Download Japan - Ny-Ålesund Symposium

Japan - addressing the three pillars of a global
climate solution
The Ny-Ålesund Symposium 2009
Yasuko Kameyama, Ph.D.
National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
9 June 2009
1
Japan’s CO2 Emissions (1990-2006)
Mt/CO2
+6.2% from 1990 (6 gases)
tCO2/capita
CO2 per capita
Total CO2 emissions
CO2 per capita
Kyoto Target
Total CO2 emissions
2
Japan’s CO2 emissions by sectors (1990-2005)
Industry
Transport
Residential
Commercial
Power
Industry Process
Waste
3
Japan’s CO2 emissions by sectors (1990-2005)
Graph from CAIT (2009)
4
Japan’s 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 Abe’s “Cool Earth 50” , a long-term goal to halve the global
emission by 2050
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
5
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withdrawn from it.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 EU’s emission reduction target, 8%,
is considerably easier to achieve than Japan’s target, 6%, due to
some windfall profits such as reunification of Germany and shift from
coal to gas in the United Kingdom.
(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
6
Discussions made in the “Mid-term Target Committee”,
October 2008- April 2009
Jan. 2008 Prime Minister Fukuda generally accepted continuation of
“cap&trade” 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.
7
Options of mid-term target by the Committee, in March 2009
8
Relation between the mid- and long-term emission targets
1,400
1,358
（2005）
1,261
（1990）
Option 1 （4% growth from 1990)
Equal MAC, -25% by Annex I total (-5%)
1,200
GHG emissions (Mt)CO
Option 2
（-7％ from 1990）
1,000
Option 3
（-15％ from 1990）
800
2 600
eq.
Option 4 All Annex I countries reduce －25％ from 1990）
400
Japan’s national long-term goal,
200
-60-80% from current year
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
9
Emission reduction potentials in Japan: using marginal cost curve
Change to smaller vehicle
Indust
Resid.
Com.
Improving efficiency of cargo fleets
Improving efficiency of vehicles
Transport.
Agriculture
F-gases
Improving efficiency of house utilities
Improving efficiency of air conditioners
Improving efficiency of lighting
Improving efficiency of lighting in offices
Improving efficiency of mobility
Yen/tCO2
Improvement in air conditioning
Pulp & paper
Fuel switching by industries
Fuel switching in transportation
DSM
Waste
managem
ent
Improving efficiency of heating
Steel Industry
Shift to electric cars and hybrid cars
Solar PV and wind power generation
Thermal insulation of houses
MtCO2
Emission reduction cost in 2020 and amount of reduction
AIM Modeling Team 2009
10
Policies to achieve emission reductions in various sectors
Four pillars to achieve emission reduction target at 2020
Front-runner rule
Visualization
Standardization for the highest energy efficiency
-Strengthening the level of standards
100,000
-.Bench marking
Information easy to understand by consumers
- Labeling for products , amount of GHG emissions
- Information disclosure of GHG emissions
90,000
80,000
70,000
Yen/tCO2
円/tCO2
60,000
Improvement of energy
efficiency of automobiles and
lighting, etc.
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Emission reduction
mainly in industry sector
-10,000
-20,000
-30,000
-40,000
-50,000
-
50
100
150
200
Cost of mitigation is high, but potentials for
a new green business (automobiles,
renewable energy, thermal insulation of
250
300
buildings, etc.）
百万tCO2
MtCO2
Price on Carbon
Economic measures for cost-efficiency
-Emissions trading
--Green Taxation
AIM Modeling Team 2009
Technology Development and Diffusion
Supporting technology development and diffusion
- FIT for renewable energy
- Government purchasing green consumption
- Strengthening regulations for housing, etc.
11
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?
12
(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 countries.
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 capita.
As a whole, criteria of responsibility, such as emission per capita, should
also be considered.
13
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 competitiveness.
Innovative technology development may be promoted when the game of
climate change mitigation is considered as a “race for the Green-NewDeal” economy, not “equal burden sharing”.
14
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 growth=2%/year
GDP /capita growth=1%/year
Design: Akemi Imagawa
Japan’s 70% emission reduction by 2050 from
1990 level is technically achievable.
LCS type A
(LCS Project, 2008)
Considering “lock-in effects”: need for early actions!
・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)
出典：Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve (McKinsey＆Company)2009
17
Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 leadership.
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, EU’s -20% and the U.S.’s stabilization
target from 1990 by 2020 almost equal to Japan’s 4% from 1990. This
means not only Japan but other developed countries also need to reexamine 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”
18
Thank you!
Yasuko Kameyama, Ph.D. , is responsible for the content of this presentation. For any
questions, please contact [email protected]
19