11

Global GHG 50% Reduction and Its Feasibility in Asia
Reina KAWASE* and Yuzuru MATSUOKA
Department of Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University
Kyoto daigaku-Katsura, Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto 615-8540, Japan*e-mail: rkawase@athehost2.env.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Abstract
This paper examines the feasibility of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets of majorcountries and regions in Asia when a global goal of 50% reduction in GHG emissions is set. Specifically, thispaper considers the feasibility of achieving reduction targets for each region under various allowable emission
allocation schemes based on a global 50% reduction target, together with the population and economic
activity of each region. This is discussed by comparison with GHG emission reduction projected by using
both past trends and future speeds of change proposed in past studies for improvement of energy intensity (EI)and carbon intensity (CI).
The results show that when a high improvement speed of EI and CI is assumed the reduce (RED) case a
global 50% reduction is possible if there is low GDP growth (the conventional scenario; CNV), but with highGDP growth (the advanced scenario; ADV), the target cannot be achieved. In the RED case with the ADV
scenario, Indonesia and the Philippines meet the reduction targets under all schemes. Japan can achieve
emissions per capita (pCAP) and emissions per GDP (pGDP) targets. China can achieve only the pGDP target
and India can achieve only the cumulative emissions per capita (pCUM) target. However, in the four reduction cases considered in this study, Vietnam and Malaysia fail to meet any of the targets.
In this paper, only domestic mitigation options are taken into account. To achieve the global 50%
reduction target, the following actions must be adopted, 1) acceleration of the speed of improving EI and CI
beyond that of most past studies, and/or 2) introduction of flexible reduction mechanisms such as international emissions trading.
Key words: allowable emission allocation scheme, carbon intensity, energy intensity, reduction targets

1. Introduction
In order to mitigate global warming and meet thelong-term goal of preventing a global temperature rise of
more than 2°C, it is necessary to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50% by 2050 comparedwith 1990 (Kainuma et al., 2013). Efforts to reduce GHG
emissions are also required in Asian regions, most ofwhich are developing countries. In addition to developed
countries, developing countries such as China, Indonesia
and other Asian countries that are not required to specify
reduction targets set pledges for 2020 in line with the
Copenhagen Accord agreed on in December 2009 at the
15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15)(UNFCCC, 2010). Although the first steps are being
taken towards global reductions of GHG emissions, little
progress is being made in official discussions on targets
after the year 2020.
A variety of allowable emission allocation schemes
have been proposed for GHG emission reduction targets
for each country beyond 2050 (Nishimoto et al., 2005;
Global Environmental Research
17/2013: 11-18
printed in Japan

Gilbert et al., 2007). Their pros, cons and feasibility,
however, have not been considered on a country level.
Since mitigation of global warming requires long-term
measures, each country must set its targets quickly anddevise measures to achieve them, considering the merits
and demerits of various reduction schemes.
In order to consider the feasibility of achieving global
GHG emission reduction targets, the achievement of thecorresponding reduction targets in each country andregion should be considered. Energy use accounts for thegreater part of GHG emissions and is closely linked toeconomic activity. In the Asian region in particular, higheconomic growth is expected over the next few decades
and it is necessary to think about the possibility of
reducing GHG emissions in the course of this economic
development.
In order to examine the feasibility of achieving a
global goal of a 50% reduction in GHG emissions, thispaper considers the feasibility of the reduction targets ineach of fifteen regions in Asia. Specifically, we projected
future GHG emissions using both the past trends(2000-2008) and the future speed of change proposed in©2013 AIRIES

12

R. KAWASE and Y. MATSUOKA

past studies on improvement of energy intensity (EI) andcarbon intensity (CI). These emissions were then compared with the allowable emissions allocated to the regions using several allowable emission allocation
schemes based on global 50% reduction conditions,
populations and projections for future economic activity.
Three allowable emission allocation schemes were taken
into account for calculating reduction targets: 1) emissions per capita (pCAP), 2) emissions per GDP (pGDP),and 3) cumulative emissions per capita (pCUM).

