit climate change to a temperature rise of 2°C compared to a preindustrial level,
developed countries must reduce their GHG emissions by 30% until 2020 and 80% until 2050
compared to 1990. In this regard Germany can support a 30% reduction by the EU with an own
commitment of 40% by 2020. At present the Kyoto Protocol targets for 2012 are within reach forGermany and the EU, but they are only the very first step on the way to a Low Carbon Society.
Energy related CO2 emissions account for over four fifth of German GHG emission budget, ofwhich nearly the half is emitted by the energy production sector. Thus addressing these emissions is
key for any considerable climate protection strategy which targets on a climate-friendly andsustainable energy supply. Meanwhile a bunch of opportunities across several sectors have beenraised and discussed so far – sometime very controversially. However technical development has led
to strong cost reductions in many areas, e.g. renewable energies, and this will continue in the future.
Thus, these technologies can be used intensively for electricity generation at moderate additionalcosts. Modernising and replacing coal-fired power plants provides significantly increases of energy
efficiency of the plants. Furthermore the expansion of electricity generation based on natural gas
provides a less carbon intensive and more efficient alternative in the energy sector. In addition tothese key issues the following options are also claimed: expanded combined heat and power
production and optimal heat distribution across heating networks; heat production by district heating
systems; improvement of building insulation; promotion of energy efficient products in households
and industry; reducing of specific consumption in the transport sector; traffic avoidance; and a shiftof the modal split to rail and water ways. Although some of these climate-protecting options stillrequire widespread market penetration in order to be able to compete against conventional
technologies, highly industrialized countries will be able to profit from their forthcoming global
implementation because billions of Euros will have to be invested in the next decades, especially inthe energy supply sector. For this the German Government adopted a comprehensive package ofmeasures on climate protection in December 2007 which underlines Germany's pioneering role inthis field. The package consists of 14 acts and ordinances and additional seven further measures.

103Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead SpeechLifestyle in transportation sector
Keisuke Matsuhashi
National Institute for Environmental Studies(Japan)1)

People will choose hybrid vehicles or other low carbon vehicles in middle term in order tosave the total cost of the vehicle, petrol and various taxes.

Government should enhance theeconomic incentives (green taxes for car registration and possession) to encourage thepopularization of low carbon vehicles. To win in the markets, it is important to reduce theprice of low carbon vehicles and to increase production capacity quickly.
2)

Combinations of countermeasures which reduce 20% each could cause over 70% reduction as
total.

3)

If low carbon vehicles could not become reasonable options, people would choose
combinations of walking, cycling and public transport instead of cars in order to keep theiraccessibilities in lower costs.

It is thought to be more difficult to control average trip

frequencies or average trip lengths themselves without modal shifts.

To promote this modal

shifts, self-support accounting systems should not be adopted to public transport management,
and urban developments should comply with the concept of Transit Oriented Development.
4)

If public transport systems could not be improved in countryside, people would move tometropolitan areas to avoid extra costs of travel in a long term.
vehicles (i.e. Toyota i-REAL, all weather bikes andLight and small electric

power-assisted bicycles) will be otheroptions to ensure reasonable personal mobility in low-density areas.
5)

It is important to examine various countermeasures toward low carbon society in order to
respond to the changes in advance.

104

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
Barriers and Opportunities - Approaches to sensitive
LCS sectors
Hannah Ryder
Economist, Defra,(UK)
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change provided a clear case for urgent andstrong action on climate change, by demonstrating that the costs of taking action would besignificantly lower than the costs of climate change left unabated.
However, a key barrier to action on climate change and making the transition to a low-carbon,
climate resilient economy is the effect of imposing constraints on emissions – whether by emissions
trading, carbon taxation or regulation – on sectors that are highly-carbon or energy intensive andhighly internationalised in developed countries before such action is taken in developing countries.
Might these sectors face such high costs that they relocate to areas where emissions constraints areless stringent?

The Stern Review found that these negative competitiveness effects would be

limited to a very few, identifiable sectors, and even when identified, the potential for carbon leakage
was limited further by the effect of other cost differentials.

Recent pan-European work by “climate

strategies” has reinforced these findings. However, more evidence for non-EU countries is needed.
On the other hand, new markets are expected to be created by taking action on climate change.
The Stern Review suggested that investment in low-carbon electricity sources could be worth over
$500bn a year by 2050. Bringing in credible and early policies can create these new opportunities–with the right signals, firms can move ahead to capture markets and flourish.
Therefore, the question for international policy is what tools can help balance these barriers andopportunities? Three alternatives are usually proposed to address competitiveness and carbon
leakage concerns.

The first brings in wider participation than purely nationally-based policy – e.g.

through sectoral approaches/ agreements, the second penalises firms outside current nationally-based
policies – e.g. through border adjustment mechanisms (BAMs), and the third provides exemptions togeneral climate policies – e.g. lower carbon taxes, or free allocation under emissions trading1.
BAMs have some short-term logic: they make operators from all countries price carbon
equally; could be interpreted as an attempt by countries to reduce the carbon footprint of their entire
basket of consumption; and could be applied to particular vulnerable sectors.

But they can severely

challenge future cooperation by being seen to punish other countries, and would not really beconsidered to be a long-term, first-best solution to climate change, especially as they may not lead toa reduction of global emissions (they act as a tax and could be set at an inappropriate level).
On the other hand, free allocations, though they don’t necessarily distort the carbon price signal
from emissions trading schemes, are inefficient as they do not have any long-term impact on theconditions that lead to carbon leakage, and auctioned revenues can have more productive
1

Though the economic implications of exemptions to carbon taxes and auctioning under emissions
trading are quite different.
105Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

applications in the rest of the economy.
In comparison to penalties and exemptions, a sector-based approach that, inter alia, covers
installations in the large energy-intensive sectors from all or major-emitting countries could
represent a positive way forward.

But, to be most cost-effective compared to the alternatives, they

will need to be robust enough to send comparably strong signals to industries globally (as those in
the EU) and consistent with existing policies such as binding national caps and emissions trading.
They can also be tailored to make the most of wider opportunities (e.g. if they give a clear signal
through stringent caps, this will encourage early innovation across sectors) and they can be designed
to upscale and target technology transfer to developing countries.

Progress on such approaches canbe made within and outside of wider international agreement, and countries and industries are
already considering how to implement them.
The world will need to work strongly and quickly on sectoral approaches if these potential
merits – especially as an alternative to other two proposals – are to become a reality.

But doing so

will ensure the world is seen to be doing something to create a level playing field – to help in thistransition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy.

106

Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Lead Speech
Strategy to Low Carbon Society
Haruki Tsuchiya
Research Institute for Systems Technology, Tokyo(Japan)This is memo of discussion points on LCS with Barriers and opportunities for the sensitive sectors.
1. Basic Strategy
The basic strategy to Low Carbon Society in 2050 is to reduce energy demand to half of today’slevel by increasing energy efficiency tiwce and to increase renewable energy supply to nearly half ofthe energy demand. This will make the carbon emission to roughly one fourth (1/2 * 1/2=1/4).
The facts are as follows,
1)

There are many energy efficient technologies which will drastically decrease energy
consumption while keeping the same performance.

2)

Some of the energy efficient technologies are expensive, but they will become
economical because of higher oil price and peak oil predictions.

3)

Some of the energy efficient technologies, such as compact fluorescent bulb, hybrid car
and advance industrial furnace are already economical and save money today.

4)

Renewable energy such as photovoltaics (PV) and wind power are increasing rapidly.
As PV is expensive now but wind power is already cost effective. Diffusion of PV was
supported by government subsidies and the cost of PV has been on the line of learning
curve with progress ratio 82%(When cumulative production doubles, then the cost goes
down to 82%)

5)

It will take long time to introduce these new technologies, some political climatechanges are necessary.

2. Barriers and Opportunities to Sensitive sectors in transition to LCS
There are sensitive sectors in the transition to LCS. Analysis of barriers and opportunities areshown as follows.
1)

Basic Material Industries
Iron & Steel, Cement, Paper & Pulp industries are very energy intensive industries. Theyuse coal for their main material and energy sources. Some of coal consumption can besubstituted with natural gas but they still remain using coal in 2050. One of the possibilities
is to increase recycle of basic materials (steel and paper) and use waste in their production
process. Today the blast furnaces in iron & steel industry use plastic waste as substitute ofcoal. Cement industry use waste materials as fuel.
107Group 4
Barriers and opportunities: approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Economists predict the production of iron & steel, and cement will go down to lower levelin 2050. They suggest the transition to Post material society, Service based economy, and IT
based industrial activities.
2)

Transportation
Transportation sector mainly use portable liquid fuel, gasoline and diesel oil as they havelargest energy intensity per weight and are relatively safe to convey. Internal combustion
engine vehicles will be substituted with Electric vehicle and Hydrogen fuel cell in the longrun. But weight of battery and hydrogen tank are still problems to be solved. There areredesign activities of internal combustion engine, and they will be more improved, 20% or
more, than have been expected. Gasoline hybrid vehicles proved twice efficient comparedwith conventional gasoline cars and can be a good problem solving technology for the next
decade.
Efficient technologies should be introduced urgently before old inefficient vehicles will bemassively produced.

3)

Household and Commercial Buildings
There is revolution of lighting technologies. Compact fluorescent bulb can be use forfrequent on/off purpose as it has now long life time of 30,000 times of 10 seconds on/off.
12W compact fluorescent bulb becomes economical within 1,000 hours when it is substituted
with 60 W incandescent bulb. The light emitting diode（LED）is widely used for 20% of traffic
signals as it saves the maintenance cost. The efficiency of LED will be better than fluorescentbulbs. It will be used for automobiles when it is produced massively with cost reduction andwill be used widely for general lighting propose.
The problems are the time for the turn- over of stock materials. Even compact fluorescentbulb,, passive solar house, well-insulated house and new refrigerator are energy efficient,consumer will buy new products only when they are broken. So it will take long time toimprove energy efficiency in social scale. Some policy measures are necessary to promote theintroduction of efficient technologies.

108

Open Symposium
February 15, 2008
Tokyo

Open Symposium
AgendaThe 3rd Symposium of the Japan-UK Joint Research Project“Roadmap to Low-Carbon World”
Date: 15th February, 2008
Venue: Hotel Metropolitan Edmont, Iidabashi, Tokyo.

Welcome Address
9:30-9:40

Dr. Ichiro Kamoshita, Minister of the Environment, Japan

9:40-9:50

Sir Graham Fry, British Ambassador to Japan

Purpose of this symposium
9:50-10:10

Co-chairs: Dr. Shuzo Nishioka (NIES) and Dr. Jim Skea (UKERC)

High-level Speech (25min. speech and 5 min. Q&A)
10:10-10:40

Roadmap to Low-Carbon World – Asian Consciousness
Dr. Emil Salim, President’s Council of Advisors,(Former Minister of the Environment), Indonesia

10:40-11:10

Roadmap to Low-Carbon Society from a Business Perspective: Nissan’s Challenge
Mr. Mitsuhiko Yamashita, Executive Vice President, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

11:10-11:40

Towards a Low-Carbon UK
Mr. David Warrilow, Head of Science Policy on Climate Change, Defra, UK

Lunch Break
Panel Discussion: Interactive discussion using electronic voting system
13:00-15:30

Co-chairs: Dr. Shuzo Nishioka (NIES) and Dr. Jim Skea (UKERC)

Topic 1: Behavior change and its impact on delivering LCSs
Jeremy Watson (Arup, UK) andYuichi Moriguchi (NIES, Japan)
Topic 2: Delivering LCSs through sustainable development
Ogunlade Davidson (University of Sierra Leone) andTaka Hiraishi (IGES, Japan)
Topic 3: Enabling LCSs through investment
Jose Alberto Garibaldi (Energeia, Mexico) andTakejiro Sueyoshi (Special Advisor to the UNEP Finance Initiative)
Topic 4: Barriers and Opportunities: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors
Jim Watson (SPRU and Tyndall Centre, UK) andNaoya Tsukamoto (MoEJ, Japan)
Overall Discussion
Closing Remarks
15:30-15:40

Ryutaro Ohtsuka, D.Sc., President, NIES

111

Open Symposium
Welcome Address

Welcome Address

Dr. Ichiro Kamoshita
Minister of the Environment, Japan

Good morning.

On behalf of the organizers, I would like to extend a cordial welcome and express

my appreciation to all of you who have taken time out of your busy schedules to attend this
symposium on the issues surrounding climate change.
The Japan-UK joint research project was initiated by the British and Japanese Ministers of theEnvironment two years ago this month. A later joint statement by the prime ministers of the twocountries positioned the project as a bilateral joint research initiative.

Since then, a meeting has

been held in Tokyo (June 2006), another in London (June 2007), and this year marks the third such
event of this kind.
Last year we made good progress toward the development of a low carbon society.

The first step

was marked by the publication of the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4).

The report asserts that there is no

doubt that climate change is occurring, and discusses the likelihood that it is caused by humanactivity.

In addition, it states that the impact of climate change has been confirmed in almost all of

the ecosystems currently under observation and that the situation is worsening. Furthermore, it
maintains that if, in the next few decades, drastic measures are implemented that make use ofcurrently available technologies and those that are to be commercialized in the future, it would bepossible to limit the total emissions in 2030 to current levels.

Therefore, the international

community must heed the alarms being sounded by scientists around the world and implement
policies and measures to stabilize climate change.
In December of last year, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP13) was held in
Bali, Indonesia.

The focus of the Bali meeting was to initiate a new framework beyond 2013 withthe participation of the major CO2 emitting countries.

In the past, developing countries haveinsisted that industrialized countries take responsibility for the climate change issue, but the IPCC,
tackling the problem from the perspective of science, insists that the earth cannot be protectedwithout the participation of the developing world. As a result, developing countries have alsocome to an agreement to reduce their emissions in the next generation of the framework. I was inattendance at this meeting and I can state from experience that the negotiation process was long anddifficult.

