Current status of global modeling&Asian Sustainable Development Implications ofClimate Change Mitigation Scenario
Shinichiro Fujimori
Kyoto University
2nd, December,201912th Annual meeting of the IAMC @Tsukuba Japan

2018‐2019 activities• International projects
 CD‐LINKS: multi‐sectoral assessment (SDGs)  Just finished EMF33; Bioenergy  Almost finalized AgMIP; Food security  Phase 3 starts
 COMMIT; National mitigation assessments  Ongoing IPBES and WWF study (The Bending the Curve); Ecosystem Ongoing ENGAGE; Feasibility study  Just started• Topics
 Deep decarbonization
 Global and national

 Broader sustainability assessments
 Food, water, land, energy and ecosystem
 Land related issues

 Climate change impact economics

Food security: how to avoid the adverse side effects

The adverse side effects ofclimate change mitigation onfood security can be avoided
by the little financial support

Proposal for the new scenarios in AR6• Point out the SR 1.5 scenarios
issues associated with the carbon
budget approach• Propose new scenario protocol forAR6

A national mitigation study• Great achievement in the model integration• Very political important message that macro economic cost of 80%
reduction in GHG emissions in Japan is cheep!!
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12730-4

5

Biodiversity:• Are land‐basedmitigation measuresreally harmful for thebiodiversity?
• No climate change
impacts should be morethan that!!

Climate change impact economics

7

Priorities in 2020
• Asian assessments Mid‐century strategy post‐Paris Agreement• Multi‐sectoral assessments
 Mitigation and SDG implications
 Land‐energy‐water‐ecosystem• Economic aspects of climate change mitigation and poverty400000000

1990

350000000
300000000

2010

250000000
200000000
150000000

2030
2050

100000000
50000000

2100

0110100

1000

10000

Income per capita (2011 PPP$/cap)

Asian Sustainable Development Implications ofClimate Change Mitigation Scenario
Shinichiro Fujimori in prep.
Authors to be determinedIntroduction• Paris Agreement  long‐term climate goal: well below 2 degree Negative or zero emissions are needed in the latter half ofcentury• Climate change mitigation actions can have various effects
 SDGs implications?

• Asia occupies large share in economy and emissions
 40% of emissions come from Asia in 2010

Earlier studies• Implications of sustainable development
considerations for comparability acrossnationally determined contributions• NDCs are assessed

Iyer et al. (2018)

Objectives• Explore Asian sustainable development pathways byimplementing climate change mitigation actions• Long‐term goals are considered Zero and negative emissions conditions• Multi aspects are consideredMethodIndicators
SDGs
SDG2

Field
HungerIndicators
Risk of hunger (2.1)
Food price index

Unit
Population
No unit

SDG3

HealthNumber of deaths caused by air pollution (3.9.1)

Population

SDG6Water

Number of population under water stress (6.4.2)

Population

SDG7

EnergyRenewable energy share in the total final energy
consumption (7.2.1)
Energy intensity
Unemployment rates (8.5.2)
GDP
Manufacturing value added as a proportion ofGDP (9.2.1)

Ratio
GJ/$%
2005US$/year
Ratio

SDG8
SDG9Labor
EconomySDG12Consumption

Food waste (12.3.1)

Mt/year

SDG15

Life on land

Forest area
Mean species richness (Biodiversity index)

Area
No unitModel revisions• AIM/CGE Model Employment rate Simple wage unemployment function is implemented

 Food loss and waste generation
 Generation factors through supply chain and consumption stages aretaken from a FAO report Low countries: relatively larger waste in production and storage High countries: relatively larger waste in consumption phase Water consumption representation• Water scarcity assessment
 Relatively simple method without hydrological process H08 run‐off data is used

• AIM/BIO integration with AIM/CGE and AIM/PLUM

Results – main features of the mitigation scenario

Results – multi aspects

Baseline
Mitigation

Results – regional implications: relative changes in themitigation scenario to the baseline•

Renewable energy share varies
 Japan changes drastically (from 10% to 50%)
 Low in rest of Asia partly due to traditional biomass•

Population at risk of hunger
 India : increases due to the climate policy•

Food price and forest area show relatively large variation
 Land‐use related
 Dependent on carbon stock, land rent and emissions
 Low income countries are relatively sensitive••

Air pollution are basically benefited
Energy intensity
 All countries with variationsDiscussions• Many benefits in climate change mitigation, which wouldenhance the achievements of some SDGs.
 Air pollution
 Energy: Renewable energy and Energy intensity
 Forest area
 Employment (small)• Meanwhile, there are also trade‐offs between climatechange mitigation and other SDGs
 Agricultural related indicators (hunger, prices and biodiversity) GDP (small)Discussions• Asian uniqueness Mostly similar to global results
 Some differences
 Population at risk of hunger and air pollution mortality
 Share of renewable energy• Regionally varied in Asia
 Relative changes to current and baseline scenarios• Land related indicators are dependent on the agriculturalconditions like price, land rent and national food policy
 To better understand how to resolve the trade‐offs of climatechange mitigation, we need more elaboration

Conclusions• This study explores Asian sustainable development
pathways• Special focus on the effects of climate change mitigation• Co‐benefits and trade‐offs are confirmed• Asia shows almost similar picture to the global one• Land‐related indicators varied across countriesEarlier studies (2)• 1.5 degree is assessed• Additional policies are taken into accountBertram et al. (2018)

Earlier studies (3)Van Vuuren et al.
(2015)

Results – regional implications: relative changes in the
mitigation scenario to the base year
Absolute• Renewable energy sharevaries
 Japan changes drastically(from 5% to 50%)
 Low in rest of Asia partly
due to traditional biomass• GDP depends on theassumptions• Population at risk ofhunger
 India shows drasticdecreases• Energy intensity
 Japan shows less changes
while other regions domore Dependent on theautonomous energy
efficiency assumptions

Log scaleResults – comparison with the global results
IndexAsiat,i = Xt,i,”Asia”,”mitigation”
Xt,i,”Asia”,” baseline”
IndexWorldt,i = Xt,i,”World” ”mitigation”
Xt,i,” World” ,” baseline”

Displayed Indext,i =IndexAsiat,iIndexWorldt,i• Large in Asia than the world• Small in Asia than the world Renewable energy share Secondary industry share Population at risk of hunger Air pollution mortality