2. Allowable Emission Allocation Schemes andProjections of Future Population andEconomic Activity
2.1 Allowable emission allocation schemes
In order to assign the burden for reducing emissions
to all countries of the world, it is necessary to take equity,
fairness, feasibility, economic efficiency and other factors into account. Many proposals have been made, but
among them, the following three have been consideredfrom the point of view of simplicity, pragmatism andcomprehensiveness.
a) Emissions per capita (pCAP)
Emissions per capita in all regions of the world areequalized in the target year. Emissions are assigned
proportionally to the size of the population. It means thatthe larger a country’s share of the world population, themore emissions it is allowed.
b) Emissions per GDP (pGDP)
Emissions per GDP in all regions of the world areequalized in the target year. The larger a country’s shareof the world GDP, the more emissions it is allowed.
c) Cumulative emissions per capita (pCUM)
The emissions for each country from a certain year to
the target year are accumulated, and this value is divided
by the total population (cumulative population) during
the same period (hereafter, cumulative emissions per
capita) and equalized in the target year. The stringency of
Table 1 Characteristics of two future scenarios.

reductions varies according to the initial year from which
cumulation is calculated.
2.2 Projections of future population and economic
activity
As for population, we used median values from theUnited Nations World Population Prospects (UN, 2011).
In this scenario, the world population of 6.9 billion people in 2010 increases to 9.3 billion in 2050.
For economic activity, we considered two economic
growth projections, high and low, i.e., the advanced
society scenario (ADV) and conventional society scenario (CNV), respectively. The assumptions regarding
population for both these scenarios were the same.
However, differences in approach to social change resultin differences in total factor productivity and unemployment rates through future changes in educational standards and government efficiency improvements, resulting
in variations in economic growth rates. For the projectionof economic growth in each region, we formulated theabove mechanism using a Cobb-Douglas production
function with capital and population as factors of production. The various parameters were calibrated with
reported values from 1980 to 2008, and for the future,
the changes shown in Table 1 were assumed for bothscenarios.
The world economic growth rate for the years
between 2005 and 2050 is projected to be 3.27% underthe ADV scenario, and 2.24% under the CNV scenario,
which are higher and lower, respectively, than the 3.1%of the last 40 years. Of the range of future GDP scenarios
in past studies, these values are the upper 20th percentile
value (for ADV) and about the lower 13th percentile
value (for CNV).
World GHG emissions were calculated using a simple
method. The reported values of emissions for each region
up to 2008 were used as starting points for the next half
century (EC-JRC/PBL, 2011; UNFCCC, 2011; 2012).
Countries with pledges started reducing GHG emissions

Global GHG 50% Reduction and Its Feasibility in Asia

to achieve their pledges from 2013 and countries without
pledges were assumed to follow the emission scenariosof the TRN case described below using the past rate ofchange in GHG/GDP for the years between 2000 and2008. After 2020, the rate change in GHG/GDP for
global GHG emissions was set at a constant rate towards
the target of a global 50% reduction target by 2050 compared to 1990 emissions. These global GHG emissions
were allocated to each region.
Figure 1 shows the relationships between the reduction targets for pCAP and pCUM in the main regions of
the world (Kawase et al., 2013). The pCAP and pCUM
schemes have a roughly linear relationship. For thedeveloped countries and China, the pCUM reduction
targets are rather more stringent than those of pCAP. For
Asia overall, the reduction targets of both pCAP andpCUM are positioned somewhat lower than the global
average (based on Table 2), but the distribution covers awide range.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between reduction
targets for pCAP and pGDP. pGDP reduction targets
depend on the GDP setting. The characteristics of the
ADV scenario and CNV scenario reduction targets differ
between the developed countries and the developing
countries. In the ADV scenario, the developing countries
account for a larger share of the world GDP, therefore theallocation of emissions is larger for developing countries,
and for developing countries, the reduction targets arelower in the ADV scenario. In addition, in the ADV scenario, the reduction targets for all of the regions are in therange of 40% to 64%, and the differences among the
reduction targets of regions around the world are smaller.
Conversely, in the CNV scenario, the GDP allocation
does not differ significantly from that of the current
world, therefore the allocation of emissions is larger forthe developed countries compared with the ADV scenario, and for the developed countries, the reduction
targets are lower in the CNV scenario.
Table 2 shows the reduction targets for each allowable
emission allocation scheme in the Asian region. Reduction targets, excluding the land-use (LU) sector, were
calculated with LU emissions/absorption in 2050 assumed to be zero.
The reduction targets for each allowable emission
allocation scheme differ, but in Asia as a whole, reductions of 46% to 59% are necessary. If Japan is excluded,
however, the range is 42% to 63%. The reduction targets
differ significantly, depending on the allowable emission
allocation schemes, when the regions are examined
separately. As in Fig. 1, pCAP and pCUM show the sametendency, but the reduction targets for pGDP show adifferent tendency from those of the other schemes.
Currently, however, regions with relatively small emissions have low reduction targets under all of the schemes.
In addition, in Indonesia and “Other Southeast Asia” with
their large share of LU, and Malaysia with its large sink,there is a significant difference between the reduction
targets for GHG emissions when LU is included or
excluded.