The meeting was extended for an extra day and in the last minutes of that day, an
112

Open Symposium
Welcome Addressagreement was finally reached that by 2009 a new framework would be created with theparticipation of major emitting countries including the US, China, and India.
The international community has started building a “post-Kyoto” framework.

In order for ourchildren and grandchildren to live safely on the earth for many years to come, we have to adopt along term perspective for the reduction of GHGs.

Last year, Japan proposed its “Cool Earth 50”

initiative which calls for halving the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. At the World
Economic Forum in Davos this year, Prime Minister Fukuda put forth the Cool Earth initiative andstated that as a part of Japan’s involvement in the new framework, it plans to set national targets for
total emission reductions and strongly promote strategies to fight climate change. Climate change
will be one of the biggest topics of discussion at the G8 Summit to be held at Lake Toya in July. As
the host country, Japan is determined to lead discussions in the international community towards
the realization of the Cool Earth 50 objectives.
In his policy statement speech, and during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Prime Minister Fukuda clearly stated that the low carbon society concept is to be the basic national
policy for Japan.

Halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 cannot be achieved by simply

continuing on in the same manner as we are today.

In addition to technological innovation, wemust revise our production mechanisms, lifestyles, and transport and urban systems to achieve afundamental shift in our social systems.
In the near future, Japan will become an aging society and the proportion of elderly people in the
population will be much higher than it used to be.

Elderly people will find driving difficult andwill not be able to travel long distances to go shopping. They will have to be able to access medical
services and buy food within walking distance of their houses.

Compact and concise urban

planning will be imperative to progress in this regard. The “community within walking distance”
concept can be used as an example of one effort towards achieving a low carbon society.

In thisway, the joint Japan-UK project aims to show the international community what is meant by “lowcarbon society” and how such a society can be realized.
At today’s symposium, we will hear from developing countries, businesses, and the UK
government, all of whom who are working towards the realization of a low carbon society.

Wewill also hear a report from the expert meeting which was held over the past two days and which
was attended by about eighty experts from 22 countries including developed, emerging, anddeveloping countries such as China, India, and Thailand. Researchers and representatives fromgovernmental and international organizations participated in this meeting to discuss sustainable
development and investment barriers and opportunities related to climate change.

They havecome up with concrete measures to be implemented, and they will be presenting them to us thisafternoon.
We have only just taken the first steps towards a low carbon society in the long journey towards
2050.

I hope that this symposium will give us a roadmap to follow into the future.

very much.

113

Thank you

Open Symposium
Welcome Address

Welcome Address

Picture Here

Sir Graham Fry
British Ambassador to Japan
Mr. Kamoshita, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words at
the opening of this symposium. I can remember clearly standing on a platform with one of Mr.
Kamoshita’s predecessors, when we first launched this joint research project, and I am delighted
that Minister Kamoshita has so enthusiastically continued Japanese support for it. We have done anumber of UK-Japan projects on climate change, and I think this one may be the most valuable,
partly because it involves not only the UK and Japan but many other countries as well.
There is sometimes what seems to me a slightly strange argument about whether one should tackle
this problem with what is called a top-down approach or with what is called a bottom-up approach.
The top-down approach means that you set an overall target, and we all know that Mr. Abe
proposed a 50% global reduction by 2050. The European Union has set clear overall targets foritself. The bottom-up approach is to look at individual things which you can do and add them all
together - whether it is energy efficiency or new technology or whatever. It seems to me a strange
argument because it seems to me obvious that you need both. Only the top-down target can tell
you whether you are doing enough to solve the problem, but without the bottom-up approach,working out individual measures, you won’t solve the problem. You have to do things as well as
targeting things. The value of this workshop is to look at what things you can do in order to meet aparticular vision of the future. When you set big targets they can look very hard to achieve. Nobody
wants to give up economic growth or economic development; so I think we need to offer a vision of
how you can achieve the target without tremendously negative consequences.
I think the first two UK-Japan Low Carbon Society workshops were very successful in looking at
low carbon scenarios for particular countries and feeding the results into discussions at otherinternational meetings.
The subjects under the discussion this time - behaviour change,sustainable development, investment frameworks and particular industries like steel and cement are critical elements of transition to the low carbon society, and the output from this workshop will
be fed into the G8 process later this year.
What seems to me very important, and what I hope you will do, is also to explain your ideas toordinary people and to the general public. It is good if leaders understand these things, but a lot ofother people also need to understand low carbon societies. The more that we can popularize theconcept and the more that we can explain it through the media and other channels, then the more
we can get people to understand what the future will look like.
So let me finish by thanking the Japanese Ministry of the Environment and specially thanking
everybody who has taken such an active and enthusiastic part in the workshop. Thank you allvery much indeed.

114

Open SymposiumHigh Level Speech

High-level Speech
Roadmap to Low-Carbon World -Asian Consciousness –Dr. Emil Salim, President’s Council of Advisors, (Former Minister of theEnvironment), Indonesia
Dr. Emil Salim, whose background is in Engineering and Economics, received a Ph. D.
from the University of California, Berkley. After he became Minister of State for
Administrative Reform in 1971 at the age of 41, Dr. Salim served four terms ofministerial positions in Indonesia over 22 years, including being the first Minister of theEnvironment. Dr. Salim has addressed from early on the environmental problems indeveloping nations in Asia, and as the chairman of the ASEAN Environment Ministerial
Congress set the target, the scope, the program and the action plan for the ASEAN
nations to cooperate on environmental issues. He also contributed to establishing theconcept of sustainable development and furthering global environmental policies
through various United Nations committees. He is currently serving on the President’s
Council of Advisers in Indonesia.

Abstract
Developing countries can learn from the mistakes made when development neglects theenvironment. The time has come to ask the questions what has development in the globe achieved
thus far, what has gone wrong with the development model that we have pursued and in what
direction do we have to go?
The needs of the world today is in changing the course of development from an increasedmaterially based style of life into an increased enrichment of immaterial, cultural, spiritual,knowledge and science based style of life.
There are increased efforts today to critically review the economically based Gross Domestic
Product and to strive for Green GDP to make the necessary corrections through internalizing
externalities, by incorporating resource depletion and by including social and environmental
benefits.
The life style of tomorrow does not imply reducing consumption, but consuming differently. Whatis needed is changing the quantity of consumption from resource exhaustion with finite energy
inefficiency to raising the quality of consumption with resource enrichment and sustained byperpetual energy efficiency.
To reach for this different life style, plain living is the most ideal, supported by the creativity ofhigh thinking on the basis of science, technology, culture and spiritual ideas.

115

Open SymposiumHigh Level Speech

High-level Speech
Roadmap to Low Carbon Society from a Business Perspective: Nissan’s Challenge
Mitsuhiko Yamashita, Vice President, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Japan
Mitsuhiko Yamashita received a master’s degree in aeronautical engineering from Kyoto
University in 1979, and he joined Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. in the same year. In 1983, he
was sent to study abroad at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He became a
director of the section 1 vehicle development department in 2001. After working three
years in the Nissan Technical Center North America from 2002, he became a vicepresident specializing in company research and development from 2005.

1. Nissan’s Perspective
Climate Change was one of the major issues discussed at the Annual Meeting of the World
Economic Forum in Davos in January, 2008. In the meeting, Collaboration and Innovation wererecognized anew as the solutions for the climate issue facing the world.
2. Nissan’s Challenge
2.1 Nissan Green Program 2010
Ultimate goal of this program is to reduce environmental pollutants below natural absorption level.
The program focuses on three major issues, i.e., CO2 emissions, exhaust emission, and recycling
resources.
As for the reduction of CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, improvement of energy efficiency ofInternal Combustion Engine (ICE) will bring a maximum of 30% reduction from the current level.
The hybrid vehicle can halve CO2 emissions. In order to achieve the goal set in Nissan Green
program 2010, 70% reduction of CO2 emissions, electric vehicles and/or fuel cell vehicles withrenewable energy will play the key role.
2.2 Triple Layered Approach
To reduce CO2, Nissan employs a Triple Layered Approach. The approach aims to makeconnections among cars, drivers and society, and to implement countermeasures for each actor.
40% reduction in 2015 is set as our internal technical target, which will come from 30% ofcountermeasures for cars, and 10% each for drivers and society.
(1) Challenges for vehicle technology
For both gasoline engine and diesel engine, high combustion efficiency and less environmental
pollutants are the common goals, but feasible paths for the two are different. Some of themeasures we are taking are a Variable Valve Event and Lift (VVEL) system for gasoline engine,
and joint development of clean diesel engine by Renault and Nissan. These technologicalbreakthroughs are expected to occur within a few years. After that, hybrid vehicle, electricvehicles and fuel cell vehicle will gradually contribute to reduction of CO2 emissions fromtransport vehicles.
Technological innovation of batteries is a key to performance of electric vehicles. As the first step,
the innovation has led to the introduction of small community EV for short distance transportation.
Further development of batteries will bring bigger cars with long distance.

116

Open SymposiumHigh Level Speech

At the last Tokyo Motor Show, we exhibited a new concept car of electric vehicle, which consistsof several technologies currently developed by Nissan. The first one is “By-Wire”. This system
has been already installed in airplane control system, and controls vehicles by electrical instead of
mechanical way. The second is robotic interface which gives advices to a driver. The third isin-wheel 4WD motor, and the forth is compact Lithium-Ion battery. Further technologicalinnovations of these four technologies will bring us to a future transportation system with electric
driven cars.
Burden sharing between public transportation and private transportation is a key for future society.
A concept for future urban transportation system is under review. It puts EV as a core system, andthe vehicle is assisted by Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), and has four key factors: Park &Ride from Rental Station, Efficient Traffic Control, Regenerating Electricity Sharing, and CO2 freeelectricity.
(2) Challenges for “Driving Life”
Nissan’s Eco Drive Navigation System not only informs the drivers their current gasoline mileage
but also ranks monthly average mileage. Last year, Nissan started the service which ranks drivers
according to its actual fuel efficiency. Using this system, some drivers could improve 18% of
mileage on the average. This implies that there is a lot of room to improve gasoline mileage bychanging driving methods.
(3) Challenges for Society
Nissan has been conducting several demonstration programs for future transportation system, suchas the program for the Intelligent Transportation System in Kanagawa prefecture. The ITS
determines traffic condition by using road information gathered by Probe Car, and tells driver the
fastest route through car navigation system. A similar program was carried out in Beijing, China.
3. Toward Low Carbon Society
Pathways toward Low Carbon Society will face three challenges. The first is how to create“Sense of Urgency” in the society to avoid the so-called boiled frog syndrome. The role of media
is vital and how the manufactures like Nissan provide information is also important.
The second challenge is to realize sustainable LCS through “Collaboration and Innovation.” It is
well recognized that global warming could not be solved by one entity alone, for instance, one
nation, one society, or one company. How to integrate key stakeholders involved is quite
important. Technology development is also an important factor. Nissan is committed to makefull effort on technology development and engineering development.
The third challenge is how to develop global mechanism to combine CO2 reduction and economic
growth. It is quite possible that adequate regulation may lead to economical effect.
4. ad finem
The issue we really have to ask now is “What kind of energy do we use?”development of our society depended on crude oil.

During the 20th century,

I think the 21st century is the new era towards

diversified energy society. Transition might take some more time, but coming 20 or 30 years will be
the key.

117

Open SymposiumHigh Level Speech

High-level Speech
Towards a Low-Carbon UK
Mr. David Warrilow, Head of Science Policy on Climate Change, Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), UK
David Warrilow is Head of Science Policy on Climate Change at the
UK’s
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). He is responsible for
ensuring that the UK Government receives sound scientific advice on climate changewith regard to both its domestic activities and international negotiations. He heads theUK’s delegation to the IPCC and also leads on the technical matters covered by theSubsidiary Body on Science and Technology of the Climate Change Convention. He is
also responsible for managing a £15 million research programme which provides policy
relevant scientific advice. His own scientific background covers climate modeling,land-surface processes and hydrology.

Abstract
The UK has long accepted the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid
dangerous climate change. Although the UK’s emissions are only about 2% of global emissions, it
has been keen to show leadership in this area. This talk will review what actions have been taken todate, what progress has been made, and will consider in more detail the latest moves to enshrine
emission reductions in UK legislation in the “Climate Change Bill.” The Bill has so far focussed on
reducing CO2 emissions, but also covers adaptation to climate change. As well as providing a legal
basis for action, the Bill will set up the “Climate Change Committee,” an independent body which
will provide impartial advice to Government on the potential to reduce emissions, and will
scrutinise the actions that it has taken. The Bill is currently being debated in parliament and is
expected to become law by this summer.

