A Dozen Frequently Asked Questions
from decision makers to modelers: Japan’s case
＊What happens without climate policy ?
＊How much reduction needed ultimately ?
＊How to set world reduction target ?
＊Options of country’s reduction target: long/mid- term
＊Should industrial structure change ?
＊How much reduction potential each sector has ?
＊How to change land use ?
＊ How much is the cost of reduction ?
＊What policy options exist to attain the goal ?
＊How much is the impact to country’s economy ?
＊Can we win in international technology competition ?
＊How Japan can contribute internationally?

Asian Modeling Meeting, 18 Sept, 2009 Tsukuba
Shuzo Nishioka
National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)Q1: What happens without climate policy ?
Projection of surface temperature from 1900
地球シミュレータによる２１００年までの気候変化予測ー地上温度

東大気候システム研究センター・国立環境研究所・地球環境フロンティア研究センター

Climate model: CCSR/NIES/FRSGC

Q2: How much reduction needed ultimately ?
Earth System Integrated Model:
climate +carbon cycle model

Stratosphere process
Chemical process
Aerozol
力学的植生モデル

Marine bio-chemical
process

Land area
C cycleLand energy
water cycle

Ice sheet

Ocean circulation

Kakushin (Innovation )Program (07-12)

Q2：How much reduction needed ultimately ?
[PgC/yr]

To stabilize climate, emission = absorption
but absorption capacity decreases
1000ppm stabilize
while temperature
No FB
More thanrises

4

6 degreesWith FB

Estimate

PgC/y
550ppm stabilize
3.2-4 degrees

No FB*present

Estimate
With Feed Back

Almostzero
emission
ultimately
neededSlow absorption
to deep see

0
1850

2000

2100

2250

Interim research findings of "Innovative" Earth System Model
JAMSTEC(2007)

Element models forJapan low carbon society project developed by Prof. Matsuoka (Kyoto Univ.)
Scenario,
Storyline

Transition Model

Snap shot model

Energy supply and demand balance
model (adjusting seasonal/daily energybalance of electricity, heat, andhydrogen supply and demandconsidering infrastructuredevelopment)
Energy technology bottom-up model (technology
selection of energy supply, conversion,
consumption using
econometric/engineering/management methods)

General equilibrium model (investigate feasibility,
economic impacts considering generalequilibrium of approx. 40 services including
energy at service and labor market with supportof other models)

Trajectory

Passenger/Freight Transportation
demand model (parameter estimate oftrip generation, modal share using
statistics on person trip, traffic flow,
freight flow and others. Service
demand estimation assuming
technology and behavior change)

Archive data set of Energy Balance, Environmental Burden, and
Cost

Archive data set of Socio-economic change

Infrastructure/building dynamic model (econometric/engineering bottom-up approach forresidential/nonresidential housing, construction and retirement of energy supply facilities)

Macro-economic model (econometric model for parameter estimate of supply-side potential
productivity change, IS balance and calculation of BAU scenario)

Population dynamic model (cohort model including birth/death, inter-regional/national migration)

Archive data set of Technology development and diffusion

Technology development schedule for energy use, production, and consumption (R&D plan,
expert judgment)

Socio-economic scenario, Intervention scenario

Household production/Lifestyle model(identify effects of consumer behavior
considering change of age/type ofhousehold/ environment-oriented
preferences on energy service demand,transportation trip demand byeconometric methods and estimate
impacts of intervention scenarios)

http://2050.nies.go.jp

GHG-475ppm

2100

2090

2080

2070

0

年
Year

BaU

650
550
500

50%
reduction
2060

0.0

5

2050

GHG: Greenhouse gases

2040

1.0

10

2030

GHG475ppm

15

2020

475

BaU

2010

2.0

20

2000

650
550
500

3.0

Global GHG emissions

1990

BaU

Temperature raise(global average)

温室効果ガス排出量(二酸化炭素換算：GtC/年)
GHG
emissions(Gt-Ceq)

4.0

25

1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2070
2080
2090
2100
2110
2120
2130
2140
2150

Temperature raise(1990年=0.6℃)(above the気温上昇
pre-industrial
level)

5.0

年
Year

GHG-500ppm

GHG-550ppm

GHG-650ppm

Q3:How to set world reduction target ?
•to avoid temperature rise of 2℃ from pre-industrial era,
50% GHG reductions in 2050 is required

Calculated by AIM/Impact [policy] Model: NIES
http://2050.nies.go.jp

Q4：Japan’s reduction target ?: long- term
1800

2050 60－80% reduction needed
1600

Target
2 -2.6 ℃
Climate sensitivity 1.5-3.0
Burden sharing
-C&C

1400

Mt-CO2eq

1200

1000

800

18％～44％
reduction

60％～80％reduction

600

400

From 2000 70％ cut

200

0
1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Q4：Japan’s reduction target ?: mid- term
Japan GHG
emission
Million T CO2eq

1990
1261

2005
(actual)
1359

Kyoto target
Excl. Credit &METI Long term forcast
Forest(max. effort case)1238

1200 （-4%： from 1990
1148 (-8%: from 1990, -15% from 2005)
1087 （-14%） Later?

