地球温暖化リスクへの基本戦略
Principles of a Response Strategy to the Climate Risk
山地憲治 Kenji YAMAJI(公財)地球環境産業技術研究機構(RITE)理事・研究所長
Director-General, RITE

平成28年度 ALPS国際シンポジウム
2016 ALPS Symposium
February 7, 2017
＠TORANOMON Hills Forum、Tokyo1

Recent Development of Climate Policy in Japan
Long-term Energy Supply and Demand Outlook (July 2015, METI)
Submission of INDC for COP21 (GHG reduction target in 2030)

5th Science and Technology Basic Plan (Jan. 2016)

Paris Agreement(Dec. 2015)

NESTI 2050
(National Energy and Environment Strategy forTechnological Innovation towards 2050 (April 2016)

Proceedings ofPower/GasSystem Reform

Plan for Global Warming Countermeasures(May 2016)
2

Status of Paris Agreement
Dec. 2015: Adoption of Paris Agreement at COP21
Nov. 4, 2016: Paris Agreement made effective
Nov. 7, 2016: COP22 started in Marrakech
Nov. 8, 2016: D. Trump elected for next President of USA
2018: IPCC special report on 1.5 degree C Scenario
2018: CMA1 will be concluded
2020: Framework of Paris Agreement starts;
Submission of long term low carbon strategy

Climate Goals in Paris Agreement♦ Regarding the long term targets, the Paris Agreement contains: “To4hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit thetemperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.”♦ To achieve the targets, Parties aim to reach global peaking ofgreenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, so as to achieve abalance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals
by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century♦ Under the Paris Agreement, almost all nations tackle greenhouse gas(GHG) emission reductions for the post-2020 terms with legallybinding processes. (Reduction targets are not legally bound)♦ All of the member nations are required to submit their emission
targets as the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which are to
be internationally and comparatively reviewed and evaluated from theviewpoint of meeting long-term targets constituting a form of “globalstocktaking.”

Emissions reduction ratio from base year of NDCs
for Japan and other major countries
Emissions reduction ratio from base year
From 1990

From 2005

From 2013

Japan：in 2030, -26% from2013 levels-18.0%-25.4%-26.0%US： in 2025, about -26 to-28% from 2005 levels-14 to -16%

-26 to -28%

-18 to -21%

EU28： in 2030, -40% from1990 levels-40%-35%-24%

Russia： in 2030, -25% to30% from 1990 levels-25 to -30%

+10 to +18%

ー

China： in 2030, CO2
intensity of -60% to -65%
from 2005 levels+379 to +329%+129 to +105%

ー

If we take 2013 as the base year, the Japan’s emission reduction target is more ambitious in theemissions reduction ratio than the US’s or the EU’s.

5

GHG intensity of GDP (MER)

6Note) The lower range of emission targets are shown for the countries submitting their INDCs with ranges.
6Even from the GHG intensity, the Japan’s NDC sets a more demanding target than theUS or the EU.

GHG Emission Pathways in IPCC WG3 AR5 Scenarios
7+2℃（>66%）≒450 ppm CO2eq+2℃（>50%）≒500 ppm CO2eq(temperature in 2100, with equilibrium
climate sensitivity of 2.0 - 4.5C (3.0C)
likely range (“best estimate” or “mostlikely value”)
source）IPCC WG3 AR5CO2 emissions are negative, GHG emissions arearound zero in 2100 for 450 ppm CO2eq (430-480) 500 ppm CO2eq (480-520) scenarios.
Even for 550 ppm CO2eq (520-580) scenarios, CO2emissions are nearly zero in 2100.

7地球温暖化リスクの構造：Structure of the Climate Risk
・地球温暖化懐疑論：Skepticism on Climate Change
科学（e.g. 太陽活動論）から政治（e.g.トランプ政権)まで：from science (e.g. solar activity) to political arena (e.g. Trump Administration)
・2℃目標(地球温暖化の損害)：2 Degree C Goal/Target(Damage of Climate Change)
・気候安定化への排出経路：Pathways of Emission Reduction to Climate Stability
e.g.気候感度の影響：e.g. effects of climate sensitivity
・排出削減コスト：Cost of GHG Emissions Reduction
e.g. イノベーションの効果：e.g. effects of innovations
・国際枠組みの有効性と安定性：Functions and Stability of International Framework
e.g.炭素漏洩と囚人のジレンマ：e.g. carbon leakage and prisoners’ dilemma
・リスクの選択：Risk Trade-Off
e.g.持続可能な発展における温暖化リスク：e.g. climate risk in 17 SDGs
・気候正義：Climate Justice8

Social Cost of Carbon (SCC): 米国政府(USG)(discount rate)(year)