118

Open Symposium
Topic 1: Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering a Low-Carbon Society

Panel Discussion Summary
Topic 1: Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering a Low-Carbon Society

119Open Symposium
Topic 1: Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering a Low-Carbon Society

120

Open Symposium
Topic 1: Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering a Low-Carbon Society

121

Open Symposium
Topic 1: Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering a Low-Carbon Society

122

Open Symposium
Topic 1: Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering a Low-Carbon Society

123

Open Symposium
Topic 1: Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering a Low-Carbon Society

124

Open Symposium
Topic 1: Behaviour Change and its impact on delivering a Low-Carbon Society

125Open Symposium
Topic 2: Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

Panel Discussion Summary
Topic 2: Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

126

Open Symposium
Topic 2: Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

127

Open Symposium
Topic 2: Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

128

Open Symposium
Topic 2: Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

129

Open Symposium
Topic 2: Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

130Open Symposium
Topic 2: Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development

131Open Symposium
Topic 3: Enabling LCSs: Investment

Panel Discussion Summary
Topic 3: Enabling LCSs: Investment

132

Open Symposium
Topic 3: Enabling LCSs: Investment

133

Open Symposium
Topic 3: Enabling LCSs: Investment

134

Open Symposium
Topic 3: Enabling LCSs: Investment

135

Open Symposium
Topic 3: Enabling LCSs: Investment

136

Open Symposium
Topic 3: Enabling LCSs: Investment

137

Open Symposium
Topic 4: Opportunities and Barriers: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

Panel Discussion Summary
Topic 4: Opportunities and Barriers: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

138

Open Symposium
Topic 4: Opportunities and Barriers: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

139

Open Symposium
Topic 4: Opportunities and Barriers: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

140

Open Symposium
Topic 4: Opportunities and Barriers: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

141

Open Symposium
Topic 4: Opportunities and Barriers: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

142Open Symposium
Topic 4: Opportunities and Barriers: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

143

Open Symposium
Topic 4: Opportunities and Barriers: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors

144

Open SymposiumInteractive Discussion using Electronic Voting System

Interactive Discussion using Electronic Voting System
1. Overview
In the symposium’s afternoon session, an electronic voting system was used to gather audience
opinion regarding what were considered to be the most important points for each topic, based on
the discussions of the 1st and 2nd day expert workshop. In addition to the questions submitted byeach group (total: 7 questions), we asked 2 further questions regarding awareness of the CO2
reduction targets for 2050 that the symposium is aiming for, making for a total of 9 questions. We
gathered audience response twice, once before and once after explaining the key findings of the
discussions on each topic, so as to ascertain mind-setted audience awareness and any change in thatawareness as a result of hearing about the key findings through discussions conducted in theexperts workshop. We offered 4-6 responses for each question.
Before the afternoon session, we used electronic voting system to ask the audience to provide
their age (4 categories), region (3 categories), and profession (5 categories), these questions also
serving to familiarize the audience with the system. Participant profiles are shown in Table 1. N/A
represents participants who joined the session part way through and so had not provided answers to
the profile questions. Results showed that most of the 198 persons who participated in the afternoon
session were Japanese, and that most were spread evenly over the 30–39, 40–49, and over 50 years
age groups. Participants were distributed fairly evenly among each of the profession categories,
with a slight bias towards academia and industry.
Table 1. Participant profiles
Age

RegionProfession

Under 29 years old

17

Japan

138

Political authority and government

33

30-39 years old

43

Developed country

18

Business and Industry

40

40-49 years old

42

Developing/ Rising country

14

Academics and Research

50Over 50 years old

66

N/A

28

Media

24

N/A

30

NGO, Citizens, and others

23

N/A
28
* A total of 198 persons participated in the session. Those who joined the session part way through wereclassified as N/A since they were unable to answer profile questions.

2. Results
At the session, the results of key findings through discussions conducted in the experts workshop
up to the previous day on the 4 themes of (1) Behaviour Change and its Impact on Delivering
LCSs, (2) Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development, (3) Enabling LCSs: Investment, and(4) Barriers and Opportunities: Approaches to Sensitive LCS Sectors were announced andquestions put to the audience. The questions are shown in Table 2. All of the questions produced
interesting results, but we would like to focus here on the 2 questions (Q1, Q2) on awarenessregarding CO2 reduction and 2 questions (Q4-1, Q4-2) on industrial sectors and activities thatdemand the greatest attention from the viewpoint of CO2 reduction. We present overall results tothe questions in Figs. 1 to 3 and Table 3.

145

Open SymposiumInteractive Discussion using Electronic Voting System

Table 2. Questions
Overall questions: Awareness of the CO2 reduction targets for 2050
Q1

In 2050, our world HAS TO reduce CO2 to ?

Q2

In 2050, our world CAN reduce CO2 to ?

(1) 0% of 1990 levels or increasing from current levels(1) 0% of 1990 levels or increasing from current levels(2) About 30% of 1990 levels(2) About 30% of 1990 levels(3) About 50% of 1990 levels(3) About 50% of 1990 levels(4) About 70% of 1990 levels(4) About 70% of 1990 levels

Topic1：Behaviour change and its impact on delivering LCSs
Q1-1 What is most needed to change people’s behavior
towards adopting a low-carbon lifestyle?
(1) Clear government standards and strong regulation

Q1-2

Between whom is dialogue most needed
to promote behaviours leading towards a LCS?
(1) Between business and consumers(2) Information and guidance for action(2) Between government and citizens(3) Availability of suitable alternatives and choices(3) Between government and business(4) Prices and incentives that reflect the cost of carbon(4) Between national and local level governments(5) Personal mind-set and positive attitudes
Topic2：Delivering LCS through Sustainable Development
Q2-1 How to deliver LCS globally through SD?
(1) Developed countries set examples for LCS(2) Continue current development with strong carbon mitigation(3) Alternative development path with international assistance(4) All countries follow LCS through SD actions
Topic3：Enabling LCSs: Investment
Q3-1 From the package of actions, what area of investment
would you focus on as a priority?
(1) Energy efficiency

How would you rank the priority of these interventions?
(Choose 1st one only)

Q3-2(1) Regulation(2) Demand management(2) Taxation(3) Renewables(3) Carbon pricing(4) CCS(4) Information disclosure(5) Consumer finance(6) Subsidies

Topic4：Barriers and opportunities: Approaches to sensitive LCS sectors
Q4-1 Which sector faces the biggest challenges
in the transition to LCS?
(1) Electricity

Q4-2

What is the most important response to challenge
for energy intensive industries?
(1) Radical LC technologies(2) Surface transport(2) Closing gaps to achieve a level playing field(3) Iron and steel(3) Retain competitiveness by restricting import(4) Forestry conservation(4) Securing subsidies to retain competitiveness(5) Aviation

In 2050, our world HAS TO reduce CO2 to ?
In 2050, our world CAN reduce CO2 to ?
HAS TOCAN

In 2050, our world HAS TO reduce CO2 to ?
In 2050, our world CAN reduce CO2 to ?
HAS TOCAN①0% of 1990 levels or increasing fromcurrent levels① 0% of 1990 levels or increasing fromcurrent levels①0% of 1990 levels or increasing fromcurrent levels①0% of 1990 levels or increasing fromcurrent levels

1

4 4 4 30

21 4 12②About 30% of 1990 levels② About 30% of 1990 levels② About 30% of 1990 levels② About 30% of 1990 levels

11 6

8

③About 50% of 1990 levels
11

16

20

7

20

10

51

③ About 50% of 1990 levels
6

8 1

5

10 3 7 1

7③About 50% of 1990 levels③About 50% of 1990 levels

8

5

14

13

10

21 4 1

9

13

24

7

8

22

14

8

8 1

④About 70% of 1990 levels④About 70% of 1990 levels④About 70% of 1990 levels④About 70% of 1990 levels

6

12 3 2 37

14 5 23

0

10

10

15

20

8

30

10

40

Numbers

Political authority
and government

50

Business andIndustry

60

70

Academics andResearch

0

10

Media

20

30

40

Numbers

NGO, Citizens, andothers

50

60

70

0

13

10

14

20

30

Figure 1. Awareness regarding CO2 reduction(before afternoon session)

940

Numbers

Political authority
and government

N/A

7

50

Business andIndustry

60

70

Academics andResearch

0

10

Media

20

30

40

Numbers

NGO, Citizens, andothers

50

7

60

70

N/A

Figure 2. Awareness regarding CO2 reduction(after symposium)

146

Open SymposiumInteractive Discussion using Electronic Voting System

Table 3. Q4-2 results

Which sector faces the biggest challenges in the transition to LCS?
①Electricity
31

What is the most important response to challenge

3 1 2
48

for energy intensive industries?

1 2

After

②Surface transport
13
7

4

1

6

1

1

1

③Iron and steel
17

3 1 3

15

5

1

4

13

2 2 2

9

16

79

4

Developed country

2

6

23

3

3

1

BeforeUpper：Before
Lower: After

111

11
0

1

1 2

⑤Aviation
2 1
10

20

30

3

Japan

Rising/Developing
country
N/A④Forestry conservation

2

40

50

4

1

1

N/A

4

6

4

N/A
14
3

2
5

1

1: Radical LC technologies
2: Closing gaps to achieve a level playing field
3: Retain competitiveness by restricting import
4: Securing subsidies to retain competitiveness60

Numbers

Figure 3. Q4-1 results

Owing in part to the fact that the symposium was invitation-only, awareness regarding CO2
reduction was probably relatively high right from the start. Regarding the level of worldwide CO2
reduction by 2050, irrespective of the timing of the question, a majority of participants responded
that a reduction of over about 50% was required. A closer look at the results shows that several of
those who chose 70% reduction before the session switched to 50% after the session. This isthought to have been caused by confusion before the start of the session over required worldwide
CO2 reduction level and the reduction level that Japan needs to achieve.
Looking at the question of feasibility of CO2 reduction worldwide, the majority of participants
felt before the start of the session that at best, no more than 30%–50% reduction would be feasible,
despite their view that reduction of over about 50% was required. When the question was put tothe audience again after the session, results show an increase in the number of participants who
considered a higher reduction level to be feasible. However, the results also show that while thegap between participant perceptions of necessary and feasible reduction levels that existed before
the symposium closed to a certain degree, the audience remained insufficiently convinced as awhole on the feasibility of achieving a level of CO2 required for the abatement of climate changerisks and assurance of a sustainable future.
Q4-1 asks which industrial sector faces the biggest challenges in relation to the implementationof political, institutional, and technological measures for the transition to the LCS. Responses tothis question revealed a difference in views between Japanese participants and those from othercountries. Before the announcement of the key findings of Topic 4 discussions, a great many
participants irrespective of nationality held the view that the electricity sector faced the biggest
challenges in transitioning to LCS. However, Topic 4 discussion included arguments to the effectthat Japan’s electricity sector in particular is in a favorable position for transitioning to the LCS
owing to Japanese technological capabilities and lack of international competition. We
consequently anticipated that the number of people choosing the electricity sector as a response to
the question would decrease, but the number of Japanese choosing the sector in fact increased.
While the discussion session suggested that the possibilities for the electricity sector to transition
to LCS were high, Japanese participants appear to have thought that if the “challenges” mentioned
in the question were surmountable, Japan’s electricity sector needs to make greater efforts totransition to LCS. Non-Japanese participants, on the other hand, appear to have interpreted
147

Open SymposiumInteractive Discussion using Electronic Voting System“challenges” as meaning hurdles that are difficult to surmount, and as such, chose other sectors(iron and steel, surface transport) as facing more difficult challenges than the electricity sector, forwhich the possibilities for transitioning to LCS were described as being relatively high.
Q4-2 solicited opinions on the most important response to challenges for energy intensive
industries, offering participants a choice of 4 responses: 1 response proposing the development ofradical low carbon (LC) technology, and 3 responses related to maintaining a level playing field
for international competition. Results show that irrespective of timing of the question, the great
majority of participants considered the development of radical LC technology to be the mostimportant, with very few participants selecting responses related to the international competition
environment. The announcement of discussion results explained that electricity and heating supply
sector accounted for the largest share (25%) of per-sector global emissions, followed by transport,
buildings, and motor vehicle manufacture. The announcement also touched on the sectors most
exposed to international competition, but motor vehicle manufacture is the only such sector
among those mentioned above, and the announcement explained that even if international
competition is fierce, the auto industry is not considered to be hugely significant in terms of CO2
emissions. As a result, participants appear to have decided that domestic countermeasures are themost important, and accordingly chose technological innovation rather than responses related tothe structuring of the international competition environment.

148

Open Symposium
Closing Address

Closing Address

Ryutaro Ohtsuka, D.Sc.
President, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Good afternoon, everyone. As the President of the National Institute for Environmental Studies,
NIES, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the keynote speakers, co-chairs of thesymposium, chairs of panel discussions for report of their achievements in the preceding two-day
workshops, and all participants for actively contributing to this symposium.
The symposium began with welcome addresses of Dr. Ichiro Kamoshita, Minister of theEnvironment, Japan, and Sir Graham Fry, British Ambassador to Japan, who represented theJapanese and UK sponsors/partners, respectively. Then, Dr. Shuzo Nishioka and Dr. Jim Skea,
co-chairs of the symposium, stated the purpose of today’s symposium, followed by three keynote
presentations. Dr. Emil Salim, President’s Council of Advisors (Former Minister of theEnvironment), Indonesia, pointed out key issues which should be considered together with low
carbon society (LCS), paying special attention to the current and changing situations of developing
countries. Mr. Mitsuhiko Yamashita, Executive Vice-President, Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., showed us
hardware and software approaches to LCS from the viewpoint of motorized transport system. Mr.
David Warrilow, Head of Climate, Energy and Ozone, UK Defra, outlined the up-to-date roadmap
to LCS, stressing the significance of both technological innovations and lifestyle changes.
In the afternoon panel discussion, led by the same co-chairs, the achievements of the two–day
workshop on four themes were reported by the workshop chairs, followed by questions andanswers, and the participants’ opinion poll of preferred answers to several questions prepared by thechairs. I was most impressed by the appropriate selection of the four themes, i.e. “behaviourchange”, “aligning with sustainable development”, “investment” and “barriers and opportunities”,
because all of them need our urgent attention. Both the chairs’ reviews and the participants’comments/questions were extremely meaningful and constructive. For instance, the chairs
answered a participant’s question about the reasons as to why nuclear energy was excluded fromthe source options in the workshop, and other participants suggested usefulness of cooperation with
NGOs and information media to achieve LCS.
Since the contents of panel discussion were summarized very well by the co-chairs, I will briefly
explain my idea about how we should develop our study from now on. In the NIES, we carry out
four priority research programmes, and each of them targets a desired society, i.e. low carbon
society, sound material-cycle society, nature friendly society, and safe, secure and healthy society. I
think it is crucial to consider the interrelations among these desired societies. I was very happy to149Open Symposium
Closing Address

learn that the chairs of “aligning with sustainable development” workshop suggested a strong
possibility of win–win relation between LCS and sustainable development. My hope is that further
consideration will be given to this matter and this research group will take the lead in it.
Finally, I would like to again express my great appreciation to all participants and close this year’s
fruitful symposium. Thank you very much.