13

Looking at GHG emissions including LU, for pCAP,
Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore and “Other Southeast
Asia” have high reduction targets, while India, Malaysia,
the Philippines and “Other South Asia” are allowed increases. Conversely, for pGDP, Japan and Singapore
have low reduction targets. For pCUM, many regions
such as Japan and China are required to make reductions
exceeding 90%. However, India, the Philippines and“Other South Asia” are allowed emissions more thandouble those of the year 2005. The range of reduction
targets among the regions is the largest with pCUM.

Fig. 1 Relationship between reduction targets for pCAP and
pCUM.

Fig. 2 Relationship between reduction targets for pCAP andpGDP.
Note: Regions in Asia are plotted with a diamond symbol. pGDP has
two reduction targets depending on GDP. The reduction targetof the ADV scenario is marked with a closed symbol. That of
CNV is marked with an open symbol.

14

R. KAWASE and Y. MATSUOKA
Table 2 Asian region classifications and reduction targets.
RegionJapan
China
Indonesia
India
Korea
Malaysia
TaiwanThailand
VietnamSingapore
Philippines
Other East Asia
Other South Asia
Other Southeast Asia
Pacific Islands
Asia
Asia excl. JPN
Annex I
Non-Annex I
World

GHG in 2005
(MtCO2eq)
Total

ex.LU

LU

1,261
7,946
1,791
2,145
590
39
290
349
226
48
146
171
539
647
52
16,238
14,977
15,995
26,06642,061

1,351
7,876
666
2,112
625
254
290
336
216
48
144
125
530
152
16
14,741
13,39018,12820,66938,797

-90
69
1,126
33
-35
-215
0
13
9
0
1
46
9
495
36
1,497
1,587
-2,1335,396
3,264

Required reduction percentage compare to 2005 (%)
Including Land-use
Excluding Land-use
pCAP
pCUM pCAP
pCUM
pGDP
pGDP
ADV
CNV
ADV
CNV
83
68
69
-51
85
-116
87
61
12
75
-104
66
-120
74
33
46
42
83
42
58

43
59
88
41
57
-163
54
54
60
14
39
89
4
92
45
57
58
58
57
58

18
61
88
53
49
-181
39
65
74
-16
33
95
52
96
65
59
63
46
65
58

94
97
81
-100
99
51
99
85
32
92
-376
81
-371
87
43
47
43
95
34
58

85
68
15
-54
86
67
87
59
8
75
-106
53
-123
-9
-116
40
36
85
26
54

47
58
67
40
60
60
54
52
59
14
38
85
2
66
-78
53
53
63
46
54

24
61
67
52
52
57
39
64
72
-17
33
93
51
83
-12
53
69
52
50
54

94
97
49
-103
99
93
99
85
29
92
-380
74
-379
47
-84
42
37
96
17
54

Note:
* Malaysia’s cumulative total emissions are calculated from GHG emissions excluding land-use sink.
* Other East Asia includes D.P.R. Korea and Mongolia. Other South Asia includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives,
Nepal and Pakistan. Other Southeast Asia includes Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Timor-Leste. Pacific Islands is Oceania exclude
Australia and New Zealand.