Accelerate?
946
IPCC A-I-25～-40%
From 1990

990 （-21%）

882 （-30%）
757 （-40%）
Lin
ea
r

pa
th

to
wa
rd

2020
Mid-term Target
1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

Fukuda Vision
2050: - 60～-80％
from now
540
Fu
ku
da
Vi
si

2040

270
on

2050

Q4：Japan’s reduction target ?: mid- term
Evaluation of Options

Cost

Base :1990

1
±0％

－5％

3

METI Long-term prediction
Annex I almost（Flow countermeasure）
less（-7％）than 25%

5referencex10

4 monthdelay

Flow ＋Stockcountermeasures・compalsult(-15%)$300

Technicallyfeasible with
policy

0
4

0.8%

20

x25

1.0%

Cost of Inactio
２～３％
Stern Review

6

0.3%

Annex I －25％
Wide gap
Equal Cost/GDP(-8%～-17%)
between models

Cost for Kyoto Target（ IPCC) ３$３１

－20％

x4

▲

Industrial
All Annex I －25％
Structural（25％）
change needed

Recent Govnt Target（ x
）

$200

4

－25％

Less than Kyoto$100target
0.2%

－10％

－15％

Annex I －25％・
Equal Mac(+1%～-5%)

▲

▲

0.05%

$40
$50
Stabilization（+4％） ・US/EU level
by MAC$60

Investment for Low Carbon
Revolution (Economic
stimulation Pro.). ％ of GDP

Tar
getl

2

Not enough for
Keep continuous effort

METI Long-term prediction

▲

▲

Kyo
to

② per
ＧＤＰ

Economic impact（NIES）NetGDP

▲

＋5％

①Mac

Photo Voltaic
generation（base:2005）x55

7 month
delay

6year
delay
9

300

250

0

<Sectors>

Agriculture
Forestry
Fishing
Coal mining
Crude oil & NG mining
Other mining
Food products & beverages
TextilesPulp, paper & paper products
Publishing & printing
Chemical materials
Chemical products
Petroleum products
Coal products
Non-metallic mineral
Pig iron & crude steel
Other steel products
Non-ferrous metal
Fabricated metal products
MachineryElec.machine, equip. & supplies
Transport equipment
Precision instruments
Other manufacturing
Construction
Thermal power plant
Non-thermal power plant
Town gas
Water supply
Wholesale & retail trade
Finance & insurance
Real estate
Railway transport
Road transport
Water transport
Air transport
Other transport
Communications
Public service activities
Other service activities

Tri. yen at 2000 priceQ5: Should industrial structure change ?

3502000 2050 A 2050 B

Industrial Structure Change in 2050, Japan
calculated by Inter-sector and Macro Economic Model

200

150

100

50

http://2050.nies.go.jp

Q6: How much reduction
potential
each300sector
has ?
0
100
200
400
70％ CO2 reduction
feasible(Mtoe)

2000

Industry

Passenger Freighttransport transport

HouseholdBusiness

Smart consumer
choices can reduceenergy consumption
by as much as
40-45%!

Equal effort bydemand &supply side

2050
Scenario A

Reduced energy demand

2050
Scenario B

40-45％ reduction

Industry

Household2000

Low carbon shift inprimary energy
sources via
introduction ofrenewable energies

100
Coal

Passenger
transport

Business

200

300

Oil

400

Freighttransport

500

600

(Mtoe)

Gas
Hydro

2050
Scenario A

Use of centralized energy

Nuclear

2050
Scenario B

Solar/
WindUse
of distributed energy
一次エネルギー供給

Biomass

Coal

Oil

Gas

Biomass

Nuclear

Hydro

Solar/Wind

Q7: How to change land use ?
Passenger transport sector can achieve 80% reduction in energy demand via
improved energy efficiency & suitable land use
Change in passenger transport volume

Energy Demand (Mtoe)

Decline intransport
volumeEnergy efficiency
improvement

Change in passenger transport methods
Change in passenger transport due toincreased urban density ('compact cities')

Land use・
Reduction intransport volume

Improved energy efficiency
Grid electricity
HydrogenSolar energy generation
Biomass
Natural gas
Petroleum oil

2000(Actual figure)2050(scenario A)

2050(scenario B)

Energy demand in 2000

Change in passenger transport volume: reduction in total movements due to population decline
Change in passenger transport methods: modal shift using public transport system (LRT etc.)
Change in passenger transport due to increased urban density ('compact cities'): reduced travel distance due to proximity
of destination
Improved energy efficiency: improvements in automobiles & other passenger transport devices (hybrids, lightweight
designs etc.)