150

Appendix I

Appendix I
Eiichiro Adachi

Japan Research Institute, Japan

Toshi Arimura

Sophia University, Japan

Yurika Ayukawa

WWF Japan, Japan

Christopher Beauman
Rizaldi Boer

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,UK

Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia

Andrew Bolitho

Defra, UK

Emma Howard Boyd

Jupiter Asset Management, UK

Rae Kwon Chung

UNESCAP, Korea

Steve Cornelius

Defra, UK

Renaud Crassous

CIRED, France

Ogunlade Davidson

University of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone

Shobhakar Dhakal

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Nepal

Jae Edmonds

JGCRI/PNNL, USA

Tomoki Ehara

Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Japan

Haroldo de Oliveira Machado Filho

Ministry of Science and Technology, Brazil

Yoshihiro Fujii

Sophia Univ., Japan

Jun Fujimoto

University of Tokyo, Japan

Junichi Fujino

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Kensuke Fukushi

University of Tokyo, Japan

Chikara FuruyaInstitute for International Monetary Affairs, Japan

Jose Albert Garibaldi

Energeia, Mexico

Guido Knoche

Federal Environment Agency, Germany

Don Gunasekera

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australia

Mariko Hanada

Osaka Sangyo University, Japan

Taka Hiraishi

IGES, Japan

Kimiko Hirata

KIKO Network, Japan

Ryokichi Hirono

Seikei University, JapanHO Chin Siong

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia

Tetsunari Iida

ISEP, Japan

Kejun Jiang

Energy Research Institute, China

Tae Yong Jung

Asian Development Bank, Korea

Mikiko Kainuma

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Yasuko Kameyama

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Masato Kawanishi

Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan

Kejun Jiang

Energy Research Institute, China

Hitomi Kimura

IGES, Japan

Akiyasu Kurishima

MLIT, Japan

Murari LAL

REL, India

Kathy Leach

British Embassy in Tokyo, UK

Myung-kyu Lee

OPC, Korea
151

Appendix I

Sunil Malla

Technology Consultancy Services, Kathmandu, Nepal

Toshihiko Masui

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Teruaki Masumoto

Tokyo Electric Power Company, Japan

Keisuke Matsuhashi

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Naoki Matsuo

Climate Expert, PEAR

Yuichi Moriguchi

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Stanford Mwakasonda

Energy Research Centre, South Africa

Ikuo Nishimura

Tokyo Electric Power Company, Japan

Shuzo Nishioka

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Michael Norton

Shinshu University, UK

Masa Ohara

Tokyo prefecture, Japan

Yasukuni Okubo

METI, Japan

Ichiro Ozawa

JEF, Japan

Andre Santos Pereira

COPPE, UFRJ, Brazil

Chris Pook

British Embassy in Tokyo, UK

Hannah Ryder

Stern Team from Defra, UK

Emil Salim

Former Minister of Environment, Indonesia

Yasuhiro Sasano

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Masayuki Sasanouchi

Toyota, JapanCharles Secrett

London Mayor's Office, UK

Narito Shibaike

Panasonic, Japan

Ram Manohar Shrestha

Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

P.R.Shukla

Indian Institute of Management, India

Jim Skea

UKERC, UK

Tomonori Sudo

Japan Bank for International Cooperation,Japan

Takejiro Sueyoshi

UNEP, Japan

Yasuo Takahashi

MOEJ, Japan

Ralph Torrie

ICF International, Canada

Haruki Tsuchiya

RIST, Japan

Sachiko Tsukahara

MOEJ, Japan

Naoya Tsukamoto

MOEJ, Japan

Wang ShuNational Development and Reform Commission, China

David Warrilow

Defra, UK

Jim Watson

SPRU and Tyndall Centre, UK

Jeremey Watson

Arup, UK

Yoshiaki Yamanaka

Shiga Prefecture, Japan

Suguru Yamaryo

Itocyu Corporation, JapanXU YanNational Institute for Environmental Studies, China

Sungho Yang

OPC,Korea

Isamu Yasuda

Tokyo Gas, Japan

152

Japan

Appendix II

Appendix II
Mr. Eiichiro Adachi, Research Chief, Head of ESG ResearchCenter, The Japan Research Institute, Limited, Japan
Mr. Adachi is a research chief and the head of ESG research center at
The Japan Research Institute Limited, which was founded in 1989 andsponsored by companies in the Sumitomo group. He is now engaged in
ESG screening of listed Japanese companies for socially responsible
investment products of UBS Global Asset Management, Sumitomo
Trust and Banking Co., Ltd, STB Asset Management Co., Ltd andDaiwa Asset Management Co. Ltd. He is also a project manager of
research works regarding environmental finance and CSR that several
ministries entrusted and one of the national experts among Japanesedelegation to ISO/ Social Responsibility Standards (ISO26000)
Working Group.

Dr. Toshi H. Arimura, Visiting Scholar, Resources for the
Future, USA, George Mason University, USA and Associate
Professor, Sophia University, Japan
He is an associate professor of environmental economics at Sophia
University. He is currently a visiting scholar at Resources for the
Future and George Mason University. His research interests
encompass climate change policies, emission trading andenvironmental technological innovation. He has received Abe
Fellowship for analyzing the effects of environmental policy
instrument choice on technological innovation. He has also
participated in an international collaboration project by the OECD to
examine the effectiveness of corporate environmental actions. He
received his BA from Tokyo University, MS from Tsukuba University
and Ph.D. in economics from the University of Minnesota in USA.

Yurika Ayukawa, Has a BA from Sophia University, Foreign
Language Faculty, English Language Division、and a Master’s
Degree in Public Administration from Harvard University.
Climate Change Programme Special Advisor at WWF（World Wide
Fund for Nature）Japan since July, 2007. Has been working on Climate
Change Programme at WWF Japan since 1997.Lobbied thegovernments on international negotiations and domestic climate policyof Japan. Proposed a cap & trade domestic emissions trade scheme
in 2007. Worked on Climate Savers Programme to make companies
commit to absolute GHG reductions(Sagawa Express and Sony
Corporation from Japan). Testified at the Lower House Environmental
Committee in 2002, and in 2005.Was a member of the advisorycommittee of the Ministry of Environment on carbon tax, and now“Capacity Building of Environment-conscious Workforce for a
Sustainable Asia in Universities” since July, 2007. Vice-Representative
for “2008 G8 NGO Forum”.

153Appendix II

Christopher Beauman, Senior Adviser, European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)
He joined EBRD when it was set up in 1991 to assist the former
communist countries of Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union
in their transition to a market economy, and has responsibility for
coordinating EBRD's financing of steel projects, including Russia,
Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Poland, Romania, Croatia and Georgia. He has
worked closely with EBRD's Energy Efficiency and Climate ChangeTeam, especially the EUR300m Energy Efficiency Loan to Severstal(Russia). Previously he has worked in corporate finance for three
London merchant banks, as Director, Planning, Morgan Grenfell
Group, as Adviser to the Chairman of British Steel during its period ofmajor restructuring (1976-81), and for the Central Policy Review Staff,
UK Cabinet Office. He is also a member of the Climate Policy groupof the British Institute of Energy Economists.

Dr. Rizaldi Boer, Head of Climatology Laboratory, Faculty ofMathematics and Natural Sciences, Bogor Agricultural
University, Indonesia
Dr. Boer received his B.S. from Bogor Agriculture
University-Indonesia in 1983 and Ph.D. degree from University ofSydney-Australia in 1994. He specialized in agroclimatology. He is
one of Lead Authors of GPG-LULUCF and IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report under WGIII and also serving UNFCCC Secretariat as leadreviewer for the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory of Annex 1
countries. Since 1996, he has been working in many regional
projects related to climate mitigation and adaptation. He is now
working under IFCA (Indonesia Forest-Climate Alliance) for the
preparation of REDDI (Reduction of Emission from Deforestation andforest degradation in Indonesia).

Andrew Bolitho is a policy advisor in International Climate
Change Policy team at the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
The role of the team is to provide advice on the position of othercountries involved in the Gleneagles Dialogue and developing
strategies for their engagement in the Dialogue and the broader climatechange process. This involves liaising with policy makers in othernational, state level administrations, as well as forming links with thebusiness and NGO communities. The team is also involved inpromoting research and development of currently available
technologies, and technologies in development, through programmesof work under the Gleneagles Plan of Action. Mr. Bolitho has work inothers areas in DEFRA including implementation of the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme and Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation.

154

Appendix II

Emma Howard Boyd, Head of Socially Responsible (SRI)
Investment and Governance, Director Jupiter Asset Management
Emma joined Jupiter in 1994 and has overall responsibility for the
management and development of Jupiter's Socially Responsible
Investment business. She is also responsible for building Jupiter's
corporate governance and engagement services for institutional clientsand Jupiter's UK retail funds. Emma was a member of Commission on
Environmental Markets and Economic Performance in 2006 and is adirector of the Triodos Renewable Energy Fund. She is also a guest
faculty member of The Prince of Wales's Business and theEnvironment Programme. Prior to working at Jupit er, Emma
specialised in corporate finance at Hill Samuel and Banque Nationale
de Paris. She has also worked as a researcher and campaigner forvarious Non-Governmental Organisations. Emma is a director of
Jupiter Asset Management.

CHUNG Rae Kwon. Director of the Environment andSustainable Development Division of United Nations Economic
and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP),
BangkokRae Kwon majored in economics in Korea and obtained an MSc in
Foreign Service from Georgetown University in Washington D.C..
As a former career diplomat, he was the Korean Chief Negotiator for
many global environment conferences. Rae Kwon has been posted at
Korean Missions to the UN and the OECD. He served as the
Director-General for the International Economic Affairs Bureau at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade until July 2004 before joining
the UNESCAP.

Dr. Stephen Cornelius, Senior Scientific Officer, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) UK
Steve Cornelius works in the Response Strategies Branch in Defra’s
Climate Energy and Ozone: Science and Analysis Division. For the
past 3 years he has advised the UK Government on climate change
mitigation options, future action under the Kyoto Protocol and on UK
greenhouse gas inventory and projections. He has been a delegate to
IPCC meetings and UNFCCC negotiations.In
June 2007 hecoordinated the 2nd Japan-UK LCS workshop.Dr. Cornelius received aB.E. (Chem) from the University of New South Wales in Sydney,
Australia and Ph.D., on modelling and control of automotive catalysts,
from the engineering department of the University of Cambridge in the
UK.He has previously worked as an engineering consultant developing
physicochemical models of automotive
pollution control devices.

155

Appendix II

Renaud Crassous, Researcher, Centre International deRecherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement (CIRED),FranceRenaud Crassous, a civil servant of the French Ministry of Agriculture,
is an economist and a project leader of the Imaclim-R framework, aworld Economy Energy Environment Hybrid Model developed at
CIRED. The model has been used to assess energy and climate
policies in several projects with industrials, ministries andinternational agencies, e.g. the World Energy Outlook in 2006. Renaud
Crassous is also a member of the French delegation to the IPCC.

Dr. Shobhakar Dhakal, Executive Director, Global Carbon
Project – Tsukuba International Office, National Institute forEnvironmental Studies (NIES), Japan
Dr. Dhakal works with international scientific programs on global
carbon cycle and its management- called Global Carbon Project,
whose one of the two offices is hosted by National Institute forEnvironmental Studies. He is leading urban and regional carbon
management initiative (www.gcp-urcm.org) and his expertise are withurban energy use and carbon emission and mitigation analyses in
Asian mega-cities, and transport and CO2 issues in developing cities.
He works at the interface of science and policy and has extensive
experiences with intercity co-operation networks, UN agencies,science-policy dialogues, and served as expert member to agencies like
International Energy Agency and others. He is author of two books,
guest editors of journals, several articles in well established journals,
several book chapters and has been to committee of various scientificand policy initiatives.
Dr.Jae Edmonds , Chief Scientist and Laboratory Fellow at the
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s (PNNL) Joint Global
Change Research Institute, and Adjunct Professor of Public
Policy at the University of Maryland at College Park.
He is the principal investigator for the Global Energy Technology
Strategy Program to Address Climate Change, an international,
public-private research collaboration. His research in the areas oflong-term, global, energy, economy, and climate change spans three
decades, during which time he published several books, numerous
scientific papers and made countless presentations. His most recent
book, Global Energy Technology Strategy, Addressing Climate
Change, distills more than a decade of research on the role oftechnology in addressing climate change. Dr. Edmonds has served in
the capacity of Lead Author on every major IPCC assessment to dateand presently serves on the IPCC Steering Committee on "New
Integrated Scenarios". He serves on numerous panels and advisoryboards related to energy, technology, the economy and climate change.
His received his Ph.D. in the field of Economics from Duke University
in 1975.