3. Projection of GHG Emissions in EachRegion and Potential for Reductions
In order to examine the feasibility of achieving the
reduction targets in Table 2, we explored the plausible
range of GHG emission reductions. We calculated theranges for four reduction cases under different economic
scenarios, and compared them with the reduction targets.
3.1 Formulation of GHG emissions
The method of projecting future GHG emissions is asfollows. The targeted GHGs in this paper are the six
gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol (CO2, CH4, N2O,
HFC, PFC, and SF6). Emission sources are classified asindustry, energy, solvents, agriculture and land-use
change (AFOLU), and waste.
GHG emissions, C, are divided into emissions fromenergy use CE and from other sources CB (Eq. 1). The
suffix r indicates the region and t, the year.

Cr ,t = C E r ,t + C B r ,t(1)

C : GHG emissions
CE : Energy-related GHG emissions
CB : GHG emissions from other sources
Energy-related emissions are broken down into car-bon intensity (CI, energy-related GHG emissions divided
by total primary energy supply (TPES)), energy intensity(EI, TPES divided by GDP) and GDP as a proxy of economic activity (Eq. 2).

C E r ,t =CE r ,t Er ,t⋅⋅ Ar ,t = CI r ,t ⋅ EI r ,t ⋅ Ar ,t
Er ,t Ar ,t(2)

E : Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES)A : Economic Activity (GDP)
3.2 Rate of improvement in energy intensity (EI)and carbon intensity (CI)
Two assumptions are envisaged for the speeds ofchange of EI and CI in Eq. 2. In the first case, the speed of
improvement in the period 2000 to 2008 (minus speed ofchange) is assumed to continue into the future. However,
if both or either is a positive speed of change (deterioration), it is expected to remain at the 2008 value. In thesecond case, for the changes in EI and CI assumed for
future emission scenarios in past studies, a value indicating a significant speed of improvement (an upper fifth
percentile value of the reported ones, hereafter termed“high speed of improvement”) is used. Table 3 shows thereferences used for analysis from past studies. Table 4lists the EI and CI in the base year, the speed of change of
EI and CI set for projection, and GDP growth rates.

Global GHG 50% Reduction and Its Feasibility in Asia

3.3 Reduction case settings for GHG emission
projections
We chose the year 2005 as the base year for the
projection of GHG emissions, covering 2009 to 2050,
using reported values from up to 2008 as the most recent
year. As for population and GDP, we used the values set
in Section 2.2. For the future projection, we set four
reduction cases, transfer (TRN), pledge (PLG), pledge
Table 3 References for future scenarios and periods covered.

15

forever (PLG+), and reduce (RED), combining pledges
and variations in improvement speed for energy intensity(EI) and carbon intensity (CI). As for pledges in the
Copenhagen Accord, we referred to the highest stated
reduction targets. Table 5 lists the characteristics of thefour reduction cases.
We divided the period of the projections into three(2008-2012, 2013-2020, and 2021-2050). A common
emissions scenario was applied for all cases from 2008 to
2012, and after 2013, we set different emissions scenarios for each reduction case and emission source. Energyrelated emissions were projected using the method
described in Section 3.1. The same speed of reduction as
for energy-related emissions was envisaged for industries(excluding F-gas), solvents and other sources. Emissions
from waste in all the periods and cases were calculated bymultiplying GHG emissions per capita in 2008 by the
population. The same setting was used for CO2, CH4 andN2O for each emission source.
Table 6 shows the emissions for each reduction caseand each emission source.

