Search

This study assesses Japan's emission pathways aimed at net-zero emissions by 2050, as implied by the Paris Agreement's global climate goal of pursuing efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 °C. Based on a scenario analysis performed using AIM/Enduse [Japan], Japan's energy supply sector requires a radical transformation, including reliance on carbon dioxide removal options such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to attain net-zero emissions by 2050 without substantial social changes. By contrast, the gap between the 1.5 and 2 °C scenarios is relatively moderate in demand sectors. The building sector may need to be decarbonized even in the 2 °C case, whereas the transportation sector will face additional challenges, such as electrification and penetration of biofuel, in the 1.5 °C case. Reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is a huge challenge, since the price of carbon in the net-zero emissions case increases by a factor of four or five over that in the 2 °C case. Moreover, the absence of early action as well as limited use of low-carbon energies would considerably add to the burden. Given these challenges and uncertainties, the potential of other mitigation options, such as drastic social change, large-scale afforestation and international emissions trading, merits consideration.

The Paris Agreement has confirmed that the ultimate climate policy goal is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C. Moving the goal from 2 °C to 1.5 °C calls for much more concerted effort, and presents greater challenges and costs. This study uses an Asia-Pacific Integrated Model/Computable General Equilibrium (AIM/CGE) to evaluate the role of socioeconomic factors (e.g. technological cost and energy demand assumptions) in changing mitigation costs and achieving the 1.5 °C and 2 °C goals, and to identify the channels through which socioeconomic factors affect mitigation costs. Four families of socioeconomic factors were examined, namely low-carbon energy-supply technologies, end-use energy-efficiency improvements, lifestyle changes and biomass-technology promotion (technology cost reduction and social acceptance promotion). The results show that technological improvement in low-carbon energy-supply technologies is the most important factor in reducing mitigation costs. Moreover, under the constraints of the 1.5 °C goal, the relative effectiveness of other socioeconomic factors, such as energy efficiency improvement, lifestyle changes and biomass-related technology promotion, becomes more important in decreasing mitigation cost in the 1.5 °C scenarios than in the 2 °C scenarios.

The Paris Agreement has confirmed that the ultimate climate policy goal is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C. Moving the goal from 2 °C to 1.5 °C calls for much more concerted effort, and presents greater challenges and costs. This study uses an Asia-Pacific Integrated Model/Computable General Equilibrium (AIM/CGE) to evaluate the role of socioeconomic factors (e.g. technological cost and energy demand assumptions) in changing mitigation costs and achieving the 1.5 °C and 2 °C goals, and to identify the channels through which socioeconomic factors affect mitigation costs. Four families of socioeconomic factors were examined, namely low-carbon energy-supply technologies, end-use energy-efficiency improvements, lifestyle changes and biomass-technology promotion (technology cost reduction and social acceptance promotion). The results show that technological improvement in low-carbon energy-supply technologies is the most important factor in reducing mitigation costs. Moreover, under the constraints of the 1.5 °C goal, the relative effectiveness of other socioeconomic factors, such as energy efficiency improvement, lifestyle changes and biomass-related technology promotion, becomes more important in decreasing mitigation cost in the 1.5 °C scenarios than in the 2 °C scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assesses Japan's emission pathways aimed at net-zero emissions by 2050, as implied by the Paris Agreement's global climate goal of pursuing efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 °C. Based on a scenario analysis performed using AIM/Enduse [Japan], Japan's energy supply sector requires a radical transformation, including reliance on carbon dioxide removal options such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to attain net-zero emissions by 2050 without substantial social changes. By contrast, the gap between the 1.5 and 2 °C scenarios is relatively moderate in demand sectors. The building sector may need to be decarbonized even in the 2 °C case, whereas the transportation sector will face additional challenges, such as electrification and penetration of biofuel, in the 1.5 °C case. Reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is a huge challenge, since the price of carbon in the net-zero emissions case increases by a factor of four or five over that in the 2 °C case. Moreover, the absence of early action as well as limited use of low-carbon energies would considerably add to the burden. Given these challenges and uncertainties, the potential of other mitigation options, such as drastic social change, large-scale afforestation and international emissions trading, merits consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The exposure of workers to hot environments is expected to increase as a result of climate change. In order to prevent heat-related illness, it is recommended that workers take breaks during working hours. However, this would lead to reductions in worktime and labor productivity. In this study, we estimate the economic cost of heat-related illness prevention through worker breaks associated with climate change under a wide range of climatic and socioeconomic conditions. We calculate the worktime reduction based on the recommendation of work/rest ratio and the estimated future wet bulb glove temperature, which is an index of heat stresses. Corresponding GDP losses (cost of heat-related illness prevention through worker breaks) are estimated using a computable general equilibrium model throughout this century. Under the highest emission scenario, GDP losses in 2100 will range from 2.6 to 4.0% compared to the current climate conditions. On the other hand, GDP losses will be less than 0.5% if the 2.0 °C goal is achieved. The benefit of climate-change mitigation for avoiding worktime loss is comparable to the cost of mitigation (cost of the greenhouse gas emission reduction) under the 2.0 °C goal. The relationship between the cost of heat-related illness prevention through worker breaks and global average temperature rise is approximately linear, and the difference in economic loss between the 1.5 °C goal and the 2.0 °C goal is expected to be approximately 0.3% of global GDP in 2100. Although climate mitigation and socioeconomic development can limit the vulnerable regions and sectors, particularly in developing countries, outdoor work is still expected to be affected. The effectiveness of some adaptation measures such as additional installation of air conditioning devices or shifting the time of day for working are also suggested. In order to reduce the economic impacts, adaptation measures should also be implemented as well as pursing ambitious climate change mitigation targets.