156

Appendix II

Mr. Yoshihiro Fujii, Professor for Sophia University, Graduate
School of Global Environmental Studies, Japan.
Yoshihiro Fujii, a professor for Sophia University, Graduate School of
Global Environmental Studies, is focusing his concern on
environmental finance in which using financial tools to mitigate
environmental costs and enhance economic profits for society. Before
then, Mr. Fujii was a former senior staff writer for Nihon Keizai
Shimbun (Nikkei) as a financial journalist. He has written lots ofbooks both environmental and financial fields. He is also a visiting
research fellow for Japan Center for Economic Research(JCER).
Dr. Junichi Fujino, Senior Researcher, Climate Policy
Assessment Section, Center for Global Environmental Research(CGER), National InstituteforEnvironmental Studies (NIES)Japan
He is a senior researcher in the Climate Policy Assessment Section
Center for Global Environmental Research (CGER) at the National
Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Japan. His fields ofresearch include environmental modeling analysis, especially onenergy-economy system modeling and bioenergy study. He is involvedin the development of the Asia-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM) toestimate climate change impact and to assess policy options forstabilizing global climate. He is currently fully engaging on “Japan
Low-Carbon Society Scenario Project” since 2004.He received his
B.S./M.S and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University ofTokyo, Japan. He has been working in current position since April
2000. He is visiting Associate professor, Japan Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology (JAIST) and adjunct instructor, Tokyo
University of Science

Dr. Kensuke Fukushi, Associate Professor, Transdisciplinary
Initiative for Global Sustainability, Integrated Research System
for Sustainability Science, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Kensuke Fukushi, an environmental engineer, is specialized in risk
assessment and hazardous material management, especially in arsenic
research. He has been conducting field work in developing region inSouth and Southeast Asia since 1999 while he served as an Associate
Professor at Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Kensuke Fukushi
received B.S. and M.S. from Tohoku University, Japan in Civil
Engineering, and Ph.D. in Civil-Environmental Engineering from the
University of Utah, U.S.A.

157

Appendix II

Mr. Jose Alberto Garibaldi, Director General, Energeia (MexicanNGO), Mexico
Jose Alberto Garibaldi is currently director General of Energeia, an
Advisor to the UK Departments of Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
and for International Development (DFID). He has previously been a
Director General in the Mexican Energy Ministry, and Head of theEnergy Policy Unit there. He has worked with the World Bank, theAsian Development Bank, the African Development Bank and the
Asian Development on issues related to the financing of low carbon andclimate change, in the aftermath of the Gleneagles G8 summit. He has
worked in all continents on issues related to climate change policy.

Dr. Guido Knoche, Project Manager, Climate Change Division,Federal Environment Agency, Dessau-Rosslau (Germany)
Guido Knoche, project manager in the Climate Change Division of theFederal Environment Agency, is conducting integrated analysis ofglobal climate change mitigation options, in particular in energy
relevant sectors of industrialized and newly industrialized countries.
With his interdisciplinary background he aims at environmental soundand resource efficient policy options of sustainable development.
Guido Knoche received his Diploma degree in Geo-ecology at
Bayreuth University and holds a Dr. degree in Environmental
Engineering Sciences of Stuttgart University (both Germany) focusing
on Underground Thermal Energy Storage.

Don Gunasekera, ABARE’s Chief Economist,
He manages and leads ABARE’s applied research effort in fields asdiverse as impacts of and response measures to climate change, anddomestic and international economic issues. Don has publishedon—and continues to work in—a wide range of topics including the
economic impacts of climate change, international agricultural trade,and the economic value of weather information.Prior to joining
ABARE, Dr Gunasekera has worked in the National CompetitionCouncil, Productivity Commission,Environment Australia and the
Bureau of Meteorology. Don has a PhD in economics from theAustralian National University and has completed the Senior
Managers in Government Program at the John F Kennedy School ofGovernment in Harvard University.

158

Appendix II

Mariko Hanada、 Associate Professor、 Graduate School of
Human Environment, Osaka Sangyo University
has B.A. in Economics from the University of Tokyo and Master’s
Degree in Behavioral Sciences from California State University,
Dominguez Hills.
Her major concern is how to motivate citizens to behave withenvironmental-consciousness in their daily life. She and her students
teach both kids and adults about the relation between their lifestyle andthe global environmental problems through “learning by doing”. She
is the leader of “NANOHANA PROJECT” of Osaka Prefecture and achair of home division of the agenda forum in Nara Prefecture. Hergoal is to realize “sustainable local society” in partnership with local
government, companies, and citizens.

Taka Hiraishi, Member of Board of Directors and Senior
Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Obtained M.Sc in 1968, and worked in Ministry of Labour, (then)Environment Agency, Embassy of Japan in Kenya, OECD Secretariat(Environment Directorate), and UNEP (1989-1998). Since 1999, heworks, among others, (part-time) for IGES, and is Co-chair of the
IPCC Inventory Programme and since 2002 an IPCC Bureau Member.

Ms. Kimiko Hirata, Director, Kiko Network, Japan
She is a director of Kiko Network Japan, which is an environmental
NGO specifically working on climate change issues and a domestic
network of 150 organization members. She joined Kiko Network whenit’s founded in 1998. As a policy researcher and an activist, she has
been involved in UNFCCC process since COP3 and analyzed
international regime as well as domestic climate policies. Recently she
led Kiko Network’s project on “30% reduction scenario and policy
proposals for Japan’s residential and commercial sectors in 2020”.
Currently she also serves as Environmental Council member of theTokyo metropolitan government, Climate Change Committee memberof the Chiyoda ward, and climate issue leader of the Environmental
Unit of G8 Summit NGO Forum.

159

Appendix II

HIRONO, Ryokichi, Professor Emeritus, Seikei University,
Tokyo,
He graduated from the University of Chicago in 1959, and now
Visiting Professor, Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) in
Tokyo, participated in many meetings concerned with environment anddevelopment at home and overseas including many sessions of COP.
Having chaired various subcommittees of Central Environment
Council, Economic Deliberations Council and ODA Council of theGovernment of Japan (Tokyo) since 1980s and the Committee forDevelopment Policy, U.N. Economic and Social Council (New York)since the 1990s, Prof. Hirono developed a number of international
initiatives for promoting Sustainable Development. in Asia andelsewhere. Over 800 books, reports and journal articles have been
published at home and overseas.

Dr. Chin Siong HO, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Chin Siong, HO, professor at Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, is conducting an
integrated analysis of urban planning and energy saving cities with
Kyoto university and Toyohashi University Technology under the
JSPS program. Recently, he has been working on the Low carbon
society study using AIM model of NIES with Kyoto University. Dr. CS
HO received his B Sc in Urban and Regional Planning at UTM
Malaysia, M Sc Construction Management at Herriot Watt University
Edinburgh, UK and Doctor of Engineering at Toyohashi University ofTechnology in Japan

Tetsuya Iida is a head of the corporate NPO environmental
energy policy laboratory.
Tetsuya IIDA is a chief researcher of The Japan Research Institute,
Ltd.. He is taking an active part as a pioneer and Inobata in the naturalenergy market in Japan such as the citizens pinwheels and green
electric powers inside and outside the country with the natural energy
policy at the top.

160

Appendix II

Prof. Jim Skea, Research Director, Energy Research Centre(UKERC), UK
Jim Skea is Research Director of the UK Energy Research Centre, aninterdisciplinary initiative supported by three UK Research Councils.
Until 2004, he was Director of the Policy Studies Institute, London. He
has previously been Director of the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil’s Global Environmental Change Programme, and Leader ofthe Environment Programme at SPRU University of Sussex. In
2002-03, acting as Launch Director, he established the Low Carbon
Vehicle Partnership (LowCVP), a new UK initiative bringing together
government departments, automotive and fuel companies, NGOs andthe research base. He was awarded the OBE for services to UK
sustainable transport in 2004.

Dr. Mikiko Kainuma, Project Leader, Climate Policy Assessment
Project, Global Environment Research Center (CGER), National
Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Japan
Mikiko Kainuma, a project leader of Climate Policy Assessment
Project at NIES, is conducting an integrated analysis of climate change
mitigation strategies by using AIM model, which she has developedwith Kyoto University and several other institutes across Asia. AIM
started as a tool to evaluate policy options to mitigate climate change
and its impacts, and now extended its function to analyze various
environmental issues. Dr. Kainuma received her B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.
degrees in applied mathematics and physics from Kyoto University in
Kyoto, Japan. She is a Lead Author of IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report and UNEP/GEO4.

Masato Kawanishi (Mr.), Senior Advisor, Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA)
Masato Kawanishi is a senior advisor on climate change at JICA, animplementing agency of Japanese ODA, where he is involved in a
number of developmental projects, training courses and research
activities. He receives a Master of Science in Environmental
Technology from Imperial College London.

161

Appendix II

Dr. Jiang Kejun, Director of Energy System Analysis andMarket Analysis Research Center, Energy Research Institute,
China
He received his Ph. D in Tokyo Institute of Technology in 1999. From
1993, Kejun Jiang began the research on climate change relative toenergy policy analysis, which focuses on energy technology policy
assessment, energy supply policy assessment, renewable energy
development and energy conservation. Leading Integrated Policy
Assessment Model for China (IPAC) team, he is mainly working on
policy assessment. Major focus includes energy policy, energy system,
energy market analysis, and climate change, local environment policies
and international negotiation. Since 1997, he has worked with IPCC
for Special Report on Emission Scenario and Working Group III Third
Assessment Report. He is leader author for IPCC WGIII AR4 Chapter
3, and leader author for GEO-4 Chapter 2.

Akiyasu Kurishima, Director of Urban and Regional Policy
Division, Urban and Regional Development Bureau, MLIT
(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism )In 1981,he graduated from The University of Tokyo (LLB), and joined
the Ministry of Construction. He was posted at the OECD Secretariat;
Executive Officer for Housing Planning, and Director for General
Policy Planning in MLIT; and Director of Traffic Enforcement
Division in the National Police Agency.

LAL, Murari. Advisor and Head (EHS), Reliance Energy
Limited, Noida, INDIA
Lal holds a Doctoral Degree in Geophysics and has over 35 years ofprofessional experience in specialised areas like Global and Regional /Monsoon Climate and its Variability – Scenario Development,
Regional Environmental Change – Integrated Approach, Sectoral
Vulnerability Assessment, Air Quality - EIA/SEA Methods andPractices including Management of Risks and Hazards, Regional
Adaptation and Mitigation Approaches, Carbon Sequestration
Potentials and Energy Efficiency – Clean Development Mechanism
Opportunities and Options, Natural Resource Management andEnvironmental Planning and Management, Technological Options andInterventions – Environmental and Economic Feasibility, Policy
Development including Multilateral Environmental Agreements in
Asia – Pacific Regional Context, Social Dimensions and Sustainable
Development.

162

Appendix II

MALLA, Sunil. Consultant, Technology Consultancy Services(TCS), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Prior to joining TCS in 2007, Sunil worked as a senior researcher andfaculty (adjunct) at Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand. In
the past, he has also worked as a researcher and a consultant for United
Nations Environment Programme and Asian Development Bank. His
major area of research includes modeling of energy systems
development and its environmental implications. Born in Nepal, he
received his B.E. in electrical engineering from National Institute ofTechnology – Rourkela (India), M.E. in energy technology from AITand Ph.D. in economics from University of Hawai’i – Manoa

Dr.ToshihikoMasui,Head of the Integrated Assessment Section
Social and Environmental System DivisionNational Institute forEnvironmental Stuides Japan
Toshihiko Masui is a head of the Integrated Assessment Section,
Social and Environmental Systems Division at the National Institutefor Environmental Studies (NIES). He is a member of the Asia-PacificIntegrated Model (AIM) team in NIES, and in charge of developmentof the emission module in the AIM model. He is also Associate
Professor of Social Engineering at Tokyo Institute of Technology, inJapan. He received a doctoral degree from Osaka University.

Teruaki Masumoto, Executive Advisor to Tokyo Electric Power
Teruaki Masumoto is one of the representatives of speaker for industry
group of Japan on “Energy and Climate”. He was a Chairman,
Subcommittee on Global Environment and Committee on
Environment and Safety, Japan Business Federation (Keidanren). He
was also a Member, Central Environment Council, Ministry of theEnvironment.
After graduated from Political Science and Economics, Waseda
University, Japan at 1962, he joined Tokyo Electric Power Company.
Masumoto has held a number of important positions in the company
including : 1999, Director of corporate Communications Department;
2001-02, Executive Vice-President; 2002-2004. He became Director
and Vice-Chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies.
2007, he retired director and assumed present position. Currently
Masumoto is a Member of Executive Committee, WBCSD.

163

Appendix II

Dr. Keisuke Matsuhashi, Senior Researcher, Transport and Urban
Environment Section, Social and Environmental Systems Division,
National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Japan
Keisuke Matsuhashi, a senior researcher of Transport and Urban
Environment Section at NIES, is conducting a comprehensive
assessment of future transport systems and urban forms by using
automobile CO2 emission inventories in city scale, which he has
estimated. His research interests include public participation inregional planning.
Dr. Matsuhashi received his B.E, M.E, and Ph.D. degrees in urban
engineering from Tokyo University, Japan.

Dr. Naoki Matsuo CEOs of Climate Experts, Ltd. and PEAR
Carbon Offset Initiative, Ltd.
Naoki Matsuo has been a researcher of climate mitigation for 18 years
at IEE, GISPRI and IGES. His field covers international negotiation,
P&Ms, CDM to consumers' behavior. He participated in in-depth
review processes under UNFCCC. He started his consultancy
business for Japanese companies and JBIC in 2002. Among others,
he was the developer of the first approved CDM methodology. He
has just initiated an innovative carbon offsetting social venture which
is trying to realize co-benefits type CDM projects as well as toprovide a platform of carbon management practices for individual
consumers.

Dr. Yuzuru Matsuoka,Professor, Hall of Global Environmental
Study Kyoto University
Professor, Hall of Global Environmental studies, Kyoto University,
Japan. Born in Japan, 1950,. he graduated Faculty of Engineering,
Kyoto University in 1973, and received M. Engineering and Doctor ofEngineering from Kyoto University in 1975, and 1986, respectively.
His major research area is on global environmental change, especiallyintegrated assessment modeling of global environmental problem. He
is one of the founders of Asian-Pacific Integrated Model (AIM), andhas developed energy-economic models and impact models. He is now
on developing and organizing the models of the Japan low-carbon
society project.

