Sustainable low-carbon Asia
- backcasting methodology canidentify possible leap-frogs tosustainable development
Mikiko Kainuma (NIES/Japan), Junichi Fujino (NIES),Kejun Jiang (ERI, China) and P.R. Shukla(IIM, India)
COP14 Side Event on December 8, 2008
Aesculapian snake,Poznań International Fair Ltd.

Sustainable Low Carbon Development
Aim

Drivers

Interventions
TechnologicalInnovations

Social/Institutional
Management

Low
CarbonSociety

Co-benefits

Sustainability

Aligning Markets
Win/Win Options
Shared Costs/Risks
Long-term Vision
Avoid Lock-ins
Modify Preferences

Back-casting

TargetsNational
Socio-economicObjectives
and Targets

GlobalClimate Change
Objectives
and Targets

Required improvement rate of carbon andenergy intensity to achieve low carbon society
by 2050
Energy intensity
Historical trend(1960-2000)
Japan Scenario A
Japan Scenario B

Carbon intensity (w/o CCS)

1.25

0.65
2.36

0.78

1.70

U.K.

0.85

1.72

Germany

1.62

2.38
0.0

1.0

0.53

1.41
2.79

FranceCarbon intensity (CCS)

2.0

0.61
0.68

1.26

0.45

3.0

4.0

5.0

Improvement rate of carbon and energy intensity (%/yr)
Chinese Energy efficiency improvement:
4.3%/year as of target by 2010, 1.6%/year in 2006, 3.7% in 2007

Five domestic factors and the global tradeenvironment that decide the realization ofAsian low carbon societies(1) Energy production, consumption facilities, equipment, andtechnology: Energy supply facilities, energy-saving technology, and theirproduction system(2) Infrastructure: Traffic infrastructure and system for LCS(3) Human capital: Human resource for developing, managing, andmaintaining low carbon societies. Proxy index by number of technocrats,engineers and people's potential to accept related innovation.
(4) Institution: Creation and existence of efficient market systems for energy
and technology. Decentralized governance and privatization of relatedorganization, international and domestic funding system, carbon-emission
tax, emissions trading, etc.
(5) Social capital on reliability, custom, and norm: Social environmental
efficiency of individual level, community level and commercial markets.
Energy efficient lifestyle and low material type lifestyle.

July 7-9 2008, Hokkaido, Japan

Japanese Former PM outlines green 'Fukuda vision‘ on 9th June2008 pledged to cut of 60-80 per cent of greenhouse gas
emissions based on current levels by 2050 in Japan.
NIES, JapanUtilizing solar power

Visions andInnovations
Eco-life education

Photovoltaic

10-20% energy(25-47% house has PV on roof (now 1%))demand reduction
34-69MWand develop high efficiency (<30%) PV

LCS house in 2050
Comfortable andenergy-saving houserooftopgardeningHigh efficiency
lighting

Solar heating【eg LED lighting】

Diffusion rate: 20-60%

Reduce 1/2
energy demand
Share 100%

（currently 8%）

Monitoring system

High-insulationequipped with appliances

Reduce 60% warming
energy demand,share 100%Super highefficiency airconditioner
COP (coefficients ofperformance=8),
share 100%

Stand-by energy
reduction
Reduce 1/3 energy
demand,share 100%

Fuel cellHeat-pump heating

Good information foreconomy and environment
makes people’s behavior
low-carbon

share 0-20%

COP＝5share 30-70%

High efficiency appliances
reduce energy demand andsupport comfortable and safe lifestyle 5NIES, Japan

GHG 70% reduction in 2050 Scenario A: Vivid Techno-driven Society
Demand side energy -40% ＋ Low carbonization of primary energy＋ＣＣＳ
with moderate cost of technological options as 0.3% of GDP in the year of 2050
Change of activity

10139038
9728Industry

216124

Residential &commercial

6174177Transportation

36

Energy supply

36CCS

2050 CO2 Emission

Improvement ofenergy intensityof end‐use
Improvement of Improvement ofcarbon intensity carbon intensityof energy supplyof end‐use

Energy demand sector
Energy supply sector

70% reduction

2000 CO2 Emission

1990 CO2 Emission

Reductionof demand

Changeof activity

・High economic growth, Increase of service demand perhousehold, Increase of office floor (increase)・Servicizing of industry, Decline in number of households,
Increase of public transportation (decrease)

Reduction ofservice demand
Improvement ofenergy intensity
Improvement ofcarbon intensity