ガソリン->Gasoline ICEV

0
合成ディーゼル->Diesel ICEHEV

原油
ガソリンＨＶ

ガソリン車

ﾊﾞｲｵﾏｽ

天然ガス
副生水素

石炭火力->圧縮水素->FCEV

燃料電池車（水素）

平均電源構成->圧縮水素->FCEV

平均電源構成->圧縮水素->FCHEV

圧縮水素->FCEV

液体水素->FCEVHy. Aug

液体水素->FCHEV

最小

電気自動車

圧縮水素->FCHEV

バイオマス発電->圧縮水素->FCHEV
バイオマス発電->圧縮水素->FCEV※ＨＶ：ハイブリッド車の省略形※電力：日本の平均電源構成※燃料電池車：回生エネルギーを二次電池で回収※水素：圧縮水素を仮定
原油
天然ガス
石炭
バイオマス
電力
石炭火力->圧縮水素->FCHEVLNG火力->圧縮水素->FCEV

LNG火力->圧縮水素->FCHEV

石油火力->圧縮水素->FCEV

燃料電池車（水素）

石油火力->圧縮水素->FCHEV

50

バイオマス発電->BEV

平均電源構成->BEV

石炭火力->BEVLNG火力->BEV

石油火力->BEV

燃料電池車（水素）液体水素->FCEV

液体水素->FCHEV

圧縮水素->FCEV

圧縮水素->FCHEV

メタノール->FP. MeOH FCEV

max

メタノール->FP. MeOH FCHEV

100

合成ディーゼル->Diesel ICEV

400

合成ディーゼル->Diesel ICEHEV

250

燃料電池車(ﾒﾀﾉｰﾙ)

圧縮水素->FCEV

圧縮水素->FCHEV

メタノール->FP. MeOH FCEV

メタノール->FP. MeOH FCHEV

合成ディーゼル->Diesel ICEHEV

合成ディーゼル->Diesel ICEV

燃料電池車（水素）液体水素->FCEV

液体水素->FCHEV

圧縮水素->FCEV

圧縮水素->FCHEV

メタノール->FP. MeOH FCEV

メタノール->FP. MeOH FCHEV

600

合成ディーゼル->Diesel ICEV

液体水素->FCEV

液体水素->FCHEV

ディーゼルＨＶ

圧縮水素->FCEV

圧縮水素->FCHEV

500

ガソリン->FP. Gas. FCEV

200

ガソリン->FP. Gas. FCHEV

ディーゼル車100

ガソリン->Gasoline ICEHEV

200

軽油->Diesel ICEHEV300

軽油->Diesel ICEV

Well to Wheel CO2排出原単位[g-CO2/km]
Well to Wheel CO2排出原単位[g-CO2/km]

Technical solution
Car CO2 Emission/km: EV: Gasoline= 1:4
min

最大Gasoline

Diesel

150

FC
EV

0

電力

副生水素
脱温暖化2050研究
交通チーム 工藤

Q7:How to change land use ?
Land-use planning and transportation：
Reduction strategy depend on local specification
1人あたりCO2 [t/年]
2.00

Passenger

1.50

Local cities

2000年

大都市圏都市部

0.00
0

2000

4000

地方都市

Mega cities

0.50

大都市圏郊外2050年

地方郊外・郡部

1.00

Rural

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
人口累積 [万人] population

1人あたりCO2 [t/年]2.00

Per Capita Transportation
CO2 Emission

Cargo Freight
1.50

2000年

大都市圏都市部

地方都市

0.50

大都市圏郊外2050年

地方郊外・郡部

1.00

0.00
0

2000

4000

6000
8000
人口累積 [万人]

10000

12000

14000

Energy Efficiency is the key, but not enough
Step 1SocialchangeCO2
GDP
Emission＝ Pop× Pop ×
CO2
0.3

Popは
0.8

GDP/Cap
2.7

Service DemandSame as 2000

2050 Japan LCS Scenario

Step 2ServicedemandStep 3：
EnergydemandStep 4：CO2emission

ServiceDemandEnergyEnergy

CO2

GDP

×

Service Industry
Shift 0.45

ServiceDemandEnergyefficiency
0.6【Demand side】
Saving energy devices,
hi-insulated housing,renewable energy,
Compact city 70%
40％ reduction

×EnergyLow
Carbonize
0.5【Supply side】
Nuclear,Renewables,CCS
with Coal
30％ reduction

AIM/Enduse[Japan]

Q8: How much is the cost of reduction ?
Marginal abatement costs (Yen/ktCO2)

Marginal Abatement Cost to Reduce GHG emissions in 2020
50,000 [Trans] From normal-size vehicles to small-size and light vehicles[Trans] freight car (change of ownership from private to commercial)[Trans] Energy efficiency improvement of vehicles

40,000[Trans] Energy efficiency improvement of ships, rails and air[Residential] Energy efficiency improvement of air conditioners[Residential] Energy efficiency improvement of Electric appliances[Residential] Energy efficiency improvement of lights[Commercial] Energy efficiency improvement of air conditioners[Commercial] Energy efficiency improvement of motors

30,000[Commercial] Energy efficiency improvement of lights[Industry] Measures in the pulp and paper sector[Agriculture] Energy efficiency improvement andsaving in use[Industry] Energy efficiency improvement of motor[Industry] Measures in the
Petrochemical industry[Transport] Bionergy[Transport] Measures toreduce service demands

20,00010,000[Agriculture] Process improvement ofdomestic animal excrement, reduction ofmanure[Residential] Insulation (house & bath)-10,000[Commercial] Heat Pump type hot water supply[Residential] Heat Pump type hot water supply[Trans] Conversion to electric vehicles[Residential] Latent heat：Industry
recovery in hot water supply[Industry] PV[Industry] conversion to：Residential
natural gas[Residential] PV-20,000-30,000：Commercial[Industry] Measures in the steel sector[Industry] Energy efficient improvementof private power generation[Wastes] Measures in the waste sector-40,000：Transportation：Agriculture[Industry] High efficient furnace：Wastes[Transport] Hybrid vehicles[Commercial] Latent heat recovery in hot water supply[F-gases]Measures in F-gases

0

30,00060,00090,000120,000

150,000

180,000

210,000

240,000

270,000：F-Gas300,000

Mitigation Potential（ktCO2）
Note: MCII, Payback time is 3 years except 10 years in Insulation and PV. Mitigation potential is compared to the emissions in Frozen Case

16

AIM/Enduse[Japan]

Q9: How much is the cost of reduction ?
Feasible with Four sets of countermeasures to achieve the target of 2020
50,0003) Carbin pricing
Mechanism that reduction effort iseconomically rewarding-Introduction of emission trading-Green tax, Environmental tax (international
competitivenss should be consideres)

40,000Marginal Abatement Costs (Yen/ktCO2）

30,000

Sets ofMeasures C

1) Enhancementof Top Runner
20,000Top energy efficiency in all sectors-Enhancement of regulation- Introduction o f bench mark regulation
10,000‐10,000

Sets ofMeasures B

Sets ofMeasures A‐20,000

Negative abatement costs.
Economically feasilbe‐30,000

Marginal abatement costs
are under certain level

High cost measures.
Requires appropriate
policy measures4) Mechanism to enhance technology
development and deployment
Strategic support for-Enhanced RPS, Feed-in Tariff-Green New Deal
- Enhanced standard of energy saving building2) Visualization of countermeasure activities
Information to encourage smart and rational choices- Labeling of GHG emissions- Mechanism to make the choices economically feasible (e.g.
combination with carbon offset).
- Real time display of electric consumption‐40,000

0

30,00060,00090,000120,000

150,000

180,000

210,000

240,000

270,000

GHG reduction（ktCO2eq）

17Q10: How much is the impact to country’s economy ?

GDP [2000年価格兆円]

Endurable loss in GDP growth:? GDP Growth from 2005+25% +24% +24% +17%（%/y）(+1.5%) (+1.4%) (+1.4%) (+1.1%)

・7%～15% reduction from1990 effect little to GDP
・ 25% reduction from 1990 cansecure 1.1%/y growth

2020

2005
０
(+4%)

GDP

Delay of achieving planned growth

Ⅰ
(-7%)

Ⅱ
(-15%)

対策Ⅲ
Ⅲ(-25%)

NIES

6years（-25%）
7 Month （-15%）
4Month （-7%）

2005

2020

18

Q11: Can we survive in international technology
competition ?
Acceleration of Technology Essential to Realize a Low Carbon Society
Carbon intensity（excluding CCS）
Energy intensity
Carbon intensity （CCS equivalent）

Past
Scenario A
Scenario B

1.25

0.65
2.36

1.70

UK
FranceGermany

0.0

0.78 0.53
1.41

2.79

0.85 0.61

1.72

1.62

2.38
1.0

2.0

0.68
1.26

0.45

3.0

4.0

Rate of improvement in carbon & energy intensity (%/year)

5.0

International Energy Intensity Competition

Energy/GDP [toe/thousand$]

0.5

U.S.
U.K.
FranceKorea

EU-15
Germany
Japan

0.4

0.3

Korea
U.S.

0.2
U.K.

0.1
Japan

?

0.0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year

Japan almost
caught up by
European countries

IEA Energy
statistics

100 < X <= 200 US$/t-CO2
50 < X <= 100 US$/t-CO2
20 < X <= 50 US$/t-CO2
0 < X <= 20 US$/t-CO2
X <= 0 US$/t-CO2

2,500
2,000
1,500



Effectiveness ofTechnology Transfer
reduction potential (2020)
utilizing best available
technology

Huge reduction
potential if Best
Available Technology
applied

1,000
500

XRW

XAF

XLM

BRZ

ARG

RUS

XE10

XE15

USA

CAN

NZL

AUS

XME

XSA

XSE

THA

KOR

IDN

IND

CHN

0
JPN

GHG Reduction potential (Mt-CO 2 eq)

Q12: How Japan can contribute internationally?

China, US, India, Western Europe and Russia are major 5 regions where
there are large reduction potentials, and it accounts for 63 % of total
reduction potentials in the world. Top 10 regions account for about 80 %of total reduction potentials.

Thank you for your attention!

Can you feel the blessings of climate?

Ministry of the Environment
Japan

Establishment of the Committee

Cabinet Office
The Council on the Global Warming Issue• Established in February 2008
• Discuss a variety of issues toward a low-carbon society• Chair: Mr. Hiroshi OKUDA (former TOYOTA president)

The Mid-term Target Committee• Established in October 2008
• Consider Japan’s mid-term target from a scientific viewpoint andoffer options• Chair: Mr. Toshihiko FUKUI (former governor of the Bank of Japan)

Ministry of the Environment
Japan

Process of the Consideration

Establishment of
Mid-term Target Committee
Scientific examinations and analysis ofoptions in the Committee
Concluded
on 14 April

Public Comments～16 May

The Japanese Government will choose the mid-termtarget from the options and announce it by June.

Ministry of the Environment
Japan

Prime Minister Aso’s Speech“ We are currently examining our mid-term target based on scientificanalysis, considering the environment, the economy, and energy in an
integrated manner, and I intend to announce the target by June. Thistarget should not be a declaration without backing; I intend for this tobe viable from an economic perspective and serve as a contribution to
global warming countermeasures for the entire planet.”

From the Special Address by Prime Minister Aso in Davos (January 31, 2009)

Ministry of the Environment
Japan

Japan’s policy on mid-term targets•

Set quantified national emissions reduction targets•

Ensure comparability based on mitigation potential analysis•

Evaluated with regard to domestic mitigation efforts•

Use of flexibility mechanisms as a supplementary measure•

Include land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) as part of
the national commitment

Ministry of the Environment
Japan

Techno-Economic Models Applied for Analysis•

International Comparability: MAC (marginal abatement cost) and Cost/GDP analysis
models by:– National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)– Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)•

Domestic Reduction: Bottom-up technology-based analysis models by:– National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)– Institute of Energy Economics Japan (IEEJ)•

Economic Evaluation: General Equilibrium / Macro-economic models by:– Japan Center for Economic Research (JCER)– National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)– Keio University

Ministry of the Environment
Japan

Elements of Options and Evaluation
1.

Level of targets–

GHG: Energetic-origin CO2 emissions ＋ Non-CO2 GHGs–

International Comparability: Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) & Cost /GDP

2.

Emission reduction scenarios to satisfy the level of targets–

Fuel shares of electricity generation–

Primary energy supply by fuel–Level of required measures (supply and demand side)–

Activity data

3.

Macro-frame fixed (Iron & Steel Production, Nuclear power, Traffic Volume, GDP growth)

4.

Economic and social influence with the level of targets(economic growth, employment, energy security etc.)

5.

Checked by–Compatibility with UNFCCC consideration ( Annex I: 25-40%reduction)–

The path to 2050 (Fukuda Vision of 60-80% reduction in 2050–

Cost of inaction

6.

In addition, following elements are to be considered later as final decision for negotiation–

carbon sink,–carbon credits

Evaluation of Options
Cost

Base :1990

1

Keep continuous effort

－5％

3

5

METI Long-term prediction
0.3%（Flow countermeasure） （-7％）$200

Annex I －25％
Equal Cost/GDP(-8%～-17%)

0
4

0.8%

x10

4 month
delay

20

x25

1.0%

Cost of Inaction
Stern Review

All Annex I －25％
（25％）

$300
Cost for Kyoto Target（ IPCC) ３$３１

Flow ＋Stockcountermeasures・compulsory(-15%)－20％

6

reference▲

Recent Govnt Target（ x
）

4

－25％

$100
0.2%

－10％

－15％

Annex I －25％・
Equal Mac(+1%～-5%)

▲

▲

x4

Investment for Low Carbon
Revolution (Economic
stimulation Pro.). ％ of GDP

Tar
getl

2

0.05%

▲

▲

Kyo
to

$40
$50
$60

METI Long-term prediction（+4％） ・US/EU level by MAC

±0％

② per
ＧＤＰ

Economic impact（NIES）NetGDP

▲

＋5％

①Mac

Photo Voltaic
generation（base:2005）x55

7 month
delay

6year
delay
30

Result•

Big gap remains between feasibility vs. global requirement•

Sufficient consideration done?
– Limitation of the modeling• Fixed industrial structure– Policy not fully integrated– Cost of inaction not fully considered•

Need more Indicators for comparative effort– Effectiveness: Equal MAC (Marginal Abatement Cost)– Capability: Equal cost /GDP– Responsibility: Equal Per capita, Past emission– EU: mix of four Index

Issues•Endurable economic impact to business, Industry and household?
– ～0.5 % GDP of additional cost
– Industrial structure change necessary– Energy security (cost of $200 Tri./y to domestic investment)•

Sufficient international contribution to stabilize climate?

•

Ambitious enough?
– To pull out innovations to Low Carbon Future– To encourage big emitter countries to participate– Green investment?

Economic Evaluation ofSix Options for Japan’s Mid-term Target (3)Impacts on Economy (as deviations from reference case in 2020)

Percent GDP
on acumulativebasis by 2020
1

Privateinvestment
in 2020

1.3%/y Growth

Unemployment
rate in 2020

Disposable income
per household in
2020

Lighting and heating
expenses perhousehold in 2020

Reference Case2
3

-0.6 ～-0.5%-0.8 ～+3.4%+0.2 ～+0.3%-150～-40 thousand
JPY(-3.1 ～-0.8%)+20～30 thousand JPY(+13 ～20%)-2.1 ～-0.8%-0.2 ～+7.9%+0.5 ～+0.8%-390～-90 thousand
JPY(-8.2 ～-1.9%)+60～80 thousand JPY(+35 ～45%)-6.0 ～-3.2%-11.9 ～
+12.5%+1.3 ～+1.9%-770～-220 thousand
JPY(-15.9 ～-4.5%)+110～140 thousand
JPY(+66 ～81%)

4

5

6

Financial stimulus packages such as “Green New Deal” are not included in the model analyses.
• Cost of inaction should be considered as well.

Endurable loss in GDP growth:?

GDP [2000年価格兆円]

GDP Growth from 2005
+25% +24% +24% +17%（%/y）(+1.5%) (+1.4%) (+1.4%) (+1.1%)

・7%～15% reduction from1990 effect little to GDP
・ 25% reduction form 1990 cansecure 1.1%/y growth

2020

2005
０
(+4%)

GDP

Delay of achieving planned growth

Ⅰ
(-7%)

Ⅱ
(-15%)

対策Ⅲ
Ⅲ(-25%)

NIES

6years（-25%）
7 Month （-15%）
4Month （-7%）

2005

2020

34

Additional impact to sectors’ gross production

2005‐2020年平均成長率[%/年]

4
3
2
1

Metal product

0
0
‐1
‐2

建設業 construction

金属製品
5

10

15

20

25
30
35
Share in total production

一次金属
鉱業

Raw Metal
Mining

石油・石炭製品

2000年シェア[%]Petroleum & Coal Product×：base case◆：15% reduction

Shares are relatively small in sectors affected by 15%reduction

Limitation of modeling work：
Flexibility of structure change and policy introduction are limited under fixed
Macro frame
Common assumption for modeling analysis
Net GDP Growthrate

2006～2020 average 1.3%/year

Population

World: UN Middle Estimation（2020:12,449million）
Japan: National Inst. for Population Middle Estimation(2020: 12,281Million）

Oil Price(Nominal)

56$/Bbl（2005）⇒121$/Bbl（2020）

Raw Iron
Production

113Million ton（2005）⇒120Million ton（2020）

Transportation
VolumePassenger level off from 2005 towards 2020
Cargo
10％increase in 2020 from 2005

Nuclear Power

437.4Bil.kWh (9 Nuclear newly build、LF: 80%)

International Comparability of
Six Options for Japan’s Mid-term Target (2)Comparability (Reduction in 2020)% above / below 1990
Allocation
approachAll
Annex I
Parties

Japan

U.S.

1

Equivalent inmarginal abatement
cost

-18 ～
-9%

+4%

2

Equivalent inmarginal abatement
cost

-25%

3

Equivalent inmarginal abatementcost% above / below 2005
EUAll
Annex I
Parties

Japan

U.S.

EU

-5 ～
+6%

-19～
-14%

-14 ～
-6%

-4%

-18～
-7%

-14 ～
-9%

-5 ～ +1%-24 ～ 19%-27 ～ 23%

-23 ～ 22%-12 ～ 6%-33 ～ 30%

-23 ～ 18%

-29 ～
-25%

-7%

-24～
-23%

-27 ～
-26%

-26 ～
-23%

-14%

-34 ～
-33%

-23 ～
-21%

4

Equivalent inabatement cost per
Total GDP

-25%

-17 ～
8%

-31 ～ 30%

-23 ～ 22%-23 ～ 13%-28 ～ 19%-27 ～ 25%

5Equivalent inmarginal abatement
cost

-39 ～
-29%

-15%

-39 ～
-29%

-33 ～
-29%

-36 ～
-27%

-22 ～
-21%

-47 ～
-38%

-28 ～
-25%

6

25% reduction

---

-25%

---

---

---

-30%

---

---

-

-18 ～
7%

-

Allocation under various criteria（2020 from 1990）
Japan

Existin reserach
Höhne, N., D. Phylipsen,
Moltmann, S., 2007:
Factors underpinning
future action 2007
update, For the
Department forEnvironment, Food andRural Affairs (DEFRA),UKAIM Analysis

US

ＥＵ25 Russia Annex I
China

India

Non Annex I

World

Multi-stage1)

-31%

-38%

-36%

-52%

-41%

62%

235%

89%

9%

C & C（response）2)

-31%

-18%

-34%

-48%

-32%

62%

168%

76%

10%

Common but Differential
responsibility（ＣＤＣ） 3)

-33%

-9%

-35%

-47%

-29%

48%

180%

72%

10%

Triptyk（Combined）4)

-29%

-8%

-31%

-45%

-26%

65%

103%

69%

10%

MAC
（Efficiency）5)，10)

-5%

-24%

-27%

-32%

-25%

-

-

-

-

Cost/GDP（capability6)，10)

-17%

-18%

-31%

-31%

-25%

-

-

-

-

Cost/GDP Converge(Efficiency）7)，10)

- 3%

-10%

-26%

-52%

-25%

114%

65%

74%

14%

C&C responsibility）8)，10)

-16%

-13%

-26%

-46%

-25%

72%

98%

74%

14%

Emission/GDP equal rate
reduction(efficiency）9)，10)

-30%

-19%

-33%

-21%

-25%

160%

81%

74%

14%

AIM and others

38International Negotiation
Non
AnnexI

ＩＰＣＣ

China
Will not participate
without Annex I Cos’
25～40% reduction

Require China’s
Meaningful
Participation

Japan

US
Annex I
Global CO2 Emission（2006）
Obligation～３０％

No obligation
～７０％

China
20%

US
20%

Stabilization of
Category I requires
2540% reduction for
Annex I Countries

Ambitious target necessary

Participation of China and US is essential
39•

Debate carrying on– Business as a whole: opportunity for domestic economic
stimulation– Industry: Iron and Steel, Electric Power: strongly support ＋4%
worrying for losing international competitiveness– Media: Nikkei/ Asahi: ambitious target for future innovation
Sankei: Strongly support ＋4%– Environmental NGOs: support deep reduction

Decision (domestic reduction ＋absorption ＋credit?) is now matter ofpolitical will
• Prime Minister announce in June
– Congress Election until September

Evaluation of Options
Cost

Base :1990

1

Keep continuous effort

－5％

3

5

METI Long-term prediction
0.3%（Flow countermeasure） （-7％）$200

Annex I －25％
Equal Cost/GDP(-8%～-17%)

0
4

0.8%

x10

4 month
delay

20

x25

1.0%

Cost of Inaction
Stern Review

All Annex I －25％
（25％）

$300
Cost for Kyoto Target（ IPCC) ３$３１

Flow ＋Stockcountermeasures・compulsory(-15%)－20％

6

reference▲

Recent Govnt Target（ x
）

4

－25％

$100
0.2%

－10％

－15％

Annex I －25％・
Equal Mac(+1%～-5%)

▲

▲

x4

Investment for Low Carbon
Revolution (Economic
stimulation Pro.). ％ of GDP

Tar
getl

2

0.05%

▲

▲

Kyo
to

$40
$50
$60

METI Long-term prediction（+4％） ・US/EU level by MAC

±0％

② per
ＧＤＰ

Economic impact（NIES）NetGDP

▲

＋5％

①Mac

Photo Voltaic
generation（base:2005）x55

7 month
delay

6year
delay
41

60

Change of totaltransportation amount

社会イノ
ベーション

40

7

Change of structure oftransportation

4

Improvement of energy
efficiency

15

Electricity consumption
H2 consumption

30

技術イノ
ベーション

Energy Consumption (Mtoe)

50

6

20

32

Solar consumption

24

Biomass consumption
Gas consumption

10

Oil consumption
0
2000

2050A

2050B

Energy consumption in
2000

削減要因：運輸旅客輸送量の減少
人口配置やモーダルシフトによる交通手段構成の変化
輸送機器のエネルギー効率向上と低炭素燃料使用

運輸旅客部門人口配置・自動車燃費向上、低炭素燃料使用により、70－80％の削減

Conclusion: 70% reduction feasible: Direct cost: 1% of GDP/Y
Combination of demand side energy
reduction ＋low carbon energy
50
2000

Seconday energy demands (Mtoe)

100

150

200

Industrial

250

300

350

400

Residential
Commercial
Trans. Prv.
Trans. Frg.

2050A

Final energy
demands

Decrease of Energy
Demand2050B
Industrial

Residential

Commercial

Trans. Prv.

Trans. Frg.

Primary Energy Consumption (Mtoe)02000(Actual)

Primaryenergysupply

100

200

Coal

Oil

500

600

Gas

Biomass
Solar and W ind

2050(Scenario B)
Oil

400

Nuclear

2050(Scenario A)

Coal

300

Gas

Biomass

Nuclear

Hydro

Solar and W ind

http://2050.nies.go.jp

Projected energy efficiency improvement:
Air-conditioners for cooling and heating
9.0
MOE
COP (Coefficient of performance)

8.0
Historical

AIST

7.0
6.0

Best
METI

2050s
Target

METI

5.0
4.0

Average

3.0
Worst
2.0
1.0
0.0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

Factor decomposition of CO2 emission reduction in 2050
E C CC  D  
D E C

C：CO
C：CO22 emissions
emissions
D：Activity
D：Activity
E：Energy
E：Energy demand
demandC：CO22 emissions
emissions (excluding(excluding energy
energyC’’：CO
conversion
conversion sector)
sector)C D ( E / D) (C  / E ) (C / C )




C
D
( E / D)
(C  / E )(C / C )
5%Industry A

-5%
-5%

-15%
-7%

-2%

-25%
-10%

-9%
-5%
-6%
B
0%-5% -2% -7%
Residential A-14%-1%-2% -7%-3% -14%B
2% -6%
Commerce A 0%-8%-11%
B 1% -4% -3% -4% -10%
Passenger Transport A-1% -8% -1%-2% -13%-1% -5%-7% -1% -15%
B
Freight transport A
0%-5% -1%
-1%
-7%
-1%
-2% -6% 0%B-9%Total A
-3%
-31%
-10%
-18%
B

-35%

-45%

-55%

-65%

-75%

-14%

-69%
-73%

-24%
-5% -26%
Carbon intensity (energy conversion side change, C/C')
Carbon intensity (demand side change, C'/E)
Energy intensity (E/D)
Driving force (D)

-6%

-28%
-31%

% is a value compared with year 2000’s total emission
http://2050.nies.go.jp

Global Carbon Cycle Management
When stabilized
Emission=Absorption – Feedback
Reduction: more than half to zero
Anthropogenic
Emission
7.2 / yex: 2.4-2.8℃ rise from PI

Dangerous Level 425～440ppm
2ppm/yHow to control
the tap
to avoid risk

Present

380ppmindustrialization
280ppmPre-Industrial
Feedback

CO2 in Atmosphere
Absorption
3.1 / yOcean 2.2
Land 0.9

2000: ＣＯ２ only: GtC

Japan: World Front Runner of Aged Society
What will Japan's population be in 2020?

Demographic

2000

Demographic

2050

80-84
70-74
60-64
50-54
40-44
30-34
20-24
10-14
0-4

80-84
70-74
60-64
50-54
40-44
30-34
20-24
10-14
0-4
-4,0000

4,000

A MaleB MaleA Female
B Female-4,000 0

4,000
×1,000 people

Cooperation with developing
countries is the key issue

Current and estimated future total global CO2 emissions(significant worldwide reduction is essential)

CO2 emissions (carbon conversion 1 billion tons)

the U.S.

Others
31.8%

22.1%

4.3%

(26.5 billion t-CO2)

India

4.8%
6.0% 12.8%
Japan
RussiaEstimated future CO2 emissions
20

2004
globalCO2 emissions
7.2 billion t-C

25

15

18.1%
China

EU 15 countries

Made by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan based on
Energy & Economics Statistics in Japan (2007 version)Developing
countries
開発途上国

10
5

⇒
Developed countries

*2050
先進国
50%
reduction target

020002010202020302040205020602070208020902100
year
Sources: Kainuma et al., 2002:
Climate Policy Assessment, Springer, p.64.

Kyoto Protocol framework for period subsequent to first commitment period (2013 onwards)
・ An effective framework capable of promoting maximum efforts to reduce emissions by nonsignatory U.S. and exempt developing major emitter nations such as India and China is needed.

図6 70%削減実現に向けての技術対策の追加費用算定の考え方
低炭素技術

既存技術

固定費用 維持管理費
エネルギー消費量 寿命

固定費用 維持管理費
エネルギー消費量 寿命
CO2排出係数エネルギー価格
年利

技術の年価

CO2排出量

CO2排出量技術の年価

低炭素技術による削減量（tC)
追加費用（円）
炭素削減費用（円/tC)
技術の年価: M (1   ) LM P  OM  EN
(1   ) L  1
P: 技術の固定費用（円）OM: 技術の維持管理費（円/年）
EN: 技術のエネルギー費用（円/年）
Α: 年利（4%）
L: 技術の寿命（年）