164

Appendix II

Dr. Yuichi Moriguchi, Director, Research Center for Material
Cycles and Waste Management, NIES / Visiting Professor,
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo.
Yuichi Moriguchi, who holds Dr. Eng., graduated from the Faculty ofEngineering at Kyoto University and joined the NIES in 1982. His
research field covers the prevention of transport pollution, GHG
emission inventory, life cycle assessment, material flow analysis, andenvironmental indicators. He has engaged in the Japanese LCS project
as one of the team-leaders. In his early career, he had also worked for
the Environment Agency of Japan and for the OECD Environment
Directorate in Paris. He is appointed to the chairperson of the Working
Group on Environmental Information and Outlooks in OECD, and to
an initial member of the International Panel for Sustainable Resource
Management.

Stanford Mwakasonda senior researcher at the Energy
Research Centre (ERC), University of Cape Town, South Africa
He belongs to be with over ten years of experience on energy andclimate change. His current work is on energy and climate change
policies, Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), GHG inventories
and sustainable development. His previous experience includes
renewable energy analysis, environment impact assessment programs
and petroleum policy and management. He served on the CDM
Methodology Panel from 2004-6, and is a Lead Reviewer in the
UNFCCC roster of experts for Annex I countries GHG inventory
review program. He has made a number of publications, including
journal articles and book chapters. His background academic
qualification includes a Masters degree in Business Administration(MBA) and a Bachelors degree in Engineering. Mr. Mwakasonda has
worked as a consultant for a number of international companies andorganizations, within and outside Africa.

165

Appendix II

Ikuo Nishimura, Group Manager, International Environmental
Business Group, Environment Department, Tokyo ElectricPower Company
B.E., Department of Architecture, School of Science & Engineering,
Waseda University (1987). Master of City Planning, Department of
Urban Studies & Planning, School of Architecture & Planning,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1993).Joined the Tokyo
Electric Power Company in 1987. Since 1994, has been engaged in
the corporate climate strategy and supported the development ofvoluntary environmental initiatives of Japanese industries. Since
2007, holding the current position. Member of the Working Groupon Global Environment Strategy, Nippon-Keidanren (Japan Business
Federation).
From 1999 to 2002, seconded to the Global Climate Change Unit, theWorld Bank as a senior environmental specialist. During this period,
contributed to the National AIJ/JI/CDM Strategy Studies, as theProgramme Coordinator, and also engaged in the technical assessment
and the preparation of GHG reduction projects for the Prototype
Carbon Fund.

Dr. Shuzo Nishioka, Senior Advisor, National Institute forEnvironmental Studies
Senior Research Advisor, Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies(IGES)] Japan
PhD.(University of Tokyo, engineering). Served as Professor of Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Keio University, Visiting Researcher of MIT,
Executive Director of the National Institute for Environmental Studies(NIES) Japan, also as Coordinating Lead Author and Vice Chair of
IPCCWGII since 1988. Project leader of “Japan Low Carbon Society
Scenarios toward 2050”, which is research project to establish
methodology for evaluating middle to long term environmental policy
options toward low carbon society in Japan

Dr. Michael Norton PhD FRSC; Professor, Innovation
Management Shinshu University
He has been teaching innovation management at Shinshu University
since 2006. Prior to that (2004-6) he taught graduate courses at
Tokyo Institute of Technology on innovation and wealth creation,
environmental protection and sustainable development, and in science
communication. He graduated in chemistry (degree and PhD) at
Bristol University, and carried out postdoctoral research at the
University of Alberta, Canada. After four years research in the UK
chemical industry (ICI Ltd), he joined the UK government science
service in the field of environmental pollution control and biosciences.
He acted as science adviser to the UK Parliament from 1989 to 1998
before becoming Counsellor (Science and Technology) at the British
Embassy in Tokyo (1998-2004). During that time he started a series ofcollaborative research programmes and expert workshops between UK
in Japan on global warming and other environmental fields (e.g.
sustainable engineering)166

Appendix II

Masa OHARA, Director for Environmental Policy Division,
Bureau of Environment Tokyo Metropolitan Government
Masa OHARA participated in "My bag campaign" beginning that
aimed at the garbage loss in weight in 1994 and designed the namingof 'My bag'. Moreover, he planned "Diesel car NO operation" in 1999.
And he led making of light oil in Japan super-low sulfur, andcontributed to the diesel car restriction achievement in themetropolitan area. He takes charge of Global warming measures up to
the present time in 2006. He expand a coordinated relation among theenterprise, the citizens, the municipality all over Japan, and Win-Win
and ..project that expands the use of renewable energy.. promote it. He
is moving the biodiesel fuel practical use project the green energy
purchase forum and generateon 2 and the solar energy use expansion
conferences, etc. now.

Professor Ogunlade R. Davidson has been a Professor ofEngineering for the past 16 years and is presently Dean of Post
Graduate Studies at the University of Sierra Leone. Internationally, heis the Co-Chair of Working Group III of (IPCC) where is has chaired
the approval of seven reports, Co-Chair of the Steering Committee of
the Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development and Chairof the Energy Task Force on Sustainable Energy of the Regional Officeof ICSU. His research interests include development of African
Energy Systems and Policies (Transportation, Power sector,
Renewable Energy), Climate Change (GHG Mitigation, National
Climate Change strategies). He is a member of many international
bodies and has worked as a Consultant for several national andinternational bodies including UNESCO, UNIDO, ILO, UNECA,
UNDP, UNEP, GEF, UNFCCC, NEPAD, African Development Bank,World Bank, Batelle laboratories and Carnegie Corporation New York..
He has undertaken many national international funded R&D projects

Dr. Teruo OKAZAKI, General Manager, Global
Environmental Affairs Department, Environmental
Affairs Division, Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC)
Teruo OKAZAKI joined NSC as a mechanical engineer in 1978 after
graduating from Tokyo Institute of Technology. Since then in Oita
works and Nagoya works, worked in steelmaking and production
management field. In 1997, moved to the current department in thehead office, Tokyo. Currently a chair of the international environment
strategic committee in Japan
Iron and Steel Federation. Received
Ph.D. degree in Materials Science of Imperial College, London. Is aContributing Author for the WG3 chapter 7of IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report.

167

Appendix II

Ichiro OZAWA、 Vice president, City Planning Institute ofJAPAN
Visiting Professor, WASEDA Univ.Special advisor, JFE steel
co.Counselor, CHIYODA ward
He has been engaged in city planning for more than 30 years in
Ministry of Construction (now Ministry of Land, Infrastructure andTransportation )Especially he has been making lots of contribution to the developmentof national policies and projects on “Urban Renaissance” which has
been aiming to regenerate cities and towns of the country. Recently hehas been making a new contribution to develop low carbon policy andaction program in the field of city planning and urban regeneration
projects. These have been incorporated both in the activities of CPIJ
and the policy-making on low carbon urban renewal for CHIYODA
ward and other municipalities.

Mr. André Santos Pereira, researcher, Center for Integrated
Studies on Climate Change and the Environment(CentroClima), Coordination of Post-Graduation Programmes
in Engineering (COPPE), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro(UFRJ), Brazil.
Since 1999 André Pereira has been collaborating in several
CentroClima research projects in cross-cutting issues among energy,
environment, development and climate change. He is a Ph.D candidate
in Environmental Economics (School of High Studies in Social
Sciences, Paris), with a M.Sc. in Energy Planning and a Bachelor
degree in Economics, both at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. He
has also been collaborating with some CIRED research projects.
Among his research topics Brazilian Proposal, CDM and Biofuels canbe highlighted.

Chris Pook
Chris Pook was appointed Counsellor, Science and Innovation at the
British Embassy Tokyo in December 2005. Before moving to Tokyo,
Chris was Secretary to the UK’s Technology Strategy Board and was
Science Attaché at the British Embassy in Washington from 2001-4.
He has held various posts in the Department of Trade and Industry
covering innovation policy, mergers and acquisitions and nuclear
liabilities management. Chris was Private Secretary to successive
Ministers of State from 1995 to 1997 and spent two years on
secondment to BG plc. Chris has a degree in microbiology and a
research background in genetics and biotechnology.

168

Appendix II

M. Sasanouchi, Senior General Manager of CSR
Environmental Affairs Division
He received bachelor's degree of electric engineering (1974 Keio
Univ.) and has spent his professional career of 30 years in Toyota
Motor Corporation. He was a member of working group of Keidanren
Industrial Technology Committee from 1994 to 1998. He is currently
a liaison delegate of WBCSD, the chairperson of the sub-committee on
environmental policy of the Environment Committee of Japan
Automobile Manufacturers Association, and Working Group on Global
Environment Strategy of Nippon Keidanren.

Dr. Yasuhiro Sasano, Director of Center for Global
Environmental Research (CGER), National
Institute forEnvironmental Studies (NIES), Japan
Yasuhiro Sasano, who was assigned the director of CGER in April
2006, has been working mainly in the fields of remote sensing of theatmospheric environment since he joined NIES in 1977, and has
expanded his interests to climate change issues. He was in charge ofthe satellite observation project (ILAS and ILAS-II) for the
stratospheric ozone layer from 1990 to 2004. He also served theSecretariat Office for the Council for Science and Technology Policy(CSTP), Cabinet Office of the Japanese Government, as the Director
for Environment and Energy from 2002 to 2004. He received his B.
S., M. S., and D. Sc. degrees from Tohoku University, Japan.

Charles Secrett, Special Advisor on Climate, Environment andSustainability to the Office of The Mayor of London and Visit
London.
He is a Board Member of the London Development Agency, and Chairof its Health and Sustainability Advisory Group. He was part of thecore team that developed the London Climate Change Action Plan, andhas been instrumental in developing and promoting a number of otherkey London climate and sustainability initiatives, including the Green
Homes Service programme, the Sustainable Industries Business Parkand ‘Wild London, Open London’.
He has been Chair of the
Triodos Bank Renewable Energy Fund since 2004, a
community-oriented enterprise whose investment portfolio has grownfrom £7 million since then to £40 million today.
He was a memberof the UK Government's Roundtable/Commission for Sustainable
Development between 1993-2003.

169

Appendix II

Dr.NaritoShibaike, Councillor Corporate Environmental
Affairs Division Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
In 1978, he graduated The University of Tokyo, and joined Panasonic.
His background is mechanical engineering and material science. In
1994-1995, he worked for the University of Cambridge researching
into environmentally conscious design methodology focusing onmaterials selection in mechanical design. After conducting the three
years’ national program of “Demonstration test of stationary fuel cellcogeneration systems,” Dr Shibaike is presently involved in the APP(Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development & Climate) as arepresentative from Japanese industry. His current interest is todevelop appropriate indicators for promoting energy efficient
appliances in many countries.

Mr. Shigeru Hikone, Principal, Ove Arup & Partners Japan
Limited, Japan
Shigeru Hikone, a group leader of Japan office transferred from Ove
Arup & Partners in London. He has over 35 years of experience ofengineering design for a wide range of buildings and industrial
facilities. He received BCs and MS degree in ArchitecturalEngineering from Tokyo Institute of Technology in Tokyo. He is amember of AIJ and the Institution of Structural Engineering (UK).
He is a qualified in First class licensed Architect and Chartered
Engineer (UK). He is a member of Arup’s research network hosted
by Jeremy Watson and motivates the research activities in Tokyo officelinking with business.

Dr. Emil Salim, President’s Council of Advisors, (Former
Minister of the Environment), Indonesia
Dr. Emil Salim, whose background is in Engineering and Economics,
received a Ph. D. from the University of California, Berkley. Afterhe became Minister of State for Administrative Reform in 1971 at theage of 41, Dr. Salim served four terms of ministerial positions inIndonesia over 22 years, including being the first Minister of theEnvironment. Dr. Salim has addressed from early on theenvironmental problems in developing nations in Asia, and as thechairman of the ASEAN Environment Ministerial Congress set thetarget, the scope, the program and the action plan for the ASEAN
nations to cooperate on environmental issues. He also contributed toestablishing the concept of sustainable development and furthering
global environmental policies through various United Nationscommittees. He is currently serving on the President’s Council ofAdvisers in Indonesia.

170

Appendix II

Prof. Ram Manohar Shrestha, Professor, Asian Institute ofTechnology (AIT), Thailand
Ram Shrestha is currently a professor of Energy Economics andPlanning at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand.
Professor Shrestha serves as the Editor of International Energy Journal
and as an Associate Editor of Energy-The International Journal andEnergy Economics. He is also a member of the Editorial Board of
the ASCE Journal of Energy Engineering. He is a coauthor of 3 books(namely, Energy Policies in Asia, Bio-coal Technology and Economics,
and Baseline Methodologies for Clean Development Mechanism
Project: A Guidebook) and has published extensively in refereed
international journals including Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, Energy Economics, The Energy Journal, Energy
Policy, Resource and Energy Economics. He is a recipient of The
Energy Journal’s Best Paper Award from International Association for
Energy Economics (IAEE).

Prof. P. R. Shukla, Professor in Public Systems Group, Indian
Institute of Management, India
P.R. Shukla is a Professor in Public Systems Group at the Indian
Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India. He holds a Ph.D. from
Stanford University. He is a consultant and advisor to Governments
and international organizations. He has been a member of official
Indian delegation to the Conference of Parties to the UNFCC. Prof.
Shukla is a member of several international teams working on energy
and environment modeling and policy studies. He is a lead author ofseveral international reports including eight IPCC reports. His
publications include twelve books and numerous publications ininternational journals in the areas of development, energy,
environment and climate change policies.

Mr. Tomonori Sudo, Advisor, Coordination Division, Development
Assistance Strategy Department, Japan Bank for International
Cooperation (JBIC), JAPANTomonori Sudo, an advisor of Development Assistance Department at
JBIC, is in charge of climate policy planning in JBIC’s Overseas
Economic Cooperation Operations (ODA Loan operation) and memberof Japanese Delegation to the OECD Development AssistanceCommittee (DAC). He has experiences of ODA loan operation toIndonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and China. In addition, he wasconducted researches on climate policy in Asian countries at IGES. Mr.
Sudo received his B.A. in Economics from Osaka University in Osaka,
Japan and M.Sc in Environmental & Resource Economics from
University of London (UCL).