・Farm products produced and consumed in season

Reduction ofservice demand

・Insulation
・Energy use management (HEMS/BEMS)
・Efficient heat pump air‐conditioner, Efficient water heater,
Efficient lighting equipment
・Development and widespread use of fuel cell・All‐electric house
・Photovoltaic

Improvement ofenergy intensity
Improvement ofcarbon intensity

Reduction ofservice demand
Improvement ofenergy intensity
Improvement ofcarbon intensity

Improvement ofcarbon intensity
Carbon Capture
Storage・Fuel switch from coal and oil to natural gas

・Advanced land use / Aggregation of urban function
・Modal shift to public transportation service
・Widespread use of motor‐driven vehicle such as
electric vehicle and fuel‐cell electric vehicle
・High efficiency freight vehicle
・Improvement of energy efficiency (train/ship/airplane)
・Fuel mix change to low carbon energy sources such as
natural gas, nuclear energy, and renewable energy
・Effective use of night power / Electricity storage
・Hydrogen (derived from renewable energy) supply
・Power generation without CO2 emission
NIES, Japan・Hydrogen production without CO2 emission

We support country-wise LCS modelingthrough SD for Asia-Pacific and the world- We have continued AIM Training Workshops since 1997 Japan
Low Carbon
Society 2050

200
8AIM T
Oct20-3
raining
1, 2Wo008
at T rksho
psukuba
India

China

Thailand Korea Malaysia Indonesia Brazil

RussiaSouth Taiwan,Africa China

USAJapan

http://2050.nies.go.jp

Current per capita
CO2 emissions
and Target

6$200/t-C scenario

US5

US: delay for tech development,
global warming business

Canada4UK

3

EU: Initiatives toward LCS
Japan: Need long-term vision

Germany

2FranceM ETI, Japan
Developing countries: earlier
2030 scenario guidance toward LCS is key
Japan 2050
scenario

W orldChina

2050

2020

2010

2000

1990

1980

2040

IB1

India

0

Target for
Low Carbon Society

IA22030

11970

CO2 per capita emissions (t-C/cap)

7

Shuzo Nishioka, Junichi Fujino;
NIES COP11 and COP/MOP1 side event
Global Challenges Toward
Low-Carbon Economy (LCE), Dec.3, 2005

LCS-Research Network
Linkages and interactions between research activities and policy
processes for science-based policy making towards LCS

LCS-RNet

Policy-makers
Researchers
Other stakeholders
Information exchange and research cooperation amongst research
institutions of any CRS related fields,
Dialogues with policy-makers, businesses, citizens and others toshare possible visions on future LCS,
Contribution to international political processes on climate change
including the G8 process by providing research outcomes andrecommendations.

G8 Japan Initiatives

Low Carbon Society(LCS)/Economy(LCE) in China: what’s the meaning?

• There is no specified emission target or level for aLCS/LCE.
• LCS/LCE 1: one is low carbon emission based on global
long-term emission target.
• LCS/LCE 2: each economy could make full effort toreduce GHG emission with consideration on local
resource availability.

13

LCS/LCE in China: what’s the meaning?
• changing economy structure, by controlling energy intensive
products export, redirecting investment to non-energy intensive
sector, pricing;• make full effort to reach high energy efficiency in industry by2030 in the world;• develop widely renewable energy; develop unclear powergeneration;• widely public awareness raising;• enhancing sink;• Reduce other GHGs(N2O, HFC, PFC, SF6)

14

Mt-C

CO2 Emission from Energy Activities in China,IPAC Results
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Domestic
Willing
Low carbon techand change ofconsumption
Demonstrated by
DevelopedCountries 70% to80% emission
reduction?

2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
YearBaseline
Low Energy Policy
LCS

Global 50% Proposal

15

CO2 Emission Comparison
0.9
0.8

kgCO2/kWh

0.7
0.6
0.5
BaU

0.4

Policy0.3
0.2
0.102005

201020202030

20402050nganjiningi
Sh
an
dong
G
uangxiNingxia

ShanxTi

ChongqhaingsuSh
angJiaGuang
dot-CO2

CO2 emission per capita, t-CO2

20

15

10

50Provinces

17

Tire 1 indicators for LCS/LCE
Classification

Indicators

NoteEmission
indicators

GHG emissions

Setting up emission
targetIntensity
indicators

GHG emission per GDP

With similar target
as energy intensity
target in China ’ s

GHG emission per capita 11th Five PlanFinancial
indicators

Share of investment on Government input
together with otherLCE
Total investment on LCE investment

