November 11th, 2015

Evaluations on Emission Reduction
Efforts of the INDCs and the Expected
Global Emissions
Systems Analysis Group
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)
Contact to: Fuminori Sano, Takashi Homma,
Kohko Tokushige, Keigo Akimoto
TEL: 0774-75-2304、E-mail: sysinfo@rite.or.jp

Executive Summary

Overview of the evaluation methodThis analysis targets the countries that had submitted their INDCs by October 1st,2015. 119 countries had done so by then, covering about 88% of 2010 world
emissions.

Concretely, the survey aims at assessing the fairness and equity of countries’
emissions reduction efforts. Since there are undeniable disparities between
countries regarding their ability to cut emissions, it is crucial to take that into
account in order to perform a relevant evaluation of each country’s emissions
reduction effort.

However, there is no unique indicator to rate the fairness and equity of emissions
reduction efforts. We thus need to adopt a multifaceted approach using a numberof relevant indicators. This analysis is based on the following indicators:
emissions reduction ratio compared to base year, emissions per capita, CO2
intensity, emissions reduction ratio compared to BAU, CO2 marginal abatement
cost (carbon price), retail prices of energy (electricity, gas, gasoline, diesel),emission reduction costs per GDP.



Then, for each indicator, we apply the value 1.0 to the country with the best
performance, and 0.0 to the country with the lowest performance. We thus realize
a ranking of countries' emissions reduction efforts (degree of ambition).

Note: the model gives estimates of emissions reduction costs for 22 countries or regions; among them, CO2 emissions from LULUCF areparticularly high for Brazil and Indonesia, which is why projected emissions reductions are also very important; however, emissions reductions
costs for LULUCF are difficult to assess accurately, so we excluded these two countries from our ranking. As a result, 20 countries/regions in total
were ranked according to their emissions reduction efforts (degree of ambition). Besides, among these 20 countries, the U.S. were the only one
to submit a target for year 2025; it should thus be noted that, although it is difficult to make direct comparisons with others countries’ targets in
2030, assessments for the U.S. were conducted as is, without adjusting the U.S. targets’ timeline.

3

Ranking of emissions reduction efforts(ambition) of INDCs
Country
Switzerland
Japan
EU28
Australia
New ZealandThailandCanadaKorea
NorwayEast Europe(Non-EU countries)

United States
MexicoBelarus
RussiaIndia
South Africa
UkraineChina
Kazakhstan
TurkeyNumber of stars

4

Index of ambition &Evaluation
5.2
4.5
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.1
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
0.7

Very Excellent
Excellent

Good

Number of stars indicating
ambition (Index 0 to 6.0)

Medium0 and <0.25
0.25 and <0.75
0.75 and <1.25

Poor

Evaluation in terms ofambition of INDCs
5.0 : very excellent
4.0 and <5.0 : excellent
3.0 and <4.0 : good
2.0 and <3.0 : medium<2.0 : Poor

Ranking index of emissions reduction efforts(ambition) of INDCs by indicator

5

Emissions reduction
ratio from base year/
Emissions per capita
Emission per GDP
Emission reduction
ratio compared to BAU
CO2 marginal
abatement cost
Retail prices of energy

Emission reduction
costs per GDP

The wider the radar chart is, the greater the emission reduction efforts (ambition) are.

Many indicators (excepting emission reduction costs per GDP) of Switzerland and Japan
were evaluated to have high rankings. CO2 marginal abatement cost of Australia is nothigh, but the emission reduction cost per GDP is large.

Ranking by indicator (1/3)
Emission reduction ratio from base year
(for OECD or Annex), Emissions per capita

6

Emissions per GDP (absolute value
and improvement rate)(for Non-OECD and Non-annex I)

Switzerland
NorwayUnited States
Australia
New ZealandJapan
CanadaRussiaKorea
EU28
Kazakhstan
China
Thailand
MexicoEast Europe (Non-EU

India
Switzerland
East Europe (Non-EU
countries)

NorwayEU28
New Zealand
CanadaAustralia
ThailandJapan
United States
Korea
RussiaBelarus
MexicoUkraineSouth Africa
China
TurkeyKazakhstan
0.0

Bettercountries)

BelarusSouth Africa
India
TurkeyUkraine

Lower

0.2

0.4
0.6
index

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
index

0.8

1.0

The INDCs of India and Switzerland are evaluated to be good in terms of emissions per capita andemission reduction ratios from 2005 and 2012, respectively. Those of Switzerland and Norway areevaluated to be good in terms of both absolute value and improvement rate of emissions per GDP.

Ranking by indicator (2/3)
Emission reduction ratio compared to BAU
Switzerland
NorwayThailandKorea
New ZealandAustralia
CanadaEU28
United StatesJapan
Kazakhstan
MexicoEast Europe (Non-EU

7

CO2 abatement cost
Switzerland
Japan
EU28
CanadaKorea
New ZealandUnited States
NorwayEast Europe (Non-EU

Bettercountries)

ThailandAustralia
MexicoKazakhstan
Belarus
RussiaSouth Africa
TurkeyIndia
UkraineChinacountries)

South Africa
Belarus
RussiaChina
India
UkraineTurkey
0.0

Lower

0.2

0.4
0.6
index

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
index

0.8

1.0

The INDCs of Switzerland and Norway are evaluated to be good in terms of emission reductions ratio
from BAU. Those of Switzerland and Japan are evaluated to be good in terms of CO2 marginal
abatement cost.

Ranking by indicator (3/3)
Retail prices of energy

8

Emission reduction costs per GDP
Australia
UkraineThailand
New Zealand
East Europe (Non-EU

Japan
Switzerland

Better

EU28

countries)

Switzerland
Korea
EU28
Japan
CanadaUnited States
South Africa
MexicoBelarus
RussiaTurkeyIndia
Kazakhstan
China
NorwayNew ZealandTurkeyCanadaKorea
United States

Lower

MexicoRussia
0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
index

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.2

0.4
0.6
index

0.8

1.0

The INDCs of Japan, Switzerland and EU28 are evaluated to be good in terms of retail prices of energy.
Those of Australia and Ukraine are evaluated to be good in terms of emission reduction costs per
GDP.

Expected global GHG emissions of the aggregated INDCs
and the corresponding emission pathways toward +2 C goal 980

GHG emissions (GtCO2-eq./yr)

70

60

50

It is important to induce the achievements of
INDCs and further emission reductions forcountries having room for more reductions
through PDCA (plan-do-check-act) cycle.
It is important to seek deeper
emission reductions throughdevelopments and deployments
of innovative technologies.