171

Appendix II

Mr. Takejiro Sueyoshi, special adviser of Asia-Pacific region,
UNEP Finance Initiative, and former Deputy president of Nikko
Asset Management Co., Ltd. in Tokyo.
Mr. Sueyoshi, after his long carrier in banking, is involved in UNEP
Finance Initiative as a steering committee member and currently
served as special adviser of the Asia-pacific region. Mr. Sueyoshi
received bachelor’s degree in economics from Tokyo University in1967. Since then he has spent his professional career of 31 years in
the Mitsubishi Bank Ltd. From 1989 he was working at North
America Head Quarters in New York and the New York branch andserved as a president of the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Trust Co., Ltd.
New York from 1996 to 1998. Then he has served as Deputy
President and an Executive Committee member of Nikko AssetManagement Co., Ltd. in Tokyo.

Tae Yong JUNG, Ph.D., Senior Economist, The AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB), Philippines
His research areas are energy and environmental modeling, clean
energy financing. He has special interest in economic development
and environmental concerns. He was one of lead authors of IPCC
Special Report on Emission Scenario (SRES). He has been a visiting
fellow at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of USA, Economic
Research Institute of Kyoto University, and National Institute forEnvironmental Studies of Japan. He was in Korea Energy Economics
Institute. He joined Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(IGES), Japan in 1999, where he was a project leader for the Climate
Policy Project. Before he joined the ADB, he worked at the WorldBank where he was involved in the World Bank’s activity on ‘clean
energy and development: towards an investment framework’. Dr. Jung
received his Ph.D. in Economics from Rutgers University.

Mr.Yasuo Takahashi, Director, Office of Market Mechanisms,
Climate Change Policy Division, Global Environment Bureau,
Ministry of the Environment, Japan
Yasuo Takahashi, in the Ministry of the Environment, is responsiblefor issues relating to Kyoto Mechanisms, domestic emission trading,and low carbon society. After receiving his M. Engineering from the
University of Tokyo in 1983, he started to work at the Environment
Agency (Ministry of the Environment since 2001). From 1991 to 1994,
he was posted at Japanese Delegation to the OECD. On climate change,
Mr. Takahashi was a member of the Japanese negotiation team from
COP6 to COP10.

172

Appendix II

Mr. Ralph Torrie, Vice President, ICF International, Canada
Ralph Torrie is an expert in the field of energy and environment with
30 years of entrepreneurial and consulting experience that includes
hundreds of initiatives in research, business development, andadvocacy. He is the co-inventor of environmental planning softwarethat has been translated into several languages and is used by morethan 300 municipalities, companies and institutions on five Continents.
He has just completed a scenario analysis for the National Round
Table on Environment and Economy in which Canadian greenhousegas emissions are reduced to 40% of current levels by 2050. He is arecipient of the Canadian Environment Silver Award for his work on
the climate change issue.

Haruki Tsuchiya ,The president of Research Institute for
Systems Technology
He founded it in 1979. He has worked in energy system analysis andpublished books and many articles on future energy scenariosemphasizing efficiency improvement and renewable energy towardsustainable development. His energy concept is “ To Energy
Cultivating Civilization based on renewable energy from Energy
Hunting Civilization of digging fossil fuels underground” Hecalculated that man has 10 slaves in terms of carbon dioxide emission
as he emits 1 kg CO2 every day by breathing while he consumes
fossil fuels to emit 10 kg CO2 daily on the earth. He was as an authorof 2nd Group of IPCC 2nd report in 1995. He worked as a member ofseveral national committees on future energy technology. He is anadvisor to Low Carbon Society Project of National Institute forEnvironmental Studies. He received B.E, M.E and Dr of Engineering
at University of Tokyo.

Mr. Naoya Tsukamoto,Director Research and Information
Office Global Environment Bureau Ministry of theEnvironment
Mr.Tsukamoto started his job at the Ministry of the Environment ofJapan in 1986. Since then he worked on a wide range of issues fromlocal pollution control to regional and global environment and now heis working mostly on the climate change. During his service, he has
worked at the World Bank for four years and at Delegation of Japan toOECD for three years.Mr. Tsukamoto received his Bachelor of Sciencefrom the University of Tokyo, Japan and Master of Environment
Science from Johns Hopkins University, USA.

173

Appendix II

Mr. Shu WANG, Project officer, Office of National Climate
Coordination Committee, National Development and Reform
Commission, China
He has a Master of Environmental Economics, is responsible for CDM
project application and management in DNA of China, and otherissues related to climate change.

Mr. David Warrilow, Deputy Director for Climate, Energy andOzone, Science and Analysis in the UK’s Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
David Warrilow is responsible for scientific, technical and analyticalaspects of climate change, ozone depletion and energy use at the UK’s
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). He is
also the policy lead for the UK’s international policies on adaptation toclimate change and for the UK’s international and domestic policies on
Protection of the Stratosphere under the Montreal Protocol. He is
responsible for ensuring that the UK Government receives soundscientific advice on climate change with regard to both its domestic
activities and international negotiations.
He heads the UK’sdelegation to the IPCC and leads on the technical matters covered by
the Subsidiary Body on Science and Technology of the Climate
Change Convention. He manages a £20 million research programme
which provides policy relevant scientific advice and evidence. His own
scientific background covers climate modeling, land-surface processes
and hydrology.

Professor Jeremy Watson, MSc DPhil CEng FIET MIEEE
He is Arup’s Global Research Director, responsible for Group Research
Strategy and the Research Consulting Business. He has held researchand technical management roles in industry and academe including
service with the DTI and EPSRC. His specialities include Strategic
Technology Development and Transfer, Innovation Processes and NPD
Management. He also has technical expertise in Industrial
Instrumentation and Control, Power Electronics, Signal Processing andBiomedical Engineering. Current research interests include Renewable
Energy, Control for Energy Efficiency and Ambient Assistive
Technologies.He is a Chartered Engineer and Fellow of the IET(Chairman: IET Control & Instrumentation Sector Panel), a Senior
Member of IEEE and Visiting Professor at the Universities ofSouthampton and Sussex, and has recently been appointed as a Board
Member of the UK Government Technology and Strategy Board.

174

Appendix II

Dr. Jim Watson, Senior Fellow at SPRU, University of Sussex,
UK
He trained as an engineer, and has worked at SPRU since 1997. He is
Deputy Director of the Sussex Energy Group, an interdisciplinary teamof social scientists conducting research on economic, policy and social
aspects of energy and climate change. Is also a deputy leader of the
Tyndall Centre’s Climate Change and Energy Programme. His
research includes work on distributed energy systems, carbon captureand storage, and energy in China. He frequently provides advice to UK
government departments, foreign governments and international
bodies. This has included working with the China Council from 1998
to 2003 to advise the Chinese government on cleaner technologies. He
is currently a Specialist Adviser to the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs Committee within the UK House of Commons.

Mr. Suguru Yamaryo, Project Leader, MOTTAINAI Campaign,Media Business Division, ITOCHU Corporation, Japan
Suguru Yamaryo, a project leader of MOTTAINAI Campaign at
ITOCHU Corporation, is conducting an environmentally-friendly
brand “MOTTAINAI”, which was proposed by honorary professor
Wangari Maathai, the first environmental activist who won the Nobel
Peace Prize in 2004. MOTTAINAI, whose origin is a Buddhist term
has a meaning of respects for ties with everything, intends tocommercialize products incorporating the concept of “3R’s (Reuse,
Reduce, Recycle) + Respect” in world wide basis.

Dr. Isamu Yasuda, General Manager, Technology ResearchInstitute, Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd., Japan
Isamu Yasuda, a General Manager of Technology Research Institute ofTokyo Gas Co., Ltd., has been long involved in research anddevelopment of fuel cells and hydrogen production technologies and is
now managing fundamental technology research areas in gas industries
such as biomass, LCA, hydrogen, pipeline corrosion and maintenanceand chemical analyses. His recent concerns have extended to LCS
based on hydrogen with/without distributed CCS. Dr. Yasuda received
his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in applied chemistry from Universityof Tokyo, Japan.

175

Appendix II

Mr. Yoshiaki Yamanaka, Director General, Environment
Department, Shiga Prefectural Government
Yoshiaki Yamanaka is a head of the Environment Department of Shiga,
which covers environmental protection, forestry and waste & seweragemanagement. As Shiga has Lake Biwa, the largest fresh water body inJapan supplying water for fourteen million people, the sustainable lake
management is the key challenge. Lake Biwa is sensitive to global
warming, being categorized as an ancient lake with the indigenous
ecosystem. Mr. Yamanaka contributed to making “World Lake Vision,launched at the 3rd World Water Forum with the cooperation of UNEP,ILEC and other international organizations. He started Sustainable
Shiga Project in 2004 that aims to cut Co2 emissions by 50% until
2030.

176

Appendix III

Appendix III

177

Appendix III

TTh
hee JJaap
paan
n--U
UK
K jjo
oiin
ntt rreesseeaarrcch
hp
prro
ojjeeccttoCaarrb
on
bo
nA
on
n SSo
Acch
hiieevviin
occiieettyyngg aa SSu
ussttaaiin
naabbllee LLo
ow
w--C

C
Caallll ffo
orr A
AccttiioonnIInnttrrood
duuccttiioonnDuring the past two years, Japan and the UK have jointly hosted a series of expert
workshops to explore both visions of low-carbon societies and practical steps toachieve them. Through the workshop series we have studied the necessity,
urgency and feasibility of local, national and international action on reducing global
greenhouse gas emissions through sustainable development, and have developed ashared understanding of low-carbon societies and their impacts on future
development pathways and economic growth.

K
Keeyy FFiin
nd
diin
ng
gss
A set of key areas have been identified as being critical to put us on global
low-carbon pathways which are consistent with achieving climate change anddevelopment goals:
•
•
•

•

•

•

•

The development of low-carbon societies is essential and plays an integral part inaddressing climate change mitigation and adaptation;
It is less costly to move towards low-carbon societies than to delay climatechange mitigation and pay the resulting increased adaptation costs;
A suite of policy options is required to facilitate the transition to low-carbon
societies. Government leadership is crucial to set the enabling conditions underwhich individuals, business and organisations can benefit from the opportunities
in new low-carbon markets, technologies, products and services;
Substantial changes will be required in the built environment, transport, utilities,
industrial and service sectors. These will need to be implemented in harmony
with development goals. A portfolio of sustainable emission reduction measures
is required, which take into account regional and national circumstances;
Synergies between sustainable development approaches and the transition to
low-carbon societies can deliver significant economic, social and environmental
co-benefits;
A shift to investment in low-carbon technology research, development,
demonstration and deployment (RDD&D), emerging markets, products andservices is required to deliver the long-term certainty needed to create incentives
to invest in low-carbon choices; andThe creation of low-carbon consumption options, coupled with enhanced
consumer awareness, can help to enable the level of behaviour change required
to make the transition to low-carbon societies

K
Keeyy rreecco
om
mm
meen
nd
daattiioonnss

Based on our findings from the workshop series, we the International Steering
Committee for the Japan-UK collaboration on achieving low-carbon societies call178

Appendix III

upon the Heads of State for the G8 and emerging economies to place a priority indelivering necessary measures in the following areas, in order to enable thetransition to a low-carbon world. The series of workshops have identified essential
actions to be:
•
•

•

•

•
•
•
•

•

•

•

•
•

The establishment of a long-term goal for global greenhouse gas emissions
reductions of at least 50% of 2000 levels by 2050;
A rapid enhancement of international cooperation and sharing of expertise andbest practise on achieving low-carbon societies between nations and in national,
regional and international stakeholders;
The Creation of appropriate incentives for business using long-term policy
signals to strengthen carbon pricing e.g. through taxation and enhanced
international emissions trading;
The need to shift the focus of development investment in developing countries
towards lower-carbon approaches, and towards a significant expansion in the
deployment of existing low-carbon technologies in both developed anddeveloping countries;
Acceleration in energy efficiency improvement using incentives to encourage
institutional and behavioural change;
The expansion of current financial flows, international cooperation in low-carbon
approaches and the development of new financing mechanism;
A significant increase in funding for research and development for advanced
technologies;
Greater investment in the demonstration and deployment of near-market
technologies and, in particular, the rapid deployment of carbon capture andstorage technology at scale
Adjusting trade regimes to encourage rapid deployment of technologies andproducts that enhance sustainable development while lowering carbon
emissions;
The Implementation of policies and frameworks which enable and promote achange in human behaviour and lifestyle, through providing consumers withnecessary information and the opportunity to benefit from low-carbon
approaches and in the removal of high carbon-intensive choices;
A Shift, in a revenue neutral manner, taxation structures from income-based toenvironmental-based to encourage behaviour from business and individuals
which internalises the cost of choices on global emissions;the development of new indicators that measure quality of life in a moremeaningful way than GDP which effectively measures quantity of consumption;
The building of trust within and between nations is essential to reinforce thecredibility of long term goals and policies. Trust can only be built by continuing
and enhancing dialogue between stakeholder groups within countries andbetween countries with diverse national circumstances.