USG（2013）による世界のSCC推計値（2007年$価格、$/tCO2）

温暖化影響被害費用（SCC）の推計には大きな幅がある。

--

DICE、PAGE、FUNDの３つのモデルを利用
経済成長、気候感度、割引 率について複数のシナリオを想定して計算（150,000シナリオを推計）
EPAの既設火力発電規制の費
用便益評価では、3%の割引率ケースが標準で利用されている。（ただし2011年価格に換算したものを利用）出典）Interagency working group on social cost of carbon

9History of climate sensitivity judgment by IPCC and thesensitivity employed in the scenario assessments of the IPCC
WG3 AR5

10Equilibrium climate sensitivity
Likely range (“best estimate” or “mostlikely value”)

Before IPCC WG1 AR4

1.5−4.5°C (2.5°C)

IPCC WG1 AR4

2.0−4.5°C (3.0°C)

Global mean temperature estimations for the long-term
scenarios in the IPCC WG3 AR4 (employing MAGICC)No estimates with probability(3.0°C)IPCC WG1 AR5

1.5−4.5°C (no consensus)

Global mean temperature estimations for the long-term
scenarios in the IPCC WG3 AR5 (employing MAGICC)

2.0ｰ4.5°C（3.0°C）[Based on the AR4][The related descriptions of the SPM of WG1 AR5]

Likely in the range 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (high confidence)
Extremely unlikely less than 1 °C (high confidence)
Very unlikely greater than 6 °C (medium confidence)
No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines ofevidence and studies.

♦ The equilibrium climate sensitivity, which corresponds to global mean temperature increase in equilibrium

when GHG concentration doubles, is still greatly uncertain.
♦ AR5 WG1 judged the likely range of climate sensitivity to be 1.5−4.5 °C, in which the bottom range waschanged to a smaller number than that in the AR4, based not only on CIMP5 (AOGCM) results but also otherstudy results.
♦ However, AR5 WG3 adopted the climate sensitivity of AR4, which has the likely range of 2.0−4.5 °C with thebest estimate of 3.0 °C, for temperature rise estimates of long-term emission scenarios.

Relationship between climate sensitivity and global
emission pathways for 2°C target, and outlook on INDCs

Deeper emission
reductions should berealized throughtechnology
innovations although
they are uncertain.

Larger emission reductions
should be realized throughpeer-reviews in the PDCA cycle.

8070

GHG emissions (GtCO2-eq./yr)

1160+2 °C with around
50% probability

50AR5530-580 ppm(+7− -47%)

4030
Actual emissions

20AR5480-530 ppm(-25− -57%)

Emissions under current policies and measures
INDCs submitted by March 31 assumed to be implemented + China's pledge

AR5 430-480 ppm(-41− -72%)

Below +2.0 ºC through 2100 under climate sensitivity of 2.5 ºC; temporary overshoot of 580 ppm

10The probability
achieving below+2°C increases.
On the other hand,measures withunrealisticallyhigh costs have tobe adopted.

Below +2.0 ºC in 2100 under climate sensitivity of 3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of +2.0 ºC and 530 ppm
Below +2.0 ºC through 2100 under climate sensitivity of 3.0 ºC; below 500 ppm through 210001990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Estimated by RITE

There are large gaps between the expected global emission under current INDCs
and the emission pathway to 2°C target under climate sensitivity of 3.0°C.
However, the INDCs are consistent with 2°C target if climate sensitivity is 2.5°C.

The framework of theprocesses to induce future
emission reductions are
more important than thelevels of INDCs decided inCOP21.

Marginal abatement costs estimations across models(RITE DNE21+, FEEM WITCH and NIES AIM)
Only energy-related CO2emission reductions in 2030

250
200
The average between 2025 and 2030 for GHG emission recutions
150
100

USG Social Cost ofCarbon (SCC): 53$/tCO2
for 2025-30

50

Japan

U.S.

EU

China

India

WITCH

DNE21+WITCH

DNE21+WITCH

DNE21+WITCH

DNE21+WITCH

DNE21+

AIM/Enduse

0
DNE21+

CO2 marginal abatement cost (US$2005/tCO2)

300

12Marginal abatement
costs if the aggregated
NDCs are achieved mostcost- efficiently:
16$/tCO2 by WITCH,
6$/tCO2 by DNE21+

Korea/S.Africa/Australia

Source: B. Pizer, J. Aldy, R. Kopp, K. Akimoto, F. Sano, M. Tavoni, COP21 side-event; MILES project report for Japan- The marginal abatement costs vary across models for some countries, but can be comparable for many
countries/regions.
- The CO2 marginal abatement costs of the NDCs of OECD countries are much higher than the marginal cost forthe case that the total reductions are achieved most cost-efficiently (globally uniform marginal abatement cost).

