Japan - addressing the three pillars of a global climate solution - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation

Japan - addressing the three pillars of a global climate solution


2007 Prime Minister Abe's 'Cool Earth 50' , a long-term goal to halve the global ... Because of lock-in effects, delay of actions leads to loss of opportunity to ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:33
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: tosh117


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Japan - addressing the three pillars of a global climate solution

Japan - addressing the three pillars of a global
climate solution
  • The Ny-Ålesund Symposium 2009
  • Yasuko Kameyama, Ph.D.
  • National Institute for Environmental Studies,
  • 9 June 2009

Japans CO2 Emissions (1990-2006)
6.2 from 1990 (6 gases)
CO2 per capita
Total CO2 emissions
CO2 per capita
Kyoto Target
Total CO2 emissions
Japans CO2 emissions by sectors (1990-2005)
Industry Process
Japans CO2 emissions by sectors (1990-2005)
Graph from CAIT (2009)
Japans climate change policy after COP3 (1997)
  • 1998 the Law Concerning the Promotion of the
    Measures to Cope with Global Warming enacted
  • Amendment of the Law Regarding the
    Rationalization of Energy Use initially enacted
    in 1979
  • 2001 Marrakesh Accords agreed at COP7
  • 2002 Japan ratified the Kyoto Protocol
  • 2005 Kyoto Protocol entered into force
  • Establishment of Action Plan to Fulfill
    the Kyoto Target
  • 2007 Prime Minister Abes Cool Earth 50 , a
    long-term goal to halve the global emission by
  • 2008 Prime Minister Fukuda established the
    Council on Global Warming Issue
  • Fukuda proposed a vision so-called
    Fukuda Vision, which called for a stronger
    position on climate policy
  • Hosted the G8 Summit at Toyako,
    discussed the long-term target
  • Prime Minister Aso established the
    Mid-term Target Committee under the Council on
    Global Warming Issue
  • Pilot-phase of domestic emissions
    trading scheme

Discussions made in the Mid-term Target
Committee, October 2008- April 2009
  • Background
  • Strong opposition from industry sector against
    the current Kyoto framework
  • Industries view
  • (1) Kyoto Protocol is unfair because the U.S.,
    the largest emitter, has withdrawn from it.
  • (2) Kyoto Protocol is unfair because EUs
    emission reduction target, 8, is considerably
    easier to achieve than Japans target, 6, due to
    some windfall profits such as reunification of
    Germany and shift from coal to gas in the United
  • (3) Kyoto Protocol is unfair because some
    emerging economies such as China and India are
    not committed to emission reduction targets.

A hard resistance to Cap Trade type of
institution for beyond -2012 Industries group
proposed a Sectoral Approach which basically
was a voluntary pledge review , at the time
of COP13 in 2007
Discussions made in the Mid-term Target
Committee, October 2008- April 2009
  • Jan. 2008 Prime Minister Fukuda generally
    accepted continuation of captrade institution
    and decided to set a mid-term target, but did not
    actually announce any national emission reduction
    target for the mid-term.

Discussions made in the Mid-term Target Committee
kicked off by discussing mainly the equity
concern from industries
Equity, in terms of marginal abatement cost
(MAC) or emission mitigation potentials was
considered by industries to be the most
acceptable criteria to assure comparability of
efforts among countries.
Options of mid-term target by the Committee, in
March 2009
Relation between the mid- and long-term emission
1,358 (2005)
1,261 (1990)
Option 1 (4 growth from 1990)
Equal MAC, -25 by Annex I total (-5)
Option 2 (-7 from 1990)
GHG emissions (Mt)CO2 eq.
Option 3 (-15 from 1990)
Option 4 All Annex I countries reduce -25 from
Japans national long-term goal, -60-80 from
current year
Emission reduction potentials in Japan using
marginal cost curve
Transport. Agriculture F-gases
Indust Resid. Com.
Change to smaller vehicle
Improving efficiency of cargo fleets
Improving efficiency of vehicles
Improving efficiency of house utilities
Improving efficiency of air conditioners
Improving efficiency of lighting
Improving efficiency of lighting in offices
Improving efficiency of mobility
Improvement in air conditioning
Pulp paper
Fuel switching by industries
Fuel switching in transportation
Waste management
Improving efficiency of heating
Steel Industry
Shift to electric cars and hybrid cars
Solar PV and wind power generation
Thermal insulation of houses
AIM Modeling Team 2009
Emission reduction cost in 2020 and amount of
Policies to achieve emission reductions in
various sectors
Four pillars to achieve emission reduction target
at 2020
Front-runner rule
  • Standardization for the highest energy efficiency
  • Strengthening the level of standards
  • .Bench marking

Information easy to understand by consumers -
Labeling for products , amount of GHG emissions -
Information disclosure of GHG emissions
Improvement of energy efficiency of automobiles
and lighting, etc.
Emission reduction mainly in industry sector
Cost of mitigation is high, but potentials for a
new green business (automobiles, renewable
energy, thermal insulation of buildings, etc.)
Technology Development and Diffusion
Price on Carbon
Supporting technology development and diffusion -
FIT for renewable energy - Government purchasing
green consumption - Strengthening regulations for
housing, etc.
  • Economic measures for cost-efficiency
  • Emissions trading
  • -Green Taxation

AIM Modeling Team 2009
How should we measure comparability of efforts
among countries?
  • Japanese industries considered that efforts
    should be compared by marginal abatement cost
    (MAC) or emission mitigation potentials.

This criteria could be eligible only when
discussing targets for reducing domestic
emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
(A) The Kyoto target accepts inclusion of LULUCF
and Kyoto Mechanisms (ET, JI, CDM)
(B) Even if we are focusing on domestic emissions
only, is MAC the best criteria to determine
national emission reduction targets?
(A) The Kyoto Target how to deal with purchasing
AAUs, ERUs and CERs?
  • AWG-KP refers to IPCC AR4 report, saying that
    would require Annex I Parties as a group to
    reduce emissions in a range of 25-40 below 1990
    levels by 2020 This target as a group needs to
    be achieved by reducing emissions in Annex I

Targets for each Annex I countries for amount of
carbon units that could be obtained by ET, JI and
CDM from other countries should be determined by
economic capacity to purchase, such as GDP per
As a whole, criteria of responsibility, such as
emission per capita, should also be considered.
Is equalization of marginal abatement cost
(MAC) the best strategy to determine a
reduction target for domestic emissions?
  • Japanese products have had international
    competitiveness, due to its high energy
    efficiency. Equalizing MAC among countries might
    mean Japanese products losing such

Innovative technology development may be promoted
when the game of climate change mitigation is
considered as a race for the Green-New-Deal
economy, not equal burden sharing.
Research Project on Low Carbon Society,
(http//2050.nies.go.jp/index.html )
LCS type 1 LCS type 2
Urban life pattern Local life pattern
Achieve LCS by Science and technology Achieve LCS by changing consumption pattern
Value of Convenience Cultural Value
GDP /capita growth2/year GDP /capita growth1/year
Design Akemi Imagawa
Japans 70 emission reduction by 2050 from 1990
level is technically achievable.
LCS type A
(LCS Project, 2008)
Considering lock-in effects need for early
Because of lock-in effects, delay of actions
leads to loss of opportunity to reduce emissions
in the long-term. For example, according to a
study by McKinsey CO, 10 years delay of action
to mitigate emissions (ex. Years 2010 ? 2020)
will reduce 40 of emission reduction potentials
in 2030, and lose opportunity to reduce 280GtCO2
between 2010-2030, because of lock-in effects in
coal-burning power plants (life time 40-50
years), factories (20-30 years), automobiles
(10-20 years) , etc. By such delay of action,
stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations
at 450ppm, or even at 550ppm, will be very
difficult to achieve.
10 year of delay
Global emission path when actions taken only
after 2020 (60/tCO2)
Global emission path when actions taken in 2010
and thereafter (60/tCO2)
??Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy Version 2 of
the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve
  • Japan has been failing to effectively introduce
    emission reduction policies, due to strong
    oppositions from industries against Kyoto
    Protocol, as well as lack of political
  • Because of the industries criticism on Kyoto
    Protocol, Japan has been reluctant to introduce
    cap trade system. Debates on emission
    reduction targets are focused on MAC of domestic
    GHG emissions only.
  • The three (or four) pillars for solution can be
    implemented in an effective manner by analyzing
    emission mitigation potentials.
  • As long as compared by MAC, EUs -20 and the
    U.S.s stabilization target from 1990 by 2020
    almost equal to Japans 4 from 1990. This means
    not only Japan but other developed countries also
    need to re-examine their targets, to be
    sufficient to reach the long-term target.
  • Time for early action. Change the game, from that
    of burden-sharing to a race for the
    Green-New-Deal Economy

Thank you!
  • Yasuko Kameyama, Ph.D. , is responsible for the
    content of this presentation. For any questions,
    please contact ykame_at_nies.go.jp
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com