Table 4 List of items related to GHG emission projections.
RegionWith/Without
pledgeJapan
China
Indonesia
India
Korea
Malaysia
TaiwanThailand
VietnamSingapore
Philippines
Other East Asia
Other South Asia
Other Southeast Asia
Pacific Islands
Asia
Annex I
Non-Annex I
World

○
○
○
○
○
○
○

○

EI and CI
in 2005（World = 1）
EI
0.35
2.65
2.78
2.72
0.98
1.77
0.85
1.80
3.83
0.52
1.36
5.50
2.09
3.00
0.57
1.10
0.94
1.07
1.00

CI
0.90
1.30
0.81
0.93
1.02
1.23
1.02
1.00
0.82
0.85
0.75
1.74
0.71
0.64
0.93
0.54
0.73
1.85
2.00

Set decrease speed (%/yr)
Past trend（2000-2008）
EI
CI
1.36
0.22
1.11
0.00
2.10
0.00
3.17
0.00
2.80
0.00
0.74
0.00
1.52
0.18
1.56
0.00
2.60
0.00
4.01
0.00
3.53
0.10
1.31
0.78
1.73
0.00
3.83
0.00
0.00
1.77
0.00
0.00
0.87
0.95
0.95
0.00
0.19
0.00

High improved speed
EI
1.98
4.47
3.52
4.16
3.53
3.52
3.53
3.52
3.86
3.53
3.52
3.70
3.54
3.53
3.54
4.25
4.23
4.42
4.29

CI
3.82
4.63
2.72
1.26
4.92
1.99
3.31
3.31
2.14
3.31
2.19
1.40
1.40
2.01
1.40
4.72
6.09
4.61
5.45

GDP growthrate(2005-2050）
ADV
0.52
5.98
5.04
6.51
2.70
4.59
2.55
5.00
6.57
2.56
4.80
5.72
7.31
6.61
5.89
4.16
1.67
5.46
3.27

CNV
0.31
4.77
4.01
4.95
2.09
3.69
2.15
3.28
4.55
2.22
3.95
3.05
4.60
3.95
3.75
2.98
1.24
3.95
2.24

Share of
AFOLU
(%)
-5.1
12.1
67.3
27.1
-3.2
-539.0
1.1
24.5
38.1
0.4
31.1
35.7
45.1
91.9
81.0
9.2
-4.9
35.6
20.2

Note: “Asia” means the countries and regions listed above. As for “Other East Asia,” “Other South Asia,” Other Southeast Asia” and“Pacific Islands,” see the note below Table 2.

Table 5 Reduction cases.

16

R. KAWASE and Y. MATSUOKA
Table 6 Emission scenarios for each reduction case and each emission source.

4. The Feasibility of National Reduction
Targets
If the reduction target is within the range of reduction
calculated in Chapter 3, we judged the reduction target“feasible.” Firstly, we analyzed the feasibility of achieving the global 50% reduction target, and then the feasibilities for the Asian countries. Finally, we discussed
whether differences in economic scenarios would havean impact on achievement of the targets.
4.1 Feasibility of achieving the target of a global
50% reduction in GHG emissions
Projected GHG emissions worldwide and in Asia
under the four reduction cases are listed in Tables 7 and 8.
Table 9 lists reduction targets under each allowable
emission allocation scheme in all Asian regions (compared to 1990).
The GHG emissions worldwide and in Asia increase
compared to 1990 in all cases except RED. In the Asian
region, even in the PLG+ case, the emissions increase
five-fold in the ADV scenario, and three-fold in the CNV
scenario. In the RED case, a 39.9% global reduction isachieved compared to 1990 in the ADV scenario but thisdoes not meet the global 50% reduction target. In the
CNV scenario, a reduction of 66.1% is achieved, meeting
the global target. In Asia, the rate of reduction in the
CNV scenario is stuck at 49.2%. However, as shown in
Table 9, the reduction targets for the Asian region are
14.4% to 36.1%, so that under the CNV scenario, thereduction targets for all the schemes can be achieved.

