Climate Change: Main Conclusions
from the IPCC Forth Assessment ReportYour Imperial Highness the Crown Prince of Japan, may I also pay tribute to His Excellency thePrime Minister of Japan Mr. Fukuda, your honorable Chairman of the GEA Mr. Saito, former
Prime Minister and former Chairman of GEA Mr. Kaifu, Director-General Mr. Oki,
Excellencies, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a great privilege for me to be
invited on this extremely important occasion and to be given the privilege of addressing you on
an issue, as His Imperial Highness and the Prime Minister have already reminded us, is going to
be an extremely important issue for humanity and all living beings on this planet.
I am very grateful Your Imperial Highness for the reference that you have made to the award of
the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC. May I, on behalf of the entire scientific community, and theexperts who have contributed to the work of the IPCC, express my gratitude. May I also say that
almost as soon as this award was announced, I received a letter from His Excellency the Prime
Minister of Japan offering his congratulations, and that shows not only the importance that theGovernment of Japan attaches to this extremely critical area of challenge, but also the fact thatthe leadership of this country has a heart and a graciousness that all of us admire. I, comingfrom Asia from India, greatly respect these cultural attributes and thank you very much.
May I at the outset, mention that the GEA is a unique organization. It has the ability to bring
together diverse leaders from all shades of public opinion and across the political spectrum, andI think that is what is needed to tackle this major challenge of climate change. We have to bringall shades of public opinion and all stakeholders together because this cannot be a problem thatis solved by any isolated action. On behalf of the IPCC may I also say that the Japanesescientific society and the scientific community have contributed enormously to the work of the
IPCC, and several institutions in particular have been major contributors; the National
Meteorological Institute and the National Institute of Environmental Studies, of which I happen
to be a member of the Board, and I must pay tribute to its Chairman Hamanaka-sensei who ishere. In fact, may I say my own institute is privileged to have Dr. Hironaka on the governing
council, so we have had a long Japanese connection, and enlightened advice and leadership at
the top most level in my institute which I may say is one of the largest institutes in the world
dealing with energy and the environment.
I am also a great admirer of the actions that Japanese society and the Government have been
taking in there "cool-biz" initiative. One of the major findings that we have in the three Working

Group Reports of the IPCC, and particularly Working Group III, is the importance of lifestylechanges. This problem cannot be treated as one which requires a technological fix only. There
has to be a change in human behavior and I think in this regard, I must say that Japan is setting
an outstanding example.
Let me mention that the IPCC has brought out three Working Group Reports as part of the
Fourth Assessment Report. The fourth report which will be the synthesis report, is due to bereleased next month in Valencia, Spain. And that, may I mention distinguished ladies andgentlemen, is going to be a 30 page report which I hope everybody will be able to read, because
it will be the synthesis of all the knowledge contained in the three Working Group Reportsbrought together in a manner that makes it highly policy-relevant. And I expect this particular
report will have a major input in the deliberations and discussions that take place in Bali in
December of this year. In fact, at our request, the Framework Convention on Climate Change
Secretariat postponed the Bali meeting by four weeks so that the delegates and the negotiators
have enough time to read and absorb the material that is provided in the synthesis report.
I am going to run through what I will be covering in my presentation. Firstly, I will try toestablish what we have found in the Working Group I Report, that climate change isunequivocal and therefore the scientific debate on the human influence on climate change in myview is now over, and we now therefore have to see what is to be done to change humanactivities and human behavior to solve the problem. I will also present before you some
expected trends and impacts, and key vulnerabilities in Asia. Asia being a rapidly growing
continent with the largest share of the human population located over here, clearly
vulnerabilities in Asia are going to be of importance not only to those regions, but Japan as aleader of Asia, has to be concerned about them. I will also establish that mitigation is needed
urgently, and I will mention some key technologies and measures by which we can bring abouta change in the right direction, and I will quickly mention some success stories in Japan which
could be spread and replicated in other parts of the world.
Let me first give you a paleo-climatic perspective which will tell you what human activities in
the last 150 years or so have done within a much larger historical context. And here let memention that the last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an
extended period, and this incidentally was 125,000 years ago. The reductions in polar ice
volume led to four to six meters of sea level rise. I am not trying to say that that will happen thistime also, but I think we as enlightened citizens of this planet must understand that what we aredoing today, when it took place 125,000 years ago, really caused enormous havoc. It completely