Sector indicators GHG Emission of sectors
GHGemission
perGHG Emission per output
Behavior
indicators

Involvement from publicGovernment effort

18

Tire 2 indicators for LCS/LCE
Classification

Indicators

Note

Transport
indicators

Share of public transport
Non‐mobility friendly transport

HouseholdLow carbon life style: Low carbon Share of family
register as Low
campaign
carbon life style
Share of renewable energy

Building

Share of energy saving building
Share of buildings with solar
Share of high efficiency lighting

Share of road with
nice bicycle lane,pedestrian
side

Low
carbon Share of renewable energy intechnologies
total energy
Share of renewable energy inpower generation
Share of advanced technologies
in major industry
Other technologies
Industry Sector

Emission/energy
useperEmission/energy use per output
Technology penetration rate
Rate of recycle
Investmentonenergyefficiency/emission reduction

19

Energy intensity target
Intensity, tce/10000yuan

Reduction

2005

2010

%

Guangdong

0.79

0.66

16

Jiangsu

0.92

0.74

20

Shanghai

0.88

0.7

20

Chongqing

1.42

1.14

20

Tianjin

1.11

0.89

20

Shanxi

2.952.2125

Shandong

1.28

122

Guangxi

1.22

1.04

15

Ningxia

4.14

3.31

2020

Energy and Carbon: India Base Case
Assumptions
From 2005-2050:
Annual Economic Growth: 7.2%
Annual Population Growth: 0.9%

3,000

M toe

2,500
2,000

Other Renewables
NuclearHydroGas
Oil
Coal
Commercial Biomass
Non Com Biomass

8,000

Energy

6,000

1,500
1,000
500
0
2005

Carbon Emissions

7,000

Million Ton CO2

3,500

Increase in 2050 over 2005
Economy 23 times
Population 1.56 times

5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,0002010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

02000 20052010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Results: Energy and Carbon Intensity
Annual Improvement From 2005-2050:
Energy Intensity: 3.14 (%)
Carbon Intensity: 3.07 (%)
Decarbonization of Energy: -0.07 (%)
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

Direct Investment in Energy Projects:
2010-30: US$ 1.2 Trillion
2030-50: US$ 2.3 Trillion

Alternate Development Visions
Stabilization Target and Visions
1. Global Stabilization Target Assumption:• 550 ppmv CO2e Concentration• 3.4 W/m2
• @ 3o C temperature increase (50:50)

2. Two Development Pathways for India:(with same total CO2 emissions from 2005 to 2050)

1. Conventional Vision: Climate Actions at Margin ofConventional Development path
2. ‘Sustainability’ Vision: Aligning Climate Actions withMainstream Development Actions

What path shall best deliver national development
goals while fulfilling Climate Commitments?
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

Alternate Development Visions
Conventional

Sustainable

1. Top-down/Supply-side actions

1. Bottom-up/Demand-side technology pull

2. High Carbon Price as main instrument

2. Behavioural change

3. Climate Focused Technology Push

3. Diverse Technology portfolio

7,000Others

Device Efficiency

Million Ton CO26,000Renewable Energy

5,000Electricity (Fuel Switch)

4,000
CCS

3,000
2,000
1,00002000

Carbon Tax$/tCO22010

2020

2030

2040

2050

7224067

100

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

Social Cost of Carbon
CO2 Price120

Price CO2 (US $/tCO2)

100

80

Conventional
Society

60

40
Sustainable Society
20
Base Case
02010

2020

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

2030

2040

2050

Co-benefits of Alternate Choices
Co-benefits: SO2 Emissions
14
Base Case
12

Conventional Path +High Carbon PriceMillion tSO2

1086

Sustainable Development + Low Carbon Tax

4202000

2010

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

2020

2030

2040

2050

How this matters to post-2012 negotiations?
• Mainstream Climate Actions with Development Priorities¾Low Carbon Future at ‘Lower’ Social Cost of Carbon¾Focus on Co-benefits (from Zero-sum to Positive-sum)¾

New framework to assess investments• Combination of Direct and Indirect Policies¾

Combination of Market and Regulations (e.g. Carbon Price, Funds)¾

Investments in wider range of development choices¾

Investments that avoid long-term carbon emissions ‘lock-ins’¾

More areas for technology cooperation¾Measures to alter behavior (e.g. 3R)¾

Varied Targets (e.g. Energy Intensity, CAFE Standards)¾

Safety Valves

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, India

Thank you