Table 7 World GHG emissions in each scenario.
Reduction
case

1990
2005
TRN
PLG
PLG+
RED

Economic Scenario
ADV
CNV
GHG
Reduction
GHG
Reduction
Emission from 1990
Emission from 1990(%)
(GtCO2eq)(%)(GtCO2eq)
35.73
0.0
35.73
0.0
42.06
-17.7
42.06
-17.7
112.93-216.1
70.31
-96.8
92.47
-158.857.07-59.7
109.04-205.2
70.47
-97.2
21.47
39.9
12.12
66.1

Table 8 GHG emissions from Asia in each scenario.
Reductioncase

Economic Scenario
ADV
CNV
GHG
Reduction
GHG
Reduction
Emission from 1990
Emission from 1990
(GtCO2eq)

1990
2005
TRN
PLG
PLG+
RED

10.3
16.2
74.5
56.7
53.7
9.2

(%)
-57.4
-621.9-449.6-420.5
11.1(GtCO2eq)
10.3
16.2
45.4
34.3
31.4
5.2

(%)
-57.4
-340.0-232.0-204.2
49.2

Table 9 Asian reduction targets for each scheme.

Global GHG 50% Reduction and Its Feasibility in Asia

4.2 The feasibility of achieving the reduction targets
in the Asian region
In Fig. 3, the ADV scenario for GDP, the reduction
projections in each region are shown for each reduction
case (reduction is shown as a positive value). Reduction
projections vary according to the reduction case. The
chart shows a feasible range of GHG emission reductions,with four reduction cases plotted on a horizontal line andthe locations of reduction cases ticked with small verticalbars. The figure also shows the required reduction rates
under different allowable emission allocation schemes.
Among the reduction cases, the RED case has thehighest reduction potential. In regions with large reduction projections, differences in reduction targets among
the schemes are small, and the reduction targets are alsohigh.
The regions where reduction potentials are large are
Indonesia and “Other Southeast Asia” where emissions
from AFOLU account for a significant share of GHG
emissions. Other regions with high reduction projections
are Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore. This is because
these regions have a low GDP growth rate and a highspeed of improvement for CI.
Japan can achieve its targets for pCAP and pGDP.
China can achieve only its target for pGDP and India canachieve it only for pCUM among the cases analyzed. In
the emission projections, the regions that achieve thereduction targets under all allowable emission allocation
schemes are Indonesia, the Philippines and the PacificIslands. Conversely, the regions that cannot meet all of
the targets in the four reduction cases are “Other East
Asia,” Vietnam and Malaysia. Malaysia has a very large
LU sink, but in this paper, net emissions from LU are
assumed to be zero in 2050, so in the RED case,
Malaysia’s emissions increase by about three times
compared to 2005, and it is difficult for the country toachieve its reduction targets under all cases. Therefore,
these regions will need to consider a framework for
mitigating conditions to achieve their reduction targets.
4.3 Effects of differences in economic scenarios
This section discusses the impact of the differences
between two economic scenarios, the ADV and CNV, on
achieving the targets. Figure 4 shows the relationshipbetween emission projections in the RED case with ADV
and CNV scenarios and reduction targets with pCAP.
The diagonal in Fig. 3 is a line on which the reduction
projection is equal to the reduction target for pCAP (45°line). The region below the line denotes where reduction
targets are met. In the CNV scenario, the following
regions are below the line: “Other South Asia,” thePhilippines, India, Vietnam, the Pacific Islands and others.
Of these regions, “Other South Asia,” the Philippines andthe Pacific Islands keep their projections under the line
even in the ADV scenario. However, the other regions
cross the diagonal, which means, with a move from the
CNV to the ADV scenario, further efforts towards
achieving the reduction target will be required.

17

Regions located on the upper right side of Fig. 3 areregions with both high reduction targets and large reduction potentials. In these regions, the reduction potentials
are not as highly influenced by economic growth assumptions. The regions which are influenced significantly are India, Vietnam, “Other East Asia,” and “Other
South Asia.”

Fig. 3 Reduction targets and projections for each region in 2050
(ADV scenario).
Note: Reduction is expressed by a positive value. Closed circles (pCAP,
pGDP, pCUM) are reduction targets. The horizontal line shows
feasible ranges of GHG emission reductions based on the four
reduction cases (TRN, PLG, PLG+, RED).

Fig. 4 Reduction targets for pCAP and reduction projections in
the RED case in both economic scenarios in 2050.
Note: The diagonal is a line on which the reduction projection is equal
to the reduction target for pCAP. In the area below the line, thereduction projection is larger than the reduction target for pCAP.