Emission outlook under current policies+2.5 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivityof 2.5 ºC (around +2.6 ºC in 2100 and +3.0 ºC
in 2200 under C.S. of 3.0 ºC)+2 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of
2.5 ºC; temporary overshoot of 580 ppm (+2.5ºC stabilization under C.S. of 3.0 ºC)

40

30

around +2.5 to 3ºC

around +2 to 2.5ºC
below +2ºC

INDC submitted by October 1 (119 countries)
assumed to be implemented

10

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

Below +2 ºC in 2100 under climate sensitivityof 3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of 530 ppm+2 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of
3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of 500 ppm andaround 450 ppm in 2300

20

0
1990

Historical emissions

2080

2090

2100

Source) Estimate by RITE

- The expected global GHG emission in 2030 is about 59.5 GtCO2eq. when all the submitted INDCs areachieved (about 6.4GtCO2eq reduction from the emission outlook under current policies).
- The expected temperature change in 2100 is +2 to +3 C from preindustrial levels. The range depends
on the uncertainties of climate sensitivities, and on future deep emission reductions throughdevelopments and deployments of innovative and low cost technologies.

Overview of results and the implications


Based on all the indicators used to assess emission reduction effort the INDC of
Switzerland shows the highest degree of ambition in terms of emission reduction
effort. According to the evaluation, the 2nd highest is Japan, the 3rd EU.



Aggregating to the considered INDC shows that world emissions of GHG would reachabout 60GtCO2eq in 2030 (against 52-53GtCO2eq currently), which corresponds to a
scenario where global warming reaches +2 C or +3 C in 2100 compared to preindustrial levels.



Although this may vary according to economic projections, marginal abatement costs
for China and India are assessed to be zero (admitted that INDC can be achieved). As
there are high disparities between marginal abatement costs from one country toanother, there is a risk that such differences will induce carbon leakages, that willthemselves hinder the effectiveness of global emissions reductions. In that case, ourconcern is that actual emissions reductions could be somewhat less effective thanassessed in this analysis.

The implementation of emissions reductions in the second half of the 21st century will
be highly dependent on climate sensitivity, as the range for temperature estimation islarge, and on the development and diffusion of innovative technologies. Further
research on assessing climate sensitivity as well as making progress on innovating
technologies are thus both crucial.



Since achieving INDC target is more and more pressing, it is important for countries
that can do so to strengthen their objectives through PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act)
cycles and its international review system.

10

Detailed Report

RITE’s Evaluation Methods for
Emission Reduction Efforts of
INDCs

Principles of measuring the fairness and equity ofemissions reduction effort through indicators
Aldy & Pizer (2014) pointed out the importance ofreviewing each country’s pledge in terms of emissions
reductions:

The metrics used for the comparative analysis of countries’
emissions reduction efforts have to comply with thefollowing principles:- Comprehensive: in order to capture the entire effort undertaken- Measureable: direct or indirect measurement possible- Replicable: transparent enough as to be easily replicated- Universal: applicable to as broad a set of countries as possible

There is no unique indicator to rate the fairness and equity ofemissions reduction efforts. It is thus important to adopt a
multifaceted approach using a number of relevant indicators.
Aldy & Pizer, Comparability of Effort in International Climate Policy Architecture, Harvard Kennedy School (2014)13

Main ideas and assessment framework
 We aim here at assessing the equity of emissions reduction efforts in











concrete terms.
As there are differences between countries regarding their ability to cut
emissions, it is very important to take that into account in order to perform a
relevant evaluation of each country’s emission reduction effort.
This is not a top-down approach using emission allocation indicators in linewith the 2C target or the 450 ppm target (such an approach would make it
difficult to use easily measurable indicators and thus to conduct anappropriate evaluation of emission reduction efforts). However, we calculate
world total emissions, taking into account each country’s INDC.
This analysis is based on the methodology developed in: J. Aldy, B. Pizer, K.
Akimoto, Comparing Emissions Mitigation Efforts across Countries (2015).
In this analysis, we go further by scoring the level of each country’s
emission reduction efforts in order to compare and confront them with one
another.
The next page shows the indicators chosen to assess emissions reduction
efforts. For each indicator, we apply the value 1.0 to the country with thebest performance, and 0.0 to the country with the lowest performance.
For the comprehensive evaluation, we affect a weight to each indicator andthen calculate the total score.

14

Indicators for emissions reduction efforts evaluation
15

Emissions reduction efforts evaluation
methodFramework

Notes

Emissions reduction ratio
from base year (only forOECD countries or Annex I
countries)

When baseline emissions are expected to stagnate, it
is more relevant to simply compare the projected
reduction rates (all the more since there areuncertainties regarding the BAU). This is why we use
the reduction ratio compared to BAU for OECD
countries only - on the other hand, such an approach
would be irrelevant for countries where emissions are
expected to grow substantially.

Most countries use 2005 as their base year (as amatter of fact, 1990 seems too far in the past to
be used as a base year to evaluate the emissions
reduction effort for upcoming emissions)Compared to 2005

Compared to 2012(or 2010)

This seems a relatively good choice to evaluate
future efforts as it allows assessing reduction
ratios in comparison with recent circumstances.

Emissions per capita (onlyfor non-OECD countries or
non-Annex I countries)

Absolute value

For OECD countries, we adopt the reduction ratio frombase year instead of this indicator.

As it is highly dependent on the country’s level of
economic activity and situation in general, it canbe difficult to assess emissions reduction efforts
through this indicator.

CO2 intensity (GHG
emissions per GDP)

Absolute value

Reveals what level of CO2 emissions corresponds towhat degree of economic activity

It can easily reach bad values for countries with alow GDP; it is also highly dependent on the
country’s industry structure.

Improvement rate(compared to 2012or 2010)

As it removes the bias due to the fact that economic
growth has changed compared to the base year, it
reveals the real effort in emission reduction.

For countries with a low GDP, carbon intensity
can improve greatly just due to high economic
growth.

Emissions reduction ratio
compared to BAU

It allows taking into account the difference of economic
growths, etc.

It puts aside past efforts in energy savings andabatement potential of renewables.

CO2 marginal abatement
cost (carbon price)

This is a particularly relevant indicator to assess
reduction efforts as it contains countries’ differences interms of economic growth, energy savings efforts,
abatement potential of renewables.

Past measures such as taxes on energy are outof the scope (however, one must keep in mind
that, as energy savings efforts have already been
made in the past, this may lead to higher
estimates of marginal abatement costs.)

While marginal abatement costs show the additional
effort to be made, this indicator also includes the efforts
made in the baseline.

Market data is available for ex-post evaluation,
but for ex-ante evaluation, only model-based
estimates are available which makes
uncertainties rather high.

As marginal abatement costs do not take into accountthe economy’s ability to bear such an effort, thisindicator does.

Uncertainties are high as this is a model-based
estimation.