altered the geography of the earth. And the warmth of the last half century is unusual, in at least
the previous 1,300 years.
If we look at the picture of global temperatures, what we find is something that should cause us
concern. This is a plot of temperatures going back to the middle of the 19th century and you
would observe that in recent years, this rate has accelerated. As a matter of fact, what isextremely significant is the fact that 11 of the warmest years in instrumented history have takenplace in the last 12 years. And you can see from the slope of the curve, it is becoming steeper
and in the last decade or so, it has been the steepest of the entire period. So we are accelerating
the rate of climate change on this planet.
If we look at what has happened in the past, global average temperature has increased in themanner that is shown over here. Global average sea level rise has also increased and theNorthern hemisphere has lost snow cover. Just to mention some figures, in the 20th century, theaverage warming of the earth was 0.74 degrees Centigrade and sea level rise was about 17 cm,
and you can see the Northern hemisphere snow cover has declined quite appreciably.
Nearing the 20th century, glaciers and icecaps have experienced wide-spread mass losses. And
this is the way that loss actually looks in different parts of the world. Europe and the Andes
have had relatively stable masses, but of course in recent years there is a perceptible decline that
we have noticed. In the case of other regions of the world, there has been a very sharp reductionin the cumulative balance of the glacier mass. And coming from my part of the world, theHimalayan Mountains are particularly sensitive to temperate increase and therefore there has
been a very rapid reduction in ice cover in the Himalayan range. We have projected that this canhave major implications for water supply in the river systems in the northern part of the Indian
sub-continent such that something like 500 million people would be affected as a result in South
Asia and 250 million people in China. So that is a large section of humanity that is going to beaffected in terms of reduced flow of river water in that region. And new data confirmed thatlosses from the ice sheets have contributed to sea level rise over the period of 1993-2003.
If we look at the observed impacts of climate change, let me mention that in the high latitudes,
precipitation levels, that means rainfall and snowfall, have actually been increasing, but in thelower latitudes and in the Mediterranean region they have actually been declining. What isworrisome in particular, is the fact that extreme precipitation events have been increasing andare likely to continue to increase. That means that we will get large quantities of rainfall in shortperiods of time. And I know from my own country in Mumbai, recently we had a massivedownpour of water within a period of 48 hours and two years ago there was a much worse
situation when within a period of 24 hours we had a major cloud burst and most of the city was
underwater. All the traffic came to a complete halt. As a matter of fact most people were stuckin their cars, in their buses, in their transport vehicles overnight. And may I mention what wasvery tragic was the fact that several people actually suffocated to death because today's
automobiles don't give you the option of rolling down the windows and the water pressure wasso high, that particularly people who were weak, let's say women, who did not have the strength
to open the doors were not able to get out. So I want to highlight the fact that extreme
precipitation events can lead to a major loss of life and property, not to speak of the impact that
it is likely to have in terms of floods and drought. We would have more intense and longer
droughts, and this is already happening. Widespread change in extreme temperatures, thatmeans heat waves are likely to become more frequent and more intense. As a matter of fact, you
might recall in 2003 there was a major heat wave in Europe, as a result of which something like
30,000 to 35,000 people died, and most of them were in the area of Paris and its suburbs. We
will also have increasing intense cyclone activity, so overall these extreme events are likely toincrease and therefore we have to be prepared, and we have to be able to adapt to some of thesechanges.
Now if you look at global atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, these have increased
very sharply in recent years and those of you who have watched the film “an Inconvenient Truth”
might recall sharply in recent years and those of you who have watched the film "An
Inconvenient Truth" might recall that former Vice President Al Gore, when he is showing theshape of the scale, actually does it on a very wide screen and gets on top of a mechanical device
that rises to the top of this scale, only to dramatize the fact that recent increase has been very
sharp indeed. And in 2005 the concentration of CO2 exceeded by far the natural range that has
existed over 650,000 years. So I trust from this, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, you would
accept the fact that what we have done in a very short period of time, really is dramatic in termsof what has happened over a long, long period of time in human and planetary history.
Let me look at projections for the future. If you see the scenarios that we have accessed, we
have come up with two sets of best estimates. At the lower end of the scenarios, the best
estimate we get is an increase of 1.8 degrees Centigrade by the end of this century and at theupper end of the scenarios the best estimate that we have come up with is 4 degrees Centigrade.
Now the reason that we have this variation is because it is very difficult to predict how theeconomy of the earth is going change, how technologies will change, how human behavior willchange and I would like to clarify that these scenarios do not take into account any policies atmitigation, that I hope will be put in place rather quickly, particularly as we come to the end of
the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. The effects on poor regions are somethingthat obviously must concern all of us because there are some regions that are going to be far
more vulnerable than others and have in fact been far more vulnerable. And may I say that theNobel Prize Committee has clearly shown that there is a direct link between climate change andthe maintenance of peace on this planet, because you can imagine that if malnutrition grows,
then clearly that is going to affect the stability of societies, and therefore that would have a
harmful impact on peace in different parts of the world. In some countries, yields from grain-fed
agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020 and increased water stress will be imposedon 75 to 250 million people by 2020 in Africa. Food and security, and loss of livelihood would
be further exacerbated by loss of cultivated land and nursery areas for fisheries by inundationand costly erosion in low lying areas of tropical Asia. So as far as one can see, food availability
and therefore nutrition are likely to be major casualties as a result of climate change.
There would also be serious impacts on natural ecosystems. Climate change will reduce
biodiversity and perturb the functioning of most ecosystems. And it will compromise theservices they currently provide. I would like to mention that the poorest people in the world
derive a number of services from the ecosystems because they do not have access to goods andservices that are manufactured, that are produced and marketed, let's say in the developed world.
And if these ecosystems are affected adversely, this clearly affects the livelihood of the poorest
people in the world. We have assessed that 20-30% of plant and animal species are at risk ofextinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Centigrade. Thatis a very serious threat to all living species and some ecosystems of course are more vulnerable
than others, and this includes coral reefs, tundra, forests, mountain and of course theMediterranean regions.
Coastal settlements are most at risk. Several mega-deltas in Asia are particularly vulnerable andthis includes cities like Dhaka, Calcutta, Shanghai and others, and you can see in this picture,
the large red dots include those areas which are going to be at the highest risk, and the yellow
dots indicate those at high risk, and black ones are those that would be faced with medium risk.
So really speaking, there are several locations around the world that would be affected by therisk of coastal flooding, but certainly the mega-deltas in Asia which have very high population
density and are very, very vulnerable to sea level rise and coastal flooding are clearly the ones
that we have worry about.
Impacts in Japan, enhanced extreme and annual precipitation will take place, an increase inannual temperature. There is a danger of decrease in rice yields up to 40% in irrigated lowland
areas by the 2050s and 4.1 million people are at risk of coastal lowland located below highwater level in large cities, Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, particularly if sea level rises above one meter.
And there could be a disappearance of 90% of the suitable habitat for the dominant forest
species that is the Beech tree, by the end of this century.
Poor communities are of course at the highest risk and these are really vulnerable to climatechange. This is also because they have very limited adaptive capacity. They do not have theinfrastructure, they do not have the institution strengths and they do not often have the skills tobe able to take care of the impacts of climate change.
In the case of coastal areas as I mentioned, flooding the residences of millions of people could
take place in South, Southeast and East Asia. And significant losses of coastal ecosystems could
affect agriculture industries, particularly in heavy populated mega-deltas.
Human health is also at risk. There would be endemic morbidity and mortality due to diarrhea
diseases in East, South and Southeast Asia, primarily associated with floods and droughts. I cantell you, in South Asia for instance, every time there is flood, policy makers and government
officials go through a nightmare in making sure that diarrhea diseases do not break out on alarge scale. Because after floods take place, there is a huge increase in diarrhea disease and thebiggest challenge is not only to rehabilitate and take care of the lives and homes of people, but
to ensure that they do not succumb to illness of various kinds, particularly diarrhea.

Andexacerbation of abundance or toxicity of cholera is also likely to take place with increases incoastal water temperature.
Water resources are likely to be effected. Glacier melt as I mentioned, will increase flooding, it
will increase rock avalanches and would affect water resources within the next two to three
decades. The salinity of groundwater especially along the coast will take place due to increases
in sea level and over exploitation.

One of the things that we have highlighted in our report isthe fact that the small island states have already small length of fresh water in the center, butthat length is going to shrink because with sea level rise, the incursion of seawater will takeplace much further onshore and the small island states do not have a very large area. With theincursion of that water and with the intrusion of that water from the sea, that little length thatyou have of clean and drinkable water will be lost completely. So a number of these islandstates will have to set up desalination facilities if they want to survive and they need drinking
water. Now that certainly increases the demand for energy, and several of them really have nochoice but to use diesel and petroleum products for their electricity production and other energy
uses.
There would be a decrease of fresh water availability in Central, Southeast and South Asia
affecting more than a billion people by 2050. Now this again, may I highlight, shows the link
between climate change, and peace and stability, and I trust the Nobel Prize Committee hastaken some of these factors into account.

We already have several areas of the world where

there is intense competition for water resources. If these become scarcer, then the danger ofconflict obviously will increase substantially. Agriculture and food supply are also quite
vulnerable. There are decreases in crop yields up to 30% in Central and South Asia by 2050 thathave been projected. I can tell you based on evidence that we have in India that the wheat cropis already suffering as a result of climate change. And typically what happens is even with atemperature increase of 1.5 degrees, during a particular point of the growing cycle there is a
sharp decline in the productivity of wheat.

So it is really a question of temperature increase

taking place at the particular point of time during the growth cycle to which wheat is extremely
sensitive and therefore we can expect that productivity will go down.
Let me just take a minute to highlight the fact that the world is already facing some problems infood supply. In the last seven years, surpluses of food grain stocks have actually been going
down and this is a result of increased population, higher income, a shift to consumption ofgreater animal protein, and when you produce more animal protein either as poultry products oras meat, you need much more food grain. And all of that food grain gets diverted to the
production of meat protein and therefore obviously there is going to be a reduction in theavailability of food grains in the future.
There are also uncertainties as to how climate change will impact food supply and demandbecause in the temperate regions there would be an increase in output as a result of higher
carbon dioxide and temperature increases, but in the sub-tropical and tropical regions, there
would be a decline. And this is where you have the largest concentration of population on theearth.
I would also like to highlight the fact that there are over 50 nations in the world who cannot
produce their own food for their own consumption. They are dependent on imports and some ofthese include the poorest countries in the world, and with food prices going up these countries
will find it very difficult to import their requirements of food. So overall, food security issomething that could be affected by climate change, and the risk of hunger is projected toremain very high in the developing countries.
Now all of this means that mitigation is required rather urgently. We cannot allow this runaway
climate change to continue the way it has been projected. We, as responsible citizens have tofind a way by which we limit the temperature increase, and that can only happen if we limit theincrease and the concentration of impacts because I would also like to mention that the impactsof climate change will continue for a long time to come, even if we are able to stabilize theconcentration of these gasses today. It will continue for decades, if not centuries. Particularly
sea level rises because of the slow warming of the ocean, will take a long, long time perhaps up
to a millennium. And therefore, the world has no choice but to adapt to climate change which is
the result of past emissions of greenhouse gasses. However, adaptation alone cannot cope withall the project impacts of climate change. And the costs of adaptation and impacts will increaseas the global temperature increases. So, there is a need for a mix of strategies, including
adaptation and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Now I would like to bring to your attention, Article II of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change.

And this is a key provision of the Framework Convention, which says thatthe ultimate objective of this convention and any related legal instruments, is essentially thestabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at the level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Now the world has not been able to decide what is dangerous. This of course is a value
judgment, I think people have to decide what represents dangerous. If you look at it from thepoint of view from the poorest small island state, they would give you a very clear view that thedanger threshold has already been reached.

If you talk to perhaps someone in Siberia, theywould imagine the danger is far away, they would probably feel that they would benefit fromclimate change and perhaps in the short term they would, but over a period of time, there ishardly any place on this earth that would benefit from climate change. So I think one criticalchallenge for the negotiating committee and the community of global nations is to define what
represents dangerous. And once we are able to do that, we have to come to a decision that wewill not allow the concentration of greenhouse gases to go beyond that particular, dangerous
level. Now science can only assist in providing knowledge, providing information on the basisof which this question can be answered, but it has to be answered on the basis of value
judgments. And may I therefore appeal to this distinguished audience, and particularly thepeople of Japan, a society which has always been rooted deep in ethics, that this is an ethicalissue and we cannot escape our responsibility in defining what would be ethically correct.

Now there is certain inertia in the climate system and as I mentioned, even if we fix theconcentration of these gasses, further warming would occur in the next two decades of about 0.1
degrees Centigrade per decade. And of course there is inertia in the entire infrastructure and theinvestments that essentially would keep us locked into greater use of energy for quite some time
to come and therefore high emission levels, and therefore we will have to change some of theseinvestments and particularly new investments that are being made will have to target much
lower emission levels. The choices about the scale and timing of emissions and its mitigation
would involve balancing costs of emissions reductions against the risks of delay. Because on the
one hand there are costs of mitigation and on the other are the huge costs of inaction. Because if
we do not take action, then the impacts and the costs can be terrible over a period of time.
Let me give you some numbers. This is a table that we have come up with in the Working
Group III Report.

What you see at the top most row, is a stabilization of 445-490ppm. This

will be able to limit temperature increase to 2 to 2.4 degrees Centigrade. But if we were toachieve this, then we will have to ensure that CO2 emissions can peak in 2015, but after thatthey will have to decline very rapidly. And if you look at what the decline should be in the year
2050, it is somewhere between -50 to -85%. So here I would like to commend the leadership ofJapan which has made a very definite statement about reducing emissions to half their level by
2050 and trust that all of human society will accept a goal of this nature, if not something evenbetter. But it is critically important to remember that if we want to stabilize at this level, and I
for one am not recommending that, it is for the negotiating community to decide where theywant to stabilize but if we want to stabilize at this level, then all we have is another seven years.
And beyond those seven years, emissions will have to decline as rapidly as possible. We also
know that mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a major impact onopportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels over a period of time.
Now we are often told that the cost of mitigation is going to cripple the economy of several
countries and that jobs will be lost, but we have so much evidence to show just the contrary. I
was living in the United States when the first oil price shock took place and also during theperiod of the second oil price shock, and Japan took a leadership position at that point of timeand reduced its dependency on energy imports, and cut down its energy intensity substantially.
But at that period there were not jobs that were lost, the economy certainly did not falter. If you
look at the recent example of Germany which has made a major push toward renewable energyuse, there has been no loss of jobs, there has been no decline in economic output. In fact, newjobs are being created. Now what we have found is that if we were to go back to the figure that Igave earlier, and here I would like to draw your attention to the last row in this table. If we want
to stabilize at 445ppm of CO2 equivalent, what would be the cost by 2030? Less than 3% of the
global GDP which is really a very small price to pay, and you can look at it in terms of thisamounts to only 0.12% of the GDP on an annual basis which is not a high cost at all. And if you
want to look at it in the next slide, this is the way, let's assume the steady growth, this is the way
it would look without mitigation. But if you introduce stringent mitigation, you get this blue line
which means that if the world is going to reach a certain level of prosperity by 2030, throughmitigation at best, you would be postponing that level of prosperity by eight or nine months,
which is not a high price to pay at all. And if in the meantime, we can develop new technologies,
we can develop new methods, then this cost will turn out to be even less than 3% of the GDP.
So while I have given you a lot of bad news in terms of the impacts of climate change, let me
give you this good news. It is well within the capacity of human society and the technologicalcapabilities that we have to be able to implement these mitigation measures. And this is a veryclear choice for us when it comes to designing policies and implementing them.
What are the key mitigation technologies that we have? Well on the energy supply side, energy
efficiency is extremely critical. Fuel switching, moving to new fuels that are low in carbon
intensity, using renewable energy, combined heat and power, nuclear power is an option, early
applications of CO2 capture and storage.
The transport sector is extremely important. We need more fuel efficient vehicles and I have theprivilege of being on the international advisory board of Toyota Motor Company which has
been a leader in energy efficiency and I hope that company will set an example and become
even more efficient in providing far more energy efficient vehicles in the future. Hybrid
vehicles, biofuels, motor shift from road transport to rail and public transport systems, and I
would say again, this requires a behavioral change using bicycles as much as possible. If you go
to the Netherlands, everyone uses a bicycle and the trains over there are well equipped to takeyour bicycle along with you. You can travel from one place to the other on your bicycle, get on
the train, the train takes you elsewhere, you get off and use your bicycle again. Now that is thekind of behavioral change that we need in different parts of the world. And land use planningwill also help.
What you see over here is a picture of a building my own institute has which uses no powerfrom the grid.

