6 February 2017

IPCC Symposium 2017 in Tokyo“Measures for tackling Global Warming -IPCC Activities and Perspectives in AR6Cycle-” Summary
An IPCC Symposium titled “Measures for tackling Global Warming -IPCC Activities
and Perspectives in AR6 Cycle-”, organized by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(METI, Japan) and co-organized by Research Institute of Innovative Technology for theEarth (RITE) was held in Tokyo, Japan on 26 January 2017. After a video letter fromIPCC WGIII Co-Chair Dr. Jim Skea, IPCC WGIII Co-Chair Dr. Priyadarshi R. Shukladelivered a keynote lecture on current IPCC activities and perspectives in the Sixth
Assessment (AR6) cycle. Two lectures were presented by Dr. Yoichi Kaya, Chairman,Japanese Liaison Committee for IPCC, and Mr. Taishi Sugiyama, Central ResearchInstitute of Electric Power Industry, on the future role of IPCC and innovation,respectively. The latter half of the symposium was devoted to a panel discussion, where
the above speakers and experts from academia and industry actively discussed their
expectations for and issues regarding IPCC, as well as means to counter globalwarming.
http://www.rite.or.jp/en/news/events/2017/02/ipcc2016.html
Summary
Opening remarks：Jun Takashina, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

He gave an opening remark as the organizer of the symposium. He stated Japan’sintention to play a central role in negotiations regarding rule-making of the Paris
Agreement in order to enhance transparency of emission reductions, and spoke ofJapan’s expectations for the IPCC as provider of scientific knowledge in this process. He
also pointed out that the AR6 cycle is now in full progress, and expressed hope that thissymposium would thus provide a valuable opportunity to discuss important topics
regarding the AR6 cycle.
Video letter：
Dr. Jim Skea, Co-chair of IPCC WGIII

He explained IPCC’s busy schedule in response to expectations from UNFCCC andgovernments around the world. He indicated that a “solutions-focused” approach will betaken in the AR6 cycle. He concluded his message by mentioning that further details on1

IPCC activities and perspectives would be presented by Dr. Priyadarshi R. Shukla, andby expressing his best wishes for the success of the symposium.
Keynote lecture：Current IPCC Activities and Perspectives in AR6 Products
Dr. Priyadarshi R. Shukla, Co-chair of IPCC WGIII

Activities planned during the ongoing Sixth Assessment Cycle (AR6) of the IPCC,
products including special reports, especially 1.5 degree report, their status andperspectives were presented. In the AR6 cycle, IPCC will move toward a“solutions-focused” approach and WGIII will aim at 1) achieving a better synthesis
between “whole system” perspectives derived from IAMs etc. and grounded, bottom-up
insights for reducing emissions, 2) making greater use of social science disciplines
especially for gaining insights into issues related to lifestyle, behaviour andconsumption, 3) linking climate change mitigation better to other agreed policy goals
nationally and internationally.
Lecture 1：Future Role of IPCC
Dr. Yoichi Kaya, Chairman, Japanese Liaison Committee for IPCC / President,
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)IPCC and its products have been playing a key role in informing decision makers ingovernments to shape climate policies related to COP. In this context, the following
important points are expected to be considered for the future of IPCC. The first point isto show a clear objection against the skepticism about global warming. Secondly, IPCC
should deliver utmost efforts for reducing uncertainties of important parameters ofclimate change such as climate sensitivity, and deliver as clear information as possible
on climate change, including results of feasibility evaluation of major response
measures. These efforts will greatly increase values of information provided by IPCC,
but these are not contradictory to the IPCC spirit of “policy relevant but notprescriptive”
Lecture 2： Long-term Strategy and Innovation for Mitigation of Global Warming
Taishi Sugiyama, Senior Researcher, Socio-Economic Research Center, Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)Drastic innovation is necessary to achieve RCP 2.6 Scenario. The condition with which
innovative climate technologies emerge is analyzed. At the space and time scale ofglobal warming, i.e., global scale and up to 2050 and 2100, adjacent possibility, i.e. theenough accumulation of preceding technologies to enable the desired technology, isidentified as the key. This highlights the importance of the progress of general science2and technology in order to deliver innovative global warming technologies. Policy
intervention to mitigate global warming has to be designed in the way that it does nothinder the progress of general science and technology.
Panel Discussions：Expectations, issues regarding IPCC and how to tackle global
warming
Moderator
Mitsutsune Yamaguchi, Special Advisor, Research Institute of Innovative
Technology for the Earth (RITE)
Panelists
Dr. Priyadarshi R. Shukla, Co-chair of IPCC WGIII
Taishi Sugiyama, Senior Researcher, Socio-Economic Research Center, Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)
Dr. Keigo Akimoto, Group Leader, Systems Analysis Group, Research Instituteof Innovative Technology for the Earth（RITE）
Dr. Ayumi Onuma, Professor of Environmental Economics, Faculty of Economics,Keio University
Hiroyuki Tezuka, The Chairman of Working Group on International
Environmental Strategy, KEIDANREN
Mayumi Matsumoto, Visiting Associate Professor, The Faculty of Arts andScience, Environment and Energy Department, University of Tokyo