Retail prices of energy(electricity, city gas,
gasoline, diesel)
Emission reduction costs
per GDP

Weighted averageof historical datafrom 2012 or 2010

Weighing for the assessment of emissions reduction efforts16
Emissions reduction efforts evaluation method
1

2

Emissions reduction ratio
compared to base year (only forOECD countries or Annex I
countries)

Compared to 2005

Emissions per capita (only for
non-OECD countries or non-Annex
I countries)

Absolute value

CO2 intensity (GHG emissions
per GDP)

Absolute value

Weighing for the ranking
1.0

Compared to 2012 (or 2010)

1.0

Improvement rate (compared to2012 or 2010 for emerging
countries)

Emissions reduction ratio
compared to BAU

1.04

CO2 marginal abatement cost(carbon price)

1.0

5

Retail prices of energy(electricity, city gas, gasoline,
diesel)6

Emission reduction costs per
GDP

0.5

(other)

1.0

0.5

0.5
0.5

3

Electricity(for OECD
countries orAnnex I
countries)

1.0

0.333

City gas

0.333

Gasoline, diesel (weighted averageof historical data from 2012 or
2010)

0.333

1.0

* When there is data missing to calculate one of the indicators, we apply the arithmetic mean of the calculated otherindicators for the country and the above-mentioned weighing.
This study presents a comprehensive ranking using 6 categories of indicators with equal weights. However the weighing usedhere is not unquestionable. It is entirely possible to conduct sensitivity analyses testing different weights, as anyone can use thevalues presented here for each indicator to conduct their own estimations of total scoring.

Evaluations of Emission
Reduction Efforts for the
INDCs Submitted byGovernments

Evaluated INDCs (1/3)
The 119 INDCs submitted as of October 1st, 2015 were evaluated.
As of October 1st, 2015, 119 INDCs had been submitted, and representing
about 88 per cent of global emissions in 2010.
Many of the Middle-East countries have not submitted their INDCs yet.
A part of the submitted INDCs is summarized as followings.
2020 (Cancun Agreements)

Post-2020 (INDCs)

Japan-3.8% compared to 2005*-26% by 2030 compared to 2013

United States-17% compared to 2005-26% to -28% by 2025 compared to 2005

EU28

-20% compared to 1990-40% by 2030 compared to 1990

Switzerland-20% compared to 1990

-50% by 2030 compared to 1990（-35% by 2025 compared to 1990）

Norway-30% compared to 1990-40% by 2030 compared to 1990

Australia-5% compared to 2000

-26% to -28% by 2030 compared to 2005

New Zealand-5% compared to 1990-30% by 2030 compared to 2005

Canada-17% compared to 2005-30% by 2030 compared to 2005

Russia-15 to -25% compared to 1990-25% to -30% by 2030 compared to 1990

Note: More ambitious emission reduction targets had been submitted as “conditional “ targets from some countries,
but they are not included in this table.
* Emission reduction target assuming zero nuclear power

18

Evaluated INDCs（2/3）

192020 (Cancun Agreements)

Post-2020 (INDCs)

China

To reduce CO2/GDP by-40 to -45% compared to 2005

To reduce CO2/GDP by -60 to -65% by 2030 compared
to 2005 (To achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions
around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early)

Korea-30% compared to BAU-37% by 2030 compared to BAU

Mexico-30% compared to BAU-25% by 2030 compared to BAU*(-22% by 2030 compared to BAU in GHG)

Ukraine-20% compared to 1990-40% by 2030 compared to BAU

Belarus-5 to -10% compared to 1990-28% by 2030 compared to 1990

Kazakhstan-15% compared to 1992-15% by 2030 compared to 1990

Albania―-12% by 2030 compared to BAU (CO2 only)

The former Yugoslav
Republic ofMacedonia―-30% by 2030 compared to BAU (Energy-related CO2
only)

Republic of Moldova-25% compared to 1990

-64% to -67% by 2030 compared to 1990

Serbia

―-9.8% by 2030 compared to 1990

Thailand-7 to -20% compared to BAU(Energy and transportation
sectors)-20% by 2030 compared to BAU

India

To reduce GHG/GDP by-20 to -25% compared to 2005

To reduce GHG/GDP by -33 to -35% by 2030
compared to 2005

* Emission reduction target of Mexico includes black carbon.

Evaluated INDCs（3/3）
2020 (Cancun Agreements)

Post-2020 (INDCs)

Turkey―-21% by 2030 compared to BAU

South Africa-34% compared to BAU

614MtCO2eq/yr by 2030

Singapore-7% to -11% compared to BAU

To reduce GHG/GDP by -36% by 2030
compared to 2005

Viet Nam―-8% by 2030 compared to BAU

Indonesia-26% compared to BAU-29% by 2030 compared to BAU

Brazil

-36% to -39% compared to BAU -37% by 2025 compared to 2005

Argentina―-15% by 2030 compared to BAU

Morocco―-13% by 2030 compared to BAU

Ethiopia―-64% by 2030 compared to BAU

Kenya

―

-30% by 2030 compared to BAU

Democratic
Republic of the
Congo

―

-17% by 2030 compared to BAU

Dominican
Republic―-25% by 2030 compared to 201020

Notes of the assessments of INDCs in this study
21



LULUCF emissions are not taken into account for international comparison of mitigation efforts ofindividual countries, because they have large uncertainty and their appropriate evaluation isdifficult. (LULUCF emissions are taken into account for the aggregated INDCs evaluation withrespect to 2C target.)For the countries with emission reduction targets compared to the base year, the emissions in thetarget year are calculated based on historical emissions excluding LULUCF. Historical emissions
are derived from Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office of Japan for Japan, UNFCCC for other Annex I
countries, and IEA for other countries.



For the countries with emission intensity improvements targets, the emissions in the target year
are calculated based on historical emissions and GDP scenario.

For the countries with emission reduction ratio targets compared to BAU, if BAU emissions intarget year are stated in their INDCs, they are adopted for calculation of emissions in the target
year. If not, their INDCs are not evaluated in the international comparison of mitigation efforts inthis study. (For the aggregated INDCs evaluation with respect to 2C target, their carbon prices are
assumed to be zero until 2030.)



For other countries (e.g., policies and actions target), treatments of their INDCs are the same as
those of the countries which submitted emission reduction targets compared to BAU withoutstatement of BAU emissions in the target year.



Most of the countries set 2030 as the target year, but United States and Brazil chose 2025. For
these countries, indicators concerning emission reduction efforts in 2025 are evaluated andcompared with the other countries’ indicators in 2030.



Evaluation of all of the adopted indicators was carried out for twenty regions.



For Brazil and Indonesia who are large emitters from LULUCF, only the three indicators (emission
reductions compared to base year, emissions per capita, and emissions per GDP) are evaluatedincluding LULUCF.