International Steering Committee
Tokyo, Japan
February, 2008179

Appendix III

180

Appendix III

T
Thhee tthhiirrdd w
Reesseeaarrcchh PPrroojjeecctt
woorrkksshhoopp ooff tthhee JJaappaann--UUK
K JJooiinntt R
oonn Aw--C
Caarrbboonn SSoocciieettyy
Acchhiieevviinngg aa SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee LLoow

““R
Ro
oaad
dm
maap
p tto
o aa LLoow
w--C
CaarrbboonnW
Woorrlldd””

EExxeeccu
uttiivvee SSu
ummmmaarryyIInnttrrood
duuccttiioonn
In 2006, the Governments of Japan and the UK established an innovative joint
research project with participation from a diverse group of some 20 countries. The
project created visions of low-carbon societies and identified the concrete steps
required to achieve the necessary transitions. The project took as its starting point
the need to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would avoid
dangerous climate change.
The features of this project were:
•
•
•

•

•

consensus on a definition of a low-carbon society that embraced thecircumstances of both developing and developed countries;
a long-term perspective focusing on the need for urgent action to at least
halve global greenhouse gas emissions through to 2050;
a broad approach addressing human behaviour, social change and links tosustainable development as well as the specific roles of the private sector andpublic policy;
an evidence-based approach that established the feasibility of the low-carbon
society through scenarios, modelling and case studies at the country, sectoraland city level; andthe engagement of experts and stakeholders from government, business andcivil society who provided insights into the practical steps that could make thelow-carbon society a reality.

The project consisted of a series of three workshops and symposia that
progressively addressed: the need for, and feasibility of, low-carbon societies; theconcrete steps needed to enable the transition; and key findings and policy
recommendations. Each workshop disseminated findings and tested conclusions
with a wider group of stakeholders. In a parallel process, leading energy modellers
from a range of countries elaborated a set of consistent scenarios exploring
pathways to a low-carbon society.

K
Keeyy ffiin
nd
diin
ng
gss o
off tth
hee tthhiirrd
dw
wo
orrk
kssh
ho
op
p
The third and final workshop and symposium took place in Tokyo on 13-15 February
2008. Participants identified several themes and key findings including:181

Appendix III

•
•

•

•

that there is a pressing need to establish a global long-term goal in greenhousegas emissions reductions;that it is important to build trust between countries and between stakeholders
through enhancement of communications and through mutually supportive
action programmes based on partnership delivery;
that developing countries need a sustainable development model focusing
equally on poverty eradication and climate change co-benefits – and further thattechnology transfer, funding, investment switching and capacity building will
enable developing countries to reach for low-carbon and low-poverty society;andthat the delivery of low-carbon societies will require significant changes inlifestyles and practices in both developed and developing countries. To
encourage these changes, raising awareness of the impact of our actions on all
aspects of the global environment in governments, business, individuals andorganisations is vital.

The key findings from the four parallel breakout groups were:

1. Behaviour change and its impact on delivering low-carbon societies••

Consumers have the power to drive significant emissions reductions through the goods
and services they purchase, but need information and expert advice and audit
programmes to inform their choices.
The potential impact of informed consumer choice can only be enabled through strong
government leadership and a supportive policy framework. This should:
o ensure that low-carbon options are widely available in all economic sectors, andthat these are competitively attractive through pricing signals or otherside-benefits;o promote education and the raising of awareness in individuals, business andorganisations to inform and support the rapid and widespread adoption of goodpractice low-carbon living and working;o stimulate low-carbon markets for exemplar technologies, buildings, products andservices through private and public sector procurement and consumerpurchasing; ando deliver low-carbon enabling policy frameworks, based on long-term targets,regulation and fiscal incentives;

182

Appendix III

2. Delivering low-carbon societies through sustainable development
•

•
•

•

Making the link between sustainable development and the transition to low-carbon
societies is vital, and must be done in a mutually supportive manner. Low-carbon
society pathways should not hamper economic growth and should ensure that poverty
eradication occurs whilst delivering significant climate change co-benefits, including
increased adaptation capacity.
Low-carbon society and sustainable development actions are required in bothdeveloped and developing countries.
Strategies for promoting a low-carbon society should:
o be clear on societal and environmental benefits;o take into account immediate development needs;
o offer a suite of options of individual policies, tools, and means (includinginternational actions), phased approaches and steps;
o address the challenge of policy implementation;o take into account the interplay with other policies notably in the fiscal domain;o be supported by the necessary scale of investment, technologies and capacity
building; ando recognise that there may be ways of developing in a more sustainable mannerusing best available and near commercialised technologies which avoid lock-in
to high carbon-intensive infrastructure.
Sharing expertise and good practice, alongside enhanced international collaboration,
will be needed to ensure the timely delivery of low-carbon societies through sustainable
development.

3. Enabling low-carbon societies through investment
•

•

•

•

•

Achieving low-carbon societies is fundamentally a question of re-directing investment toincrease energy efficiency and encourage a shift towards low-carbon technologies,
techniques and infrastructure. Missed investment opportunities will lock-in high carbon
intensity for decades.
There is a need to act with urgency, because delaying the implementation of actions on
a domestic and global perspective will have serious cost and social implications in termsof climate change impacts, the disruption to human societies the world over and theefficacy of subsequent mitigation and adaptation measures.
Investment pathways must increase overall investment in the research, development,
demonstration and deployment (RDD&D) of new low-carbon technologies andtechniques. We must recognise the urgency and the scale of change required, andmove beyond inadequate incremental improvements.
Long-term and robust carbon pricing can deliver certainty to business and raiseawareness of the environmental costs of production. New policies and measures arealso required to enable the necessary scale of investment to facilitate the transition to
low-carbon societies.
Emission reduction opportunities are frequently less expensive in the developing world.
Financial frameworks to finance low-carbon investments, both at International Financial

183

Appendix III

Institutions (IFI’s) and at private banks, and enhanced international cooperation to
extract these, can significantly increases global benefits.

4. Barriers and Opportunities: approaches to sensitive low-carbon sectors
•

•
•

•
•

•

Moving to a low-carbon society has implications for carbon intensive industries such asiron and steel that are exposed to significant international competition. Sectoral
approaches at the international level can start to address competitiveness issues.
Sectoral approaches can also facilitate investment and technology transfer to firms
within these industries in developing countries.
Such sectoral approaches must be transparent, to the general public as well as toindustry. The establishment of clear and internationally agreed methods for measuring
carbon emissions is necessary, and would aid the process of levelling the international
playing field.
Disclosure of carbon emissions per sector or product across all countries is necessary inorder for a sectoral approach to be feasible;
Low-carbon society pathways provide opportunities for a new type of development forsensitive sectors, through recycling and the production of environment friendly
technologies which could underpin future economic development. By using theseopportunities, countries could increase their national competitiveness.
Some carbon-intensive sectors may require radical technologies to be developed if they
are to form part of a low-carbon society. Governments must support early stage R&D
within these sectors, and aid promising technologies with further demonstration anddeployment funding.

184

Appendix III

EEsssseenorrk
kssh
nttiiaall aaccttiio
ho
op
p
on
nss ffrroomm tth
hee tthhiirrddw
wo
The third low-carbon society workshop identified the following actions which governments
are urged to consider:
•
•
•

•

•

•

The establishment of a long-term goal for global greenhouse gas emissions reductionsof at least 50% of 2000 levels by 2050;
A rapid enhancement of cooperation and sharing of expertise and best practise onachieving low-carbon societies at city-, national- and regional-levels;
The creation of appropriate incentives for business using long-term policy signals tostrengthen carbon pricing e.g. through taxation and enhanced international emissions
trading;
The need to shift the focus of development investment in developing countries towards
lower-carbon approaches, and towards a significant expansion in the deployment ofexisting low-carbon technologies in both developed and developing countries;
A significant increase in funding for research and development for advanced
technologies, and greater investment in the demonstration and deployment ofnear-market technologies and, in particular, the rapid deployment of carbon capture andstorage technology at scale; andThe implementation of policies and frameworks which enable and promote a change inhuman behaviour and lifestyle, through providing consumers with necessary informationand the opportunity to benefit from low-carbon approaches and in the removal of highcarbon-intensive choices.

International Steering Committee
Tokyo, Japan
February, 2008

185

Appendix III

International Steering Committee
Co-chairs:
International
Steering
Committee
Leone)

Shuzo Nishioka (NIES, Japan)
Jim Skea (UKERC, UK)
Andrew Bolitho (Defra, UK)
Stephen Cornelius (Defra, UK)
Ogunlade Davidson (University of Sierra Leone, Sierra
Junichi Fujino (NIES, Japan)
Jose Alberto Garibaldi (Energeia, Mexico)
Kejun Jiang (Energy Research Institute, China)
Mikiko Kainuma (NIES, Japan)
P.R. Shukla (Indian Institute of Management, India)
Sachiko Tsukahara (MoEJ, Japan)
Naoya Tsukamoto (MoEJ, Japan)
David Warrilow, (Defra, UK)
Jeremy Watson (ARUP, UK)
Jim Watson (SPRU and Tyndall Centre, UK)
Martin Weiss (European Commission, Germany)Group Chairs
Group 1
Group 2
Leone)
Group 3

Group 4

Jeremy Watson (ARUP, UK)
Yuichi Moriguchi (NIES, Japan)
Ogunlade Davidson (University of Sierra Leone, Sierra
Taka Hiraishi (IGES, Japan)
Jose Alberto Garibaldi (Energeia, Mexico)
Takejiro Sueyoshi (Special Advisor to the UNEP FinanceInitiative, Japan)
Jim Watson (SPRU and Tyndall Centre, UK)
Naoya Tsukamoto (MoEJ, Japan)

RapporteurGroup 1
Group 2

Stephen Cornelius (Defra, UK)
Sunil Malla (Technology Consultancy Services, Nepal)
Tomoki Ehara (Mizuho Information & Research Institute,

Inc.,
Group 3
Group 4

Japan)
Andrew Bolitho (Defra, UK)
Kejun Jiang (Energy Research Institute, China)
Toshi Arimura (Sophia University, Japan)

186

Appendix IV

Appendix IV

UK's Chief Scientific Advisor Sir David King Announces 3rd UK-Japan Low Carbon Workshop

2007-10-10
During a speech recommending urgent action on climate change at the British Embassy Tokyo on
9 October, Sir David King announced that the 3rd Japan-UK workshop on Low-Carbon Societies
will be held between13 and15 February 2008 in Tokyo.

Findings from the workshop series will provide an input to the Japanese G8 Presidency in 2008.
Four key messages from the workshops so far are that:•

low-carbon societies are needed•

they are feasible•

they can be achieved through sustainable development•

urgency of action is required.

The UK-Japan Low Carbon Society collaboration is a leading forum for consideration of developing a
low-carbon society. The 3rd workshop will highlight the relationship with sustainable development and will
work towards achieving a consensus on the feasibility of low-carbon societies amongst a wide range ofstakeholders.
Background:
The low-carbon society workshop series is a collaboration between the UK Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and The Ministry of Environment Japan (MoEJ). The Japanese National
Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), the UK Energy Research Centre and the Tyndall Centre arepartners. The first workshop was in Tokyo June 2006, the second was in London in June 2007. The work
has also been supported by research workshops on modelling future low-carbon scenarios.
The first workshop focussed on the rationale for moving to low carbon societies and presented visions on
how this would be achieved in selected countries.
The second workshop developed the theme by looking at the practical challenges in making the transition
to a low-carbon society. The 2nd workshop executive summary provides recommendations on how tomove towards a low-carbon society. Available online at:
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/07/0706LCS/0706LCSReport.pdf

187

188

189

International Steering Committee
Co-chairs:

Shuzo Nishioka (NIES, Japan)
Jim Skea (UKERC, UK)

International
Steering
Committee

Andrew Bolitho (Defra, UK)
Stephen Cornelius (Defra, UK)
Ogunlade Davidson (University of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone)
Junichi Fujino (NIES, Japan)
Jose Alberto Garibaldi (Energeia, Mexico)
Kejun Jiang (Energy Research Institute, China)
Mikiko Kainuma (NIES, Japan)
P.R. Shukla (Indian Institute of Management, India)
Sachiko Tsukahara (MoEJ, Japan)
Naoya Tsukamoto (MoEJ, Japan)
David Warrilow, (Defra, UK)
Jeremy Watson (ARUP, UK)
Jim Watson (SPRU and Tyndall Centre, UK)
Martin Weiss (European Commission, Germany)

About the Hosts
This symposium and workshop - sponsored by the Ministry of the Environment
Japan (MoEJ) - is hosted by the MoEJ and the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs in the UK (Defra), in collaboration with partners National
Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC),
the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the British Embassy toTokyo, under the direction of the international steering committee.

About the Partners
Established in 1974, the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES) is a
research organisation for environmental issues. The NIES provides a scientificand technological infrastructure for environmental administration withintegrated and interdisciplinary research on a wide range of issues. The NIES has
supported the MoEJ in the arrangement of the workshop contents and logistics.
The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) was set up in 2004 to provide a focus
for energy research in the UK while galvanising collaborative internationalenergy research. A key supporting function of UKERC is the UKERC Meeting Place,based in Oxford, which aims to bring together members of the UK energy
community and overseas experts from different disciplines, to learn, identify
problems, develop solutions and further the energy debate.
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research brings together scientists,
economists, engineers and social scientists, who together are working todevelop sustainable responses to climate change through trans-disciplinary
research and dialogue on both a national and international level - not just within
the research community, but also with business leaders, policy advisors, themedia and the public in general.

“Japan Low-Carbon Society Scenarios toward 2050”
This research project, initiated in 2004, is sponsored by Global Environment
Research Fund (S-3) of MoEJ. The objective of the project is to propose concrete
countermeasures to achieve LCSs in Japan by 2050, including institutionalchange, technology development and lifestyle change. More than 50 researchexperts have studied together to develop visions and roadmaps.
This project supports the “Japan-UK joint Research Project.”
http://2050.nies.go.jp/
Contact: Junichi Fujino
Senior Researcher, Center for Global Environment Research (CGER)
National Institute for Environmental Studies,
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506, Japanᵨᵿᶎᵿᶌ
Tel: +81-29-850-2504, Fax: +81-29-850-2572
ᵪᶍᶕᴾᵡᵿᶐᶀᶍᶌ
E-mail:fuji@nies.go.jpᵱᶍᶁᶇᶃᶒᶗᴾᵐᵎᵓᵎ