Mitsutsune Yamaguchi, RITE pointed out five concerns on IPCC/AR5 that, he hopes tobe described more in detail in AR6 and 1.5 degree special report. They are; 1)
Uncertainties (especially on equilibrium climate sensitivity); 2) Evaluation of cost (mustexplain that assumption of global uniform carbon tax is, at least for coming decades,
quite unrealistic and in that case cost would be several times higher than expected); 3)
Political neutrality; 4) Trade-off with food security, biodiversity in relation to negativeemissions. The descriptions of trade off are so few in comparison to co-benefit; 5) Make
it clear that the purpose of responding climate change is to keep sustainable economicdevelopment. As to uncertainty issue, the moderator added that AR5, in calculating
emission pathways to limit temperature increase to several levels, did not show what
ECS was applied. This should be clearly described as was done in AR4. Also, effect ofECS to pathways and cost should be clearly mentioned so that policymakers understandthe importance of ECS.

3

Priyadarshi R. Shukla, Co-chair of IPCC WGIII said IPCC intended to take a“solutions-focused” approach and incorporate more bottom-up insights from industries
etc. He commented the following regarding concerns and expectations expressed in thissymposium: 1) Regarding a response to the skepticism about global warming that Dr.
Kaya presented, clearer descriptions may be necessary. 2) Science has not yet provided
an answer on uncertainties in climate sensitivity, but deeper discussions on this issue
would be useful. 3) Analysis of mitigation cost when assumptions of cost estimations (e.g.
global uniform carbon tax) being not satisfied is also a useful suggestion; 4) Tradeoffs
with SDGs would also be an important topic.

Taishi Sugiyama, CRIEPI explained that integrated assessment models have not dealt
with innovations in details. He also mentioned that economic stagnation would
undermine the innovation activities in general, including climate technology innovation.
He also noted that innovation decreases the cost of technology and it would enableambitious climate mitigation policy in the future.

Keigo Akimoto, RITE strengthened that integrating mitigation and adaptation
strategies and impact analysis of adaptation on macroeconomics were important. He
added that SSP scenario had been well-developed and would be available in AR6. As
another required analysis, he mentioned synergy/tradeoff analysis with SDGs
(Sustainable Development Goals) and risk management strategies under uncertainty(e.g.: Take mitigation policies with adaptations under an assumption of a medium
climate sensitivity, but prepare geoengineering for the case that climate sensitivity ishigh and/or innovation wouldn’t work well.). Finally, he hopes to consider the following
points in AR6: 1) As simple papers that pass relatively easily through peer review tend
to be cited in IPCC reports under a peer reviewed literature principle, opening someways to take papers/literatures that analyze under more complex assumptions
reflecting social/political restrictions in the real world is expected; 2) Detailed
information written in full reports tends to fall out in the process to make a SPM. As
this may lead to misleading, some improvements are necessary.

Ayumi Onuma, Keio University pointed out that afforestation and BECCS wereexpected to play important roles to achieve an ambitious goal like 1.5 degree but inthese cases monoculture fast-grow plantations tended to be selected, which may lead toa remarkable loss of biodiversity in forest ecosystems. He also added concerns thatliving standard of poor people decreased through tradeoff with food production and/orprice increase of fertilizer, and concluded that such tradeoff was necessary to be4

analyzed in detail. Finally, he strengthened that differentiated credits along thepurpose of sustainable developments would be effective.

Hiroyuki Tezuka, KEIDANREN pointed out that development of products such as
Eco-Products played an important contribution to emission reduction in use phase as
well as that through domestic business operations, and therefore, he strengthened thatassessing the measures from the viewpoints of total lifecycle was necessary. In addition,
he said, implicit carbon pricing schemes such as fuel taxes, FIT and energy saving
standards should also be well analyzed and evaluated in the AR6 cycle in addition toexplicit carbon pricing such as carbon tax and ETS which had been promoted. Whentaking carbon tax in reports, feasibility of global uniform carbon tax should be discussed.
Discussions from Social science view would be necessary to solve how we should becoexistent with risks related to uncertainties in climate science. Finally, he hopes toexamine emerging risks from border conflicts etc. rooted in large land-requirements ofcurrent possible mitigation options such as renewable energy or forest carbon uptake.

Mayumi Matsumoto, University of Tokyo surveyed innovation for a significant“efficiency improvement and low carbonization” in energy demand and supply sides,
and showed latest information on an energy management with ICT including energy
storages, especially on latest activities in the US. Regarding requests for IPCC, shementioned that detailed information on what technologies would be promising andpossible technology portfolios in 2030, 2040, and 2050 would be very welcomed.

5