Emission reduction ratios fromdifferent base years (1/3)

22

Emission reductions relative to different base years
1990

2005

2012

2013

Japan: -26% relative to 2013 (by 2030)-18.0%-25.4%-25.0%-26.0%

United States: -26 to 28% relative to2005 (by 2025)-14 to -16%

-26to -28%

-18 to -20%

-18 to -21%

EU28: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

-40%

-35%

-26%

-24%

Switzerland: -50% relative to 1990 (by
2030)

-50%

-52%

-49%

―

Norway: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

-40%

-45%

-43%

―

Australia: -26 to -28% relative to 2005
(by 2030)-7 to -9%

-26 to -28%

-29 to -31%―

New Zealand: -30% relative to 2005 (by
2030)

-10%

-30%

-28%

―

Canada: -30% relative to 2005 (by 2030)

-13%

-30%

-26%

―

Russia: -25 to 30% relative to 1990 (by2030)-25 to -30%

+18 to +10%

+10 to +3%―

China: -60 to -65% relative to CO2emission intensity (by 2030)+379 to+329%+129 to+105%（+71 to +53%）―

Korea: -37% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+81%

-5%

（-18%）―Note) Emissions reductions in parentheses in the column of 2012 are relative to 2010 (no available historical data of 2012)

Emission reduction ratios fromdifferent base years (2/3)

23

Emission reductions relative to different base years
1990

2005

2012

2013

Mexico: -25% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+79%

+33%

（+26%）―

Ukraine: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

-40%

+32%

+41%

―

Belarus: -28% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

-28%

+19%

+12%

―

Kazakhstan: -15% relative to 1990 (by
2030)

-15%

+20%

（-6%）

―

Albania: -12% relative to BAU (by 2030,
CO2)

+3%

+38%

（+32%）―

Macedonia: -30% relative to BAU (by2030, energy related CO2)

+36%

+38%

（+45%）―

Moldova: -64 to -67% relative to 1990 (by2030)-64 to -67%

+8 to
-1%

（+9%）

―

Serbia: -9.8% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

-10%

+11%

（+7%）

―

Thailand:-20% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+128%

+30%

（+15%）―

India: -33 to -35% relative to GHG
emission intensity in 2005 (by 2030)+454% to+437%

+246 to+235%（+159 to+151%）―

Turkey: -21% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+393%

+181%

（+130%）―South Africa: 614MtCO2eq/yr (by 2030)

+76%

+38%

（+26%）―Note) Emissions reductions in parentheses in the column of 2012 are relative to 2010 (no available historical data of 2012)

Emission reduction ratios fromdifferent base years (3/3)

24

Emissions reductions relative to different base years
1990

2005

2012

2013

Singapore: -36% relative to GHG emission
intensity in 2005 (by 2030)

+96%

+33%

（+14%）―

Vietnam: -8% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+687%

+240%

（+143%）―

Indonesia: -29% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+86%

-28%

（+7%）

―

Brazil: -37% relative to 2005 (by 2025)

+0%

-37%

（+0%）

―

Argentine: -15% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+130%

+84%

（+77%）―

Morocco: -13% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+305%

+144%

（+115%）―

Ethiopia: 145MtCO2eq/yr (by 2030)

+114%

+64%

（+33%）―

Kenya: -30% relative to BAU (by 2030)

+178%

+123%

（+93%）―

Democratic Republic of the Congo: -17%
relative to BAU (by 2030)

+89%

+213%

（+150%）―

Dominican Republic: -25% relative to 2010(by 2030)

+38%

-19%

（-25%）―Note) Emissions reductions in parentheses in the column of 2012 are relative to 2010 (no available historical data of 2012)International comparison of emission reduction ratiosfrom the base year of 2005
Switzerland
NorwayEU28
CanadaNew ZealandUnited States
Australia
Japan
Korea
RussiaEast Europe(Non-EU
countries)
Europe(Non-EU
countries)
Belarus
Kazakhstan
ThailandUkraineMexicoSouth Af rica
China
Turkey
India
300

-51.6
-44.5
-34.8
-30.0
-30.0
-27.0
-26.0
-25.4

better

-5.3
14.2
15.6
19.0
19.7
30.1
32.2
32.8
38.2
116.9
180.9
235.4

250

200

150

100

50

0

-50

25

-100

GHG emission compared to base year (2005) (%)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

Note) This indicator was employed only for OECD countries or Annex I countries for the integrated ranking.

International comparison of emission reduction ratiosfrom the base year of 2012 (or 2010)

Switzerland
NorwayAustralia
New Zealand
CanadaEU28
Japan
United States
Korea
Kazakhstan
RussiaBelarus
East
Europe(Non-EU
countries)
Europe (Non-EU countries)
Thailand
MexicoSouth Af rica
UkraineChina
Turkey
India
200

-48.6
-43.4
-28.7
-27.9
-26.3
-25.8
-25.0
-18.7
-17.6
-6.4

better

6.2
12.2
13.4
15.2
25.5
26.2
40.7
62.0
130.2
151.3

150

100

50

0

-50

26

-100

GHG emission compared to base year (2005) (%)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

Note) This indicator was employed only for OECD countries or Annex I countries for the integrated ranking.

GHG emissions per capita (1/3)
27tCO2eq./capita

1990

2005

2010

2020

2030

Japan

10.4

11.0

9.9

10.8

8.9

United States

24.4

24.2

22.0

17.6

14.8 to 15.2
(in 2025)

EU28

11.8

10.4

9.4

8.8

6.6

Switzerland

7.9

7.3

6.9

5.2

3.1

Norway

11.9

11.8

11.1

6.7

5.4

Australia

24.3

25.5

24.1

18.9

14.1 to 14.5

New Zealand

17.8

18.9

16.8

12.2

10.9

Canada

21.4

22.8

20.5

16.3

12.8

Russia

22.7

14.8

15.5

18.2 to 20.6

17.9 to19.1

China

3.3

6.0

7.8

10.2 to10.9

11.1 to12.4

Korea

6.9

12.0

13.4

11.1

10.9

GHG emissions per capita (2/3)
28tCO2eq./capita

1990

2005

2010

2020

2030

Mexico

4.9

5.2

5.1

4.3

5.7

Ukraine

18.3

9.1

8.4

17.4

13.9

Belarus

13.6

8.7

9.4

13.9 to 14.7

11.8

Kazakhstan

21.8

16.6

20.1

19.4

17.2

Albania

3.0

2.4

2.6

3.2

Macedonia

5.7

5.4

5.1

7.5

Moldova

8.5

3.3

3.4

Serbia

7.9

6.3

6.7

7.3

Thailand

3.4

5.2

5.8

6.2

India

1.5

1.8

2.3

Turkey

3.5

4.9

5.6

10.8

South Africa

9.5

9.2

9.5

11.0

8.3

3.7 to 3.9

4.2

4.7 to 4.9

GHG emissions per capita (3/3)
29tCO2eq./capita

1990

2005

2010

2020

Singapore

11.0

10.9

11.2

11.3

Vietnam

1.3

2.5

3.3

6.9

Indonesia

6.2

12.6

7.9

7.3

Brazil

10.7

13.7

8.2

Argentine

7.6

8.0

8.0

12.1

Morocco

1.5

2.0

2.2

3.9

Ethiopia

1.4

1.2

1.3

1.1

Kenya

1.5

1.3

1.3

1.6

Democratic
Republic of the
Congo

5.4

2.1

2.3

3.6

Dominican
Republic

2.2

2.9

2.9

1.8

7.9 to 8.3

2030

7.5
(in 2025)

International comparison of
GHG emissions per capita
Switzerland
India
East
Europe(Non-EU
East Europe(Non-EU countries)…
NorwayMexicoThailand
EU28
Japan
TurkeyNew Zealand
Korea
South Af rica
China
BelarusCanadaUkraineAustralia
United States
Kazakhstan
Russia
0

30

3.1
4.7
5.1
5.5
5.7
6.2
6.6

better

8.9

10.8
10.9
10.9
11.0
11.8
11.8
12.8
13.9
14.5
15.0

17.2
18.5

5

10

15

20

GHG emission per capita (tCO2eq/capita)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

Note) This indicator was employed only for Non-OECD countries and Non-Annex I countries for the integrated ranking.

GHG emissions per GDP (MER) (1/3)
31

kgCO2eq. per $2005

1990

2005

2010

2020

2030

Japan

0.33

0.31

0.27

0.25

0.16

United States

0.76

0.55

0.50

0.34

0.27 to 0.28
(in 2025)

EU28

0.56

0.37

0.33

0.28

0.18

Switzerland

0.16

0.14

0.13

0.09

0.05

Norway

0.27

0.18

0.17

0.09

0.07

Australia

0.91

0.69

0.62

0.41

0.28 to 0.29

New Zealand

0.87

0.69

0.61

0.38

0.31

Canada

0.76

0.63

0.56

0.40

0.28

Russia

3.99

2.80

2.44

1.81 to 2.05

0.91 to 0.97

China

6.11

3.29

2.64

1.68 to1.80

1.07 to1.19

Korea

0.82

0.67

0.64

0.40

0.32

GHG emissions per GDP (MER) (2/3)
32

kgCO2eq. per $2005

1990

2005

2010

2020

2030

Mexico

0.76

0.66

0.64

0.42

0.43

Ukraine

6.89

4.97

4.28

6.07

2.67

Belarus

5.87

2.79

2.08

2.12 to 2.24

1.21

Kazakhstan

7.01

4.38

4.14

2.47

1.37

Albania

1.85

0.93

0.76

0.51

Macedonia

1.87

1.88

1.50

1.13

Moldova

6.25

4.16

3.52

Serbia

2.33

2.13

1.93

1.18

Thailand

2.19

1.93

1.84

0.92

India

3.71

2.50

2.23

Turkey

0.70

0.68

0.71

0.83

South Africa

2.04

1.80

1.68

1.17

5.69

2.12 to 2.24

1.74

1.62 to 1.67

GHG emissions per GDP (MER) (3/3)
33

kgCO2eq. per $2005

1990

2005

2010

2020

Singapore

0.67

0.39

0.33

0.24

Vietnam

4.63

3.69

3.80

3.57

Indonesia

7.34

9.90

5.05

2.20

Brazil

2.68

2.89

1.46

Argentine

2.33

1.69

1.27

1.15

Morocco

0.99

1.02

0.91

0.89

Ethiopia

9.96

7.27

5.35

2.09

Kenya

2.76

2.40

2.20

1.41

Democratic
Republic of the
Congo

18.18

15.84

15.10

12.55

Dominican
Republic

1.01

0.81

0.62

0.24

1.08 to 1.13

2030

0.92
(in 2025)

International comparison of
GHG emissions per GDP (MER)
Switzerland
NorwayJapan
EU28
United States
CanadaAustralia
New Zealand
Korea
MexicoTurkeyEast
Europe(Non-EU
countries)…
East
Europe(Non-EU
ThailandRussiaChina
South Af rica
Belarus
Kazakhstan
India
Ukraine
0

34

0.05
0.07
0.16
0.18
0.27
0.28
0.29
0.31
0.32
0.43

better

0.83
0.89
0.92
0.94
1.13
1.17
1.21
1.37
1.62
2.67

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

GHG emission per GDP (kgCO2eq/$2005)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

3Change in CO2 intensity (GHG/GDP) (1/3)
352012 to 2030 (or 2010 to 2030)
Japan
United States(2012 to 2025)-3.3%/yr-3.8 to -4.0%/yr

EU28-2.9%/yr

Switzerland-6.1%/yr

Norway-4.6%/yr

Australia-3.9 to 4.1%/yr

New Zealand-3.7%/yr

Canada

-3.5%/yr

Russia-4.8 to -5.1%/yr

China-3.9 to -4.4%/yr

Korea-3.4%/yrChange in CO2 intensity (GHG/GDP) (2/3)
362012 to 2030 (or 2010 to 2030)
Mexico-1.9%/yr

Ukraine-2.5%/yr

Belarus-2.7%/yr

Kazakhstan-5.5%/yr

Albania-2.0%/yr

Macedonia-1.4%/yr

Moldova-3.5%/yr

Serbia

-2.5%/yr

Thailand-3.5%/yr

India-1.4%/yr to -1.6%/yr

Turkey+0.7%/yrSouth Africa-1.8%/yrChange in CO2 intensity (GHG/GDP) (3/3)
372012 to 2030 (or 2010 to 2030)
Singapore-1.7%/yrVietnam

-0.3%/yrIndonesia-4.2%/yr

Brazil (2010 to 2025)-3.1%/yr

Argentine-0.7%/yr

Morocco-0.1%/yr

Ethiopia-4.6%/yr

Kenya-2.2%/yr

Democratic Republic of theCongo-0.9%/yr

Dominican Republic-4.7%/yrInternational comparison ofchange in CO2 intensity (GHG/GDP)

38

-5.5

Kazakhstan
RussiaSwitzerland
NorwayChina
Australia
United States
New Zealand
CanadaThailand
Korea
Japan
EU28
Belarus
UkraineEast (Non-EU
Europe(Non-EU
countries)
urope
countries)
MexicoSouth Af rica
India
Turkey

-5.1
-5.0
-4.8

better

-4.2
-4.0
-4.0
-3.8
-3.6
-3.5
-3.4
-3.3
-3.0
-2.7
-2.5
-2.4
-1.9
-1.8
-1.6
0.7

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

Change in CO2 intensity (GHG/GDP) (%/yr)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