製品に体化されたCO2排出量の国際移動：Transfer of Embodied CO2Source: IPCC WG3 AR5, Figure TS.5

高所得国 (HIC)

消費ベース排出Consumption based(more than $12,616)
生産ベース排出Territory based

高中位所得国 (UMC)($4,086 to $12,615)(中国、ブラジル、イラン、マレーシア、南アなど）製品に体化されたCO2排出移転(逆転すれば炭素漏洩):Transfer of Embodied CO2(inverse
flow of carbon leakage)

低中位所得国(LMC)($1,036 to $4,085)(インド、インドネシア、フィリピン、エジプトなど)

低所得国(LIC)(less than $1,035)

13

International comparison of CO2 marginal
abatement costs (RITE DNE21+ model)
Switzerland
JapanEU28
CanadaKorea
New ZealandUnitedUnitedStatesStates(2025)
NorwayEastastEurope(Non-EUcountries)…
Europe(Non-EUThailand
33
Australia
27
Mexico14
Kazakhstan
12
Belarus4
Russia1South Af rica0
Turkey0India
0
Ukraine
0
China
050

14380378

bigger

210
166
144
95
85
705854

smaller
100

150

200

250

300

350400CO2 marginal abatement cost ($/tCO2)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

Large differences in marginal abatement costs are estimated across countries. The large differences raise
concern about inducing the carbon leakage and the ineffectiveness of global emission reductions.

15

地球温暖化リスクへの基本戦略
Principles of Responses to the Climate Risk
・多様な選択肢：Diversified Response Options
排出削減、気候変動適応からジオエンジニアリングまで：mitigation/adaptation + geoengineering(緊急事態への備え)→イノベーションの創出と国際展開：global deployment of innovations・システム全体を俯瞰する視点：Holistic Systems View
ライフサイクル評価、グローバルな貢献：assessment of global life cycle effects of countermeasures
・総合的アプローチ：Integrated Approach
SDGsの複数のゴールの同時達成：co-benefits in achieving SDGs
・客観的な科学データの共有：Shared Scientific Data Base
→世界共通リスクの認識：shared understanding of global risks
・多様な価値観の容認：Acceptance of Diversified Value Systems→国際フレームワークの維持：maintain international framework
16多様な対策を活用できるクリーンなエネルギー媒体(電気、水素等)の重要性
Key Role of Clean and Efficient Energy Carrier (Electricity, H2 etc.)
ゼロエミッション電源:
電化とスマート化による大規模省エネ
Revolutionary Energy Saving throughElectrification and Digitalization of Energy

クリーンで効率的な利用ができる
エネルギー媒体（電気・水素等）
Clean and Efficient Energy Carrier(Electricity, Hydrogen etc.)

再生可能エネルギー,原子力, 化石燃料＋CCS
Carbon Free Power Source:
Renewables, Nuclear,
Fossil Fuel with CCS

ゼロエミッション燃料(バイオマス等）
Carbon Free Fuel:
Biomass, etc.

ゼロエミッション熱源：
Global Net Zero Emission には更なる工夫が必要:
BECCS(Bioenergy+CCS)、CO2吸収増大(植林等）など

太陽熱、地(中)熱、未利用熱等
Carbon Free Heat Source:
Solar Heat, Geothermal, etc.
17Value of Technology Option: Case of CCS
Almost impossible to keep 450ppmCO2eq without CCS; a few models, which get afeasible solution, estimate the mitigation cost is to be more than doubled.

BECCS「450ppmCO2 by 2100 is infeasible in most models without CCS」
（WG3 SPM 19 of 31）「Fossil fuel power generation without CCS is almost extinguished by 2100」（WG3 SPM 21 of 31）
Source: IPCC WG3 AR518

3つのキ－ワード Three Key Words

山地憲治 by Kenji YAMAJI

Decoupling: Economy ＝×Energy ＝×CO2

・社会全体としてのエネルギー効率向上（Digitalized Energy, Society 5.0, ・・・）
・低炭素エネルギーへのシフト(Low Carbon Power/Fuel/Heat、・・・)
・エネルギーシステムの柔軟性向上（Energy Storage (battery, etc.)、・・・）

Smart Integration: Energy + ICT, Supply + Demand・スマートネットワークによる需要側資源の活用（Demand Response、VPP、・・・）・人間の行動変化や社会インフラ整備による省エネ(Behavior Change by IT, etc.)
・サプライチェーン全体のマネジメント(Digital Integration of Supply Chain, etc.)

Globalization: Innovation + Contribution

・イノベーション（Open Innovation from Seeds to Implementation, Capacity Building)
・JCMなどを通した地球温暖化対策への国際貢献（Global Contribution through JCM）
・国際標準＋国際認証 with 知財戦略(Strategic Standardization, etc.)20

ご清聴ありがとうございました
Thanks for your attention

公益財団法人 地球環境産業技術研究機構(RITE)
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth21