1

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

2

Japan’s CO2 Emissions (1990-2006)Mt/CO2 tCO2/capita

CO2 per capita

Total CO2 emissions

Tota

l CO

2 em

issi

ons

CO2 per capita

Kyoto Target

+6.2% from 1990 (6 gases)

3

Japan’s CO2 emissions by sectors (1990-2005)

Industry

Transport

Commercial Residential

Power

Industry Process Waste

4

Japan’s CO2 emissions by sectors (1990-2005)

Graph from CAIT (2009)

5

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

6

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(1) Kyoto Protocol is unfair because the U.S., the largest emitter, has withdrawn from it.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

7

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.

8

Options of mid-term target by the Committee, in March 2009

9

Relation between the mid- and long-term emission targets

GH

G em

issions (Mt)CO

2 eq.

1,261（ 1990 ）

1,358（ 2005 ）

Option 1 （ 4% growth from 1990)

Equal MAC, -25% by Annex I total (-5%)

Option 2 　（ -7 ％ from 1990 ）

Option 3 　（ -15 ％ from 1990 ）

Option 4 All Annex I countries reduce － 25 ％ from 1990 ）

Japan’s national long-term goal,

-60-80% from current year

10Emission reduction cost in 2020 and amount of reduction

Emission reduction potentials in Japan: using marginal cost curve

AIM Modeling Team 2009MtCO2

Yen/

tCO

2

Transport.AgricultureF-gases

IndustResid.Com.

Change to smaller vehicle

Improving efficiency of vehicles

Improving efficiency of house utilities

Improving efficiency of lighting

Improvement in air conditioning

Pulp & paper

Fuel switching by industries

Improving efficiency of lighting in offices

DSM

Steel Industry

Shift to electric cars and hybrid cars

Solar PV and wind power generation

Thermal insulation of houses

Improving efficiency of cargo fleets

Improving efficiency of air conditioners

Improving efficiency of mobility

Improving efficiency of heating

Fuel switching in transportation

Waste management

11

-50,000

-40,000

-30,000

-20,000

-10,000

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

- 50 100 150 200 250 300

百万tCO2

円/tC

O2

Price on Carbon Technology Development and Diffusion

Supporting technology development and diffusion- FIT for renewable energy- Government purchasing green consumption- Strengthening regulations for housing, etc.

Visualization

Information easy to understand by consumers- Labeling for products , amount of GHG emissions- Information disclosure of GHG emissions

Standardization for the highest energy efficiency-Strengthening the level of standards-.Bench marking

Improvement of energy efficiency of automobiles and lighting, etc.

Economic measures for cost-efficiency -Emissions trading--Green Taxation

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. ）

Front-runner rule

Policies to achieve emission reductions in various sectors

Four pillars to achieve emission reduction target at 2020

Yen/

tCO

2

MtCO2

AIM Modeling Team 2009

12

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?

13

(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.

14

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-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 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)

・ 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.

出典： Pathways　to　a　Low-Carbon　Economy　Version　2　of　the　Global　Greenhouse　Gas　Abatement　Cost　Curve　(McKinsey＆ Company)2009

10 year of delayGlobal emission path whenactions taken only after 2020 (60€/tCO2)

Global emission path whenactions taken in 2010 and thereafter (60€/tCO2)

Considering “lock-in effects”: need for early actions!

17

18

Summary

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. The three (or four) pillars for solution can be implemented in an effective manner by analyzing emission mitigation potentials.

4. 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 re-examine their targets, to be sufficient to reach the long-term target.

5. Time for early action. Change the game, from that of “burden-sharing” to “a race for the Green-New-Deal Economy”

19

Thank you!

Yasuko Kameyama, Ph.D. , is responsible for the content of this presentation. For any questions, please contact ykame@nies.go.jp