-6

Emissions reduction ratio compared to BAU (1/2)
39

Emissions reduction ratios compared to BAU
Adoption of the BAU
described in the INDCs

Adoption of the BAU
estimated by RITE Model

Japan: -26% relative to 2013 (by 2030)

―

-26%

United States: -26 to 28% relative to 2005 (by
2025)

―

-30 to -32%

EU28: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

―

-38%

Switzerland: -50% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

―

-54%

Norway: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

―

-46%

Australia: -26 to -28% relative to 2005 (by 2030)―-39 to -40%

New Zealand: -30% relative to 2005 (by 2030)

―

-40%

Canada: -30% relative to 2005 (by 2030)

―

-39%

Russia: -25 to 30% relative to 1990 (by 2030)―

China: -60 to -65% relative to CO2 emission
intensity (by 2030)―

Korea: -37% relative to BAU (by 2030)-37%-7 to -13%

+1 to -9%-41%

Emissions reduction ratio compared to BAU (2/2)
40

Emissions reduction ratios compared to BAU
Adoption of the BAU
described in the INDCs

Adoption of the BAU
estimated by RITE Model

Mexico*: -25% relative to BAU (by 2030)

-22%

-25%

Ukraine: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

―

+32%

Belarus: -28% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

―

-15%

Kazakhstan: -15% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

―

-25%

East Europe (Non-EU countries)

―

-24%

Thailand:-20% relative to BAU (by 2030)

-20%

-43%

India: -33 to -35% relative to GHG emission
intensity in 2005 (by 2030)―+3 to +0%

Turkey: -21% relative to BAU (by 2030)

-21%

+33%

South Africa: 614MtCO2eq/yr (by 2030)

―

-16%

* Mexico’s reduction target in INDC (-25%) includes both GHG and black carbon (BC) emissions. The rates in the table are based on the GHG target.

International comparison of emissions reduction
ratio compared to BAU (Baseline)-54.4

Switzerland
NorwayThailandKorea
New ZealandAustralia
CanadaEU28
United StatesJapan
Kazakhstan
MexicoEastEurope(Non-EU
countries)
Europe (Non-EU countries)
South Af rica
Belarus
RussiaChina
India
Ukraine 33.2
Turkey 33.3
40

41

-46.2
-42.8
-41.0
-40.1
-38.7
-38.5
-38.0

better

-30.8
-25.9
-25.1
-24.8
-24.2
-15.7
-15.4
-9.6
-3.8
0.3

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

GHG emission compared to BAU (%)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

-50

-60

CO2 marginal abatement costs for the INDCs ofmajor countries (estimated by RITE DNE21+) (1/2)
Marginal abatement cost ($/tCO2eq)
Low case
Japan：-26% by 2030 compared to 2013
United States： -26% to -28% by 2025
compared to 2005

High case
About 380*

（for the target of energy-related CO2 only, the estimate is about 260）

76

94

EU28： -40% by 2030 compared to 1990

210

Switzerland：-50% by 2030 compared to 1990

380

Norway：-40% by 2030 compared to 1990

70

Australia：-26% to -28% by 2030 compared to
2005

33

New Zealand：-30% by 2030 compared to 2005

95

Canada：-30% by 2030 compared to 2005

166

Russia： -25% to -30% by 2030 compared to
1990

1

7

China： -60 to -65% of CO2 intensity by 2030
compared to 2005

up to 0

up to 0

Korea：-37% by 2030 compared to BAU

144* Emission reduction target (-26%) is assumed to be achieved by mitigation measures excluding LULUCF (Emission reduction by absorption (-2.6%) is notconsidered). This treatment is applied for the all evaluated countries.
Note: The estimated marginal abatement costs of US, EU28, and Russia are higher than the previous evaluation, because INDCs of other countries are
additionally considered in this version, and then low CO2 intensity energy import of the three regions is reduced relative to that in the previous version.
(http://www.rite.or.jp/Japanese/labo/sysken/about-global-warming/download-data/E-Energymix_INDCs_20150818.pdf)

42

CO2 marginal abatement costs for the INDCs ofmajor countries (estimated by RITE DNE21+) (2/2)

43

CO2 marginal abatement cost ($/tCO2eq)
Low case

High case

Mexico*： -25% by 2030 compared to BAU

27

Ukraine： -40% by 2030 compared to 1990

～0Belarus：-28% by 2030 compared to 1990

12

Kazakhstan：-15% by 2030 compared to 1990

14

East Europe (Non-EU member)

58

Thailand：-20% by 2030 compared to BAU

54

India：-33% to -35% of GHG intensity by 2030
compared to 2005

up to 0

up to 0Turkey：-21% by 2030 compared to BAU

up to 0South Africa：614MtCO2eq/yr by 2030

1

* Emission reduction target of Mexico includes black carbon. Emission reduction of black carbon is not considered in our evaluation (-22% compared to BAU).

International comparison of
CO2 marginal abatement costs
Switzerland
Japan
EU28
CanadaKorea
New ZealandUnited States
NorwayEast
Europe(Non-EU
countries)…
East
Europe(Non-EU
Thailand33
Australia
27
Mexico14
Kazakhstan
12
Belarus4
Russia1South Af rica0
Turkey0India
0Ukraine
0
China
0

50

44

380
378

better

210
166
144

95
85
70
58
54

100

150

200

250

300

350

CO2 marginal abatement cost ($/tCO2)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

400

Estimated retail prices of energy of INDCs(estimated by RITE DNE21+) (1/2)

45Retail prices of energy in 2030
Electricity（household）(US cent/kWh)City Gas(household)(US$/GJ)

Gasoline (95

33.9

60.7

2.18

2.07

15.4 to 16.3

12.6 to 13.7

0.80 to 0.86

0.92 to 0.98

EU28

35.8

32.3

2.30

2.12

Switzerland

27.7

51.8

2.58

2.68

Norway

8.6

n.a

2.00

1.84

Australia

24.2

n.a

1.12

1.15

New Zealand

23.5

35.0

1.67

1.63

Canada

11.0

17.1

1.52

1.42

Russia1.3 to 2.3

1.6 to 2.0

0.64 to 0.65

0.27

China

9.9 to 11.1

n.a

1.09 to1.10

1.02 to 1.03

Korea

5.6

23.5

1.48

0.95

Japan
United States(2012 to 2025)

RON)(US$/L)

Diesel(US$/L)Estimated retail prices of energy of INDCs(estimated by RITE DNE21+) (2/2)

46

Retail prices of energy in 2030
Electricity（household）(US cent/kWh)City gas(household)(US$/GJ)

Gasoline (95Mexico

11.4

11.0

1.03

1.04

Ukraine

5.4

n.a

1.02

0.99

Belarus

12.3

n.a

0.99

0.84

Kazakhstan

8.4

n.a

0.51

0.40

14.9

n.a

1.64

1.70

Thailand

13.5

n.a

1.32

1.02

India

5.2

n.a

1.12

0.90

Turkey

15.9

10.8

1.87

1.65

South Africa

7.7

n.a

1.10

0.96

East Europe(Non-EU countries)

RON)(US$/L)

Diesel(US$/L)International comparison ofretail prices of energy (electricity)
EU28
Japan
Switzerland
Australia
New ZealandTurkeyUnited States
East
Europe(Non-EU
countries)…
East
Europe(Non-EU
ThailandBelarus
MexicoCanadaChina
NorwayKazakhstan
South Af rica
Korea
Ukraine
India
Russia
0

47

35.8

33.9
27.7

better

24.2
23.5
15.9
15.9
15
13.5
12.3
11.4
11.0
10.5
8.6
8.4
7.7
5.6
5.4
5.2
1.8

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Electricity (household) price（UScent/kWh）* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

40International comparison ofretail prices of energy (gasoline)
2.58

Switzerland
EU28
Japan
NorwayTurkeyNew Zealand
East
Europe(Non-EU…
East
Europe(Non-EU
countries)
CanadaKorea
ThailandAustralia
India
South Af rica
China
MexicoUkraineBelarus
United States
RussiaKazakhstan
0

48

2.30
2.18

better

2.00
1.87
1.67
1.64
1.52
1.48
1.32
1.12
1.12
1.10
1.09
1.03
1.02
0.99
0.83
0.65
0.51

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Gasoline (95 RON) price (US$/L)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

3

Estimated emissions reductions costs per GDP of INDCs(estimated by RITE DNE21+) (1/2)
Emissions reductions cost per GDP (%)
Lowaround 0.6

Japan: -26% relative to 2013 (by 2030)
United States: -26 to 28% relative to 2005 (by
2025)

High

0.35

0.41

EU28: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

0.79

Switzerland: -50% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

0.97

Norway: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

up to 0Australia: -26 to -28% relative to 2005 (by 2030)

2.36

New Zealand: -30% relative to 2005 (by 2030)

1.13

Canada: -30% relative to 2005 (by 2030)

0.53

Russia: -25 to 30% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

up to 0

up to 0China: -60 to -65% relative to CO2 emission
intensity (by 2030)

up to 0

up to 0

Korea: -37% relative to BAU (by 2030)

0.82

49

Estimated emissions reductions costs per GDP of INDCs(estimated by RITE DNE21+) (2/2)
Emissions reductions cost per GDP (%)
Low

High

Mexico*: -25% relative to BAU (by 2030)

0.27

Ukraine: -40% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

1.83

Belarus: -28% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

0.20

Kazakhstan: -15% relative to 1990 (by 2030)

up to 0

East Europe (Non-EU countries)

1.03

Thailand:-20% relative to BAU (by 2030)

1.42

India: -33 to -35% relative to GHG emission
intensity in 2005 (by 2030)

up to 0Turkey: -21% relative to BAU (by 2030)

up to 0South Africa: 614MtCO2eq/yr (by 2030)

0.28

50

International comparison ofemission reduction costs per GDP
Australia
UkraineThailand
New Zealand
East
Europe(Non-EU
countries)
East
Europe(Non-EU…
Switzerland
Korea
EU28
Japan
CanadaUnited States
South Af rica
MexicoBelarus
0.0
Russia0.0
Turkey
0.0
India
0.0
Kazakhstan
0.0
China
0.0
Norway
0

51

2.4
1.8

better

1.4
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.5

1
1.5
Emission reduction cost per GDP (%)

2* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

2.5Integrated ranking of emission reduction efforts(ambition) of INDCs

52

The ranking result integrated from the results of six categorizedindicators by using the assumed weighting values (see p.16)
Switzerland
Japan
EU28
Australia
New ZealandThailandCanadaKorea
NorwayEast Europe (Non-EU

5.2
4.5
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.1

countries)

United States
MexicoBelarus
RussiaIndia
South Africa
UkraineChina
Kazakhstan
Turkey0.0

better

2.3
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
0.7
1.0

2.0

3.0
Index

4.0

5.0

6.0

Expected Global GHG
Emissions of the Aggregated
INDCs

Expected global GHG emissions of the aggregated INDCs andthe corresponding emission pathways up to 2050 toward +2 C goal

54

80

It is important to induce the achievements of
INDCs and further emission reductions forcountries having room for more reductions
through PDCA (plan-do-check-act) cycle.

GHG emissions (GtCO2-eq./yr)

70

60

50

It is important to induce the achievements of
INDCs and further emission reductions forcountries having room for more reductions
through PDCA (plan-do-check-act) cycle.

AR5530-580 ppm(GHG emission:+7 to -47%
relative to 2010)

40
Historical emissions

30
Emission outlook under current policies

20

10

0
1990

AR5
480-530 ppm(GHG emission:-25 to -75%)

INDC submitted by October 1 (119 countries) assumed to be implemented+2 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of 2.5 ºC; temporary overshoot of 580 ppm(+2.5 ºC stabilization under C.S. of 3.0 ºC)
Below +2 ºC in 2100 under climate sensitivity of 3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of 530 ppm

Increase inprobability toachieve below +2
C; however, lower
emission scenarios
includeassumptions of lessrealistic measures

AR5 430-480 ppm(GHG emission:-41 to -72%)+2 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of 3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of 500 ppm
and around 450 ppm in 2300

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Source) Estimate by RITE

Note) Climate sensitivity is still largely uncertain. According to the IPCC AR5, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 1.5 to 4.5 C is likely.
The emission pathways that are consistent with +2 C under ECS of 3.0 C and 2.5 C are shown. See also Y. Kaya et al., The uncertainty ofclimate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris negotiation, Sustainability Science.

- The expected global GHG emission in 2030 is about 59.5 GtCO2eq. when all the submitted INDCs are achieved (about
6.4GtCO2eq reduction from the emission outlook under current policies). Some of the emission reduction effects are
estimated to be offset due to carbon leakages caused by large differences in marginal emission reduction costs.
- The expected temperature change in 2100 is +2 to +3 C from preindustrial levels. The range depends on theuncertainties of climate sensitivities, and on future deep emission reductions through developments and deployments ofinnovative and low cost technologies.

Expected global GHG emissions of the aggregated INDCs andthe corresponding emission pathways up to 2100 toward +2 C goal

55

GHG emissions (GtCO2-eq./yr)

200

150

Baseline emissions reported
in the IPCC AR5100

It is important to seek deeper emission
reductions through developments anddeployments of innovative technologies.