18

R. KAWASE and Y. MATSUOKA

5. Final Remarks

References:

This paper considers the feasibility of the reduction
targets in each of fifteen regions of Asia for a 50%
reduction in global GHG emissions.
Under the conditions of economic growth and reduction efforts assumed in this paper, the RED case under the
CNV scenario can achieve the global target of a 50%
reduction in GHG emissions. Under the ADV scenario,
the target cannot be achieved.
In the Asian region, even in the ADV scenario, someregions can achieve their reduction targets depending on
their allowable emission allocation schemes. The regionswith a large reduction potential are Indonesia and “Other
Southeast Asia,” where land-use accounts for a significant share of GHG emissions, and in this paper, aprojection of zero land-use emissions by 2050 has
considerable impact. In addition, in Malaysia, Vietnamand “Other East Asia,” none of the targets of any of theschemes can be achieved in any of the four reduction
cases in the ADV scenario. The main reasons are higheconomic growth and a relatively low rate of improvement in CI. When high economic growth is assumed for
India, Vietnam, “Other East Asia,” and “Other SouthAsia,” the reduction potentials decrease significantly.
The reduction targets of Asian countries differ significantly by region and by allowable emission allocation
scheme, and the feasibility of achieving the targets wasshown to differ according to the circumstances in eachregion. In this research, only domestic mitigation options
were taken into account. To achieve the global 50%
reduction target, the following actions must be taken, 1)
acceleration of the improvement speed of EI and CI
beyond that of most past studies, and/or 2) introductionof flexible reduction mechanisms such as internationalemissions trading.

European Commission, Joint Research Centre/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (EC-JRC/PBL) (2011) Emission
Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release
version 4.2. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu.
Gilbert A., G. Reece, S. Moltmann and A. Gardiner (2007) Developing an EU carbon budget final report, ECOFYS.
Greenpeace(GP) (2010) Energy [R]evolution 2010.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2000) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge University
Press.
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011) World Energy Outlook
2011.
Kawase R. and Y. Matsuoka (2012) Economic growth andNational reduction target towards 2050, Energy Policy, (underreview).
Matsuoka Y., M. Kainuma, J. Fujino and T. Ehara (2013) How toapproach Asian low-carbon societies. Global Environmental
Research, 17: 3-10.
Nishimoto H., Y. Matsuoka and Y. Hijioka (2005) Estimation of
Target Setting and Burden Sharing for Avoiding Dangerous
Climate Change, Proceedings of Society for Environmental
Economics and Policy Studies 10th Annual Meeting，CD-ROM.
S6 project team (2012) FY23 Report on Global Environment Research Fund (Scenario Development of Realizing Low-Carbon
Society in Asia: Asian LCS project), 2012 March.
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ) (2011) Asia/
World Energy Outlook 2011.
UNFCCC (2010) Copenhagen Accord Appendix I and Appendix II.
<http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.
php.>
UNFCCC (2011) National greenhouse gas inventory data for theperiod 1990–2009 FCCC/SBI/2011/9.
UNFCCC (2012) Non-Annex I national communications.
United Nations (UN) (2011) World Population Prospects 2010.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Environment
Research and Technology Development Fund by the
Ministry of the Environment, Japan (S-6-1 and A-1103).

Reina KAWASE
Reina KAWASE is an Assistant Professor at the
Atmospheric and Thermal Environmental Engineering Lab., Department of Environmental
Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering,
Kyoto Univeristy, Japan. Her current field of
research is development of long-term scenarios forrealizing a low-carbon society. She has twoparticular focuses: macro-economic modeling using econometric methods
and estimating energy-intensive stocks and flows in the world.

Yuzuru MATSUOKA
Yuzuru MATSUOKA is a Professor at the Graduate
School of Engineering, Kyoto University. He
specializes in environmental engineering. He
started researching global environmental issues in
the late 1980s. He has developed various kinds ofintegrated models, including bottom-up and topdown models. Recently he has been leading
projects for development of Asian low-carbon societies.

(Received 22 June 2012 , Accepted 6 December 2012)