It uses efficient lighting, it uses all kinds of efficient appliances and the designof the building itself is such that it cuts down energy demand to about one third of what you
would have in a conventional building. And all of that is met through renewable sources ofenergy such as a biomass gasifier, and then we have used something called an earth-air tunnel.
If you go four meters below the surface of the earth, the temperature is uniform throughout theyear. So what we have are four tunnels through which we blow air and that gives you cooling inthe summer, and heating in the winter. So I think we have to harness traditional knowledge, use
science and technology to make the best use of these opportunities and there is no reason why
we cannot design more efficient buildings in the future. But there is an urgency to do thisquickly because once you construct a building, you are locked into a pattern of energy use thatcannot be changed very rapidly.
And the range of stabilization levels of GHGs can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio oftechnologies that are currently available. So we do not have to wait for any miracles. These
technologies are available, they are being used in Japan, some of them are being used inGermany, in France and in several countries around the world. And of course those that I expect
to be commercialized in the coming decades will be extremely valuable.
Now let me just mention some key technologies and measures. We need appropriate incentives
for the development of technologies. What is absolutely critical is an effective price on carbon.
This is something that we have put forward very clearly in the Working Group III Report.
Unless there is a price on carbon, even if you invent the best and the most energy efficienttechnologies, they are not going to be disseminated.

Producers and consumers will react toprices that they get in the market. If a low carbon technology costs less and a high carbon
technology costs more, obviously consumers will demand the low carbon technology.

So aprice on carbon is absolutely critical. And energy infrastructure investments have to be madewith some degree of vision because a power plant for instance, will last for 30 or 40 years, andthat technology cannot be changed once you have made that investment. Therefore we need tolook beyond and make enlightened investments taking that into account. And as I mentioned,
changes in lifestyle and behavior are critical.
Now Japan has much to offer to the rest of the world. Your solar roofs program you launched in
1994, a whole range of options were provided, low interest loans, rebates for grid connected
residential systems, education and awareness programs, and may I submit that this is where
Japan can have a major impact on the rest of the world, starting with other countries in Asia.
And the total capacity has increased more than 42% annually between 1994 and 2002, leading
to a 75% cost reduction per watt.
But we also need much more research and development on these technologies. Unfortunately in1985, when oil prices crashed, research and development expenditure was also cut down aroundthe world.

Otherwise we might have had much better renewable energy technologies with us

today. And today as you know, oil prices have touched US$90 a barrel so there is reason for us
to direct expenditure on research and development to produce some of these technologies, and if
there was a carbon price that is suitable then the private sector would also invest in developmentof these technologies.
Annual PV module production has grown substantially in Japan and is now the world's leading
manufacturer, producing over half the present annual production. So this is a message, this is amethodology that has to be exported to other countries in the world. The "cool-biz" dress codeas I mentioned earlier is again, and this is particularly for our distinguished participants fromoverseas, is extremely valuable and shows a behavioral change in bringing about mitigation ofgreenhouse gasses. Summer business styles promoted to encourage business people to wear cooland comfortable clothes. I am sorry I am not wearing the right clothes, perhaps I should not be
wearing a tie at this time, but certainly this is catching on in Japan. And CO2 emissions I
believe have been reduced by a substantial amount in 2005. Japan has outstanding green cover,
67% of the land is covered with semi-natural and planted forests. Planted forests account for
more than 60% of carbon sequestration, and sequestration potentially estimated at a fairly large
scale of 35-70 million tons of CO2 per year. Forest management of course is necessary tomaintain carbon sequestration and to curb saturation. And this again is an area where Japan can
provide its expertise to other countries in the world.
Comprehensive assessment systems for building environmental efficiency as a labeling tool
which has been used for environmental performance of buildings in 2005 onwards. There are
four assessment tools: predesigned, new construction, existing buildings and renovation.
Because we have to take care of all of these, new buildings as well as existing buildings, andtherefore that is a great deal that Japan can provide by way of experience and know-how in thisarea. There were 20 buildings certified as of September 2007 I was told and some local
governments require new building owners to report the results of their buildings. There are over
1,400 reports submitted as of March 2007, this is the information I was able to get.
Now, finally let me end by giving a quote from Mahatma Ghandi and I end all my talks withsome wisdom that Ghandi saw several decades ago. He was clearly a leader well ahead of histime and he said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." So therefore, if Japan and all of
us want to see a change in the world, then we have to be the initiators of that change, we have tobe that change. Thank you very much.