50

0
1990

around +2.5 to 3ºC
around +2 to 2.5ºC
below +2ºC
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Historical emissions
Emission outlook under current policies+2.5 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of 2.5 ºC (around +2.6 ºC in 2100 and +3.0 ºC in 2200 under C.S. of 3.0 ºC）+2 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of 2.5 ºC; temporary overshoot of 580 ppm (+2.5 ºC stabilization under C.S. of 3.0 ºC)
Below +2 ºC in 2100 under climate sensitivity of 3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of 530 ppm+2 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of 3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of 500 ppm and around 450 ppm in 2300
INDC submitted by October 1 (119 countries) assumed to be implemented

Source) Estimate by RITE

The expected temperature change in 2100 is +2 to +3 C from preindustrial levels. The range depends on
the uncertainties of climate sensitivities, and on future deep emission reductions through developments
and deployments of innovative and low cost technologies.

SummarySummary:
Evaluation of emission reduction efforts











57

We evaluated ‘emission reduction efforts (degree of ambition)’ of INDCs from various
aspects, using multiple measurable indexes, for the nations who had submitted them
before October 1st, 2015.
Swiss INDC was evaluated as the most ambitious one, being regarded to require thelargest effort for its realization among those evaluated quantitatively here. The second
was Japan, and the third was the EU28.
INDCs of Turkey, Kazakhstan, China etc. were evaluated to be relatively inadequate interms of emission reduction effort.
The US was in the middle. However, this result should be interpreted with care because
the US’s target year is 2025 while many other nations’ are 2030, making the comparison
imperfect.
For several nations such as China and India, marginal abatement costs were evaluatedas zero, meaning their INDCs are to be realized in BAU, according to our socioeconomic scenario. Large differences in marginal abatement costs across nations
induce carbon leakage and the effectiveness of global emission reduction will bedamaged and jeopardized, causing a great concern.
There is no single absolute indicator measuring international fairness and equity, andour study is no exception. Rather, it should be regarded as one of the evaluations thatare usefully taken into account in PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle. There are several
nations (Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Venezuela as relatively larger emitters) who
do not submit their INDCs, which should be recognized more problematic than those
whose INDCs were evaluated inadequate in our study.

Summary:
Perspective of global GHG emissions
58

Global emissions will be 60 GtCO2eq in 2030 if all the nations realize theirsubmitted INDCs. (Current emissions are 5253GtCO2eq) The 2030 emissions are
considered to stay on the pathways of 23 C temperature rise in 2100 relative tothe pre-industrial level.
 There are some differences in the estimate of 2030 global emissions among studies.
This is due to the differences in expected BAU emissions for nations whose INDCs
are expressed in emissions reduction ratio relative to BAU, and BAU GDPs fornations whose INDCs are expressed in emission intensity to GDP. In addition, ourstudy takes into account the carbon leakage effect that is caused when marginal
abatement costs are substantially different across nations. (Correspondingly,
emissions increase for nations whose targets are almost equivalent to their BAU
values and possibly for those that have not yet submitted INDCs.)
 Estimates of temperature rise vary widely due to wide uncertainty of climate
sensitivity (IPCC AR5 evaluates the likely climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 C.
We estimated the temperature rise for the two climate sensitivity cases of 3.0 and
2.5 C.) and also assuming innovative technology development and diffusion andlarge emissions reduction correspondingly brought about by them in the latter halfof the century.
 PDCA cycle including international review system should be designed andoperated so that submitted INDCs may be realized for all the nations and further
emissions reduction may be endeavored for the nations who have room for it.

Appendix

Population prospects (millions)

60

2010

2020

2030

Japan

127

124

118

United States

312

340

364

EU28

507

515

515

Switzerland

8

8

8

Norway566Australia

22

25

27

New Zealand

4

5

5

Canada34

37

40

Russia

144

139

132

China

1367

1445

1477

Korea

48

49

49

Mexico

118

128

135

Ukraine

46

44

41

Belarus998

Kazakhstan

16

17

17

East Europe (Non-EU countries)

23

23

22

Thailand

66

70

72

India

1206

1357

1474

Turkey728086South Africa

51

54

56

The World Total

6916

7679

8308

Source) RITE estimates based on the 2008 UN population prospects in the medium variants. For statistical values up to 2010, The UN World Population Prospects 2012 are used.

GDP Prospects (MER, %/yr)

61

2010―2020

2020－2030

Japan

1.4

1.9

United States

2.6

2.0

EU28

1.2

1.3

Switzerland

1.4

1.2

Norway1.8

1.6

Australia

2.7

1.8

New Zealand

2.4

1.6

Canada2.1

1.7

Russia

4.3

6.3

China

7.7

5.6

Korea

3.0

1.9

Mexico3.2

3.0

Ukraine

3.2

5.3

Belarus3.2

3.4

Kazakhstan

5.4

5.0

East Europe (Non-EU countries)

2.2

3.8

Thailand

4.3

4.0

India

6.5

5.9

Turkey4.0

2.8South Africa

2.5

3.4

The World Average

3.0

2.9

Source) RITE estimates. Our estimates are not so different form USDOE/EIA International Energy Outlook and IEA World Energy Outlook. (In consideration of the differences between PPP and MER)Global Warming Mitigation Assessment Model(Dynamic New Earth 21+)62

The emission reduction costs in this study were estimated by an energy and global
warming mitigation measures DNE21+.
 Energy-related CO2 emission reduction costs can be estimated with consistency.
 Linear programming model (minimizing world energy system cost) Evaluation time period: 2000-2050
Representative time points: 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2040, 2050

World divided into 54 regions
Large area countries are further divided into 3-8 regions, and the world is divided into 77 regions.







Interregional trade: coal, crude oil, natural gas, electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, and CO2
Bottom-up modeling for technologies both in energy supply and demand sides (about 300
specific technologies are modeled.)
Primary energy: coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, wind, photovoltaics, biomass,
nuclear power, and ocean energy
End-use sector: bottom-up modeling for technologies in iron & steel, cement, paper & pulp,
chemical, aluminum, and car, and some technologies in residential & commercial sectors,
and top-down modelling for sectors without bottom-up modeling by using price elasticity
The detailed assessments by region and by sector are possible with consistency.

The assessments of DNE21+ model are referred in the IPCC AR5, and those have been referredalso for the decision processes for climate change mitigation policy in Japanese government.
[Reviewed articles (selected)]
K. Akimoto et al.; Estimates of GHG emission reduction potential by country, sector, and cost, Energy Policy, 38–7, (2010)
K. Akimoto et al.; Assessment of the emission reduction target of halving CO2 emissions by 2050: macro-factors analysis andmodel analysis under newly developed socio-economic scenarios, Energy Strategy Reviews, 2, 3–4, (2014)