Comparative assessment of Japan's long-term carbon budget under different effort-sharing principles

Climate Policy

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 1029-1047

  Kuramochi, Takeshi ^a   Asuka, Jusen ^b   Fekete, Hanna ^c   Tamura, Kentaro ^a   Höhne, Niklas ^c,d  

^a INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES   (Japan)

^b TOHOKU UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c New Climate Institute   (Germany)

^d WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

carbon budget; effort sharing; equity; Japan; mitigation policy; mitigation scenarios

Indexed keywords

CARBON BUDGET; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMISSION CONTROL; EQUITY; GREENHOUSE GAS; MITIGATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

JAPAN;

EID: 84937797749     PISSN: 14693062     EISSN: 17527457     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2015.1064344     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. M.R.Allen, D.J.Frame, C.Huntingford, C.D.Jones, J.A.Lowe, M.Meinshausen, & N.Meinshausen, (2009). Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature, 458, 1163–1166. doi:10.1038/nature08019
2. P.Baer, T.Athanasiou, S.Kartha, & E.Kemp-Benedict, (2008). The greenhouse development rights framework:The right to development in a climate constrained world (revised 2nd ed.). Berlin:Heinrich Böll Foundation, Christian Aid, EcoEquity and the Stockholm Environment Institute.
3. BASIC experts. (2011). Equitable access to sustainable development:Contribution to the body of scientific knowledge. Beijing, Brasilia, Cape Town and Mumbai:BASIC Experts.
4. M.M.Berk, & M.G.J.den Elzen, (2001). Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy:How to realise timely participation to meet stringent climate goals? Climate Policy, 1, 465–480. doi:10.3763/cpol.2001.0148
5. S.Bode, (2004). Equal emissions per capita over time – A proposal to combine responsibility and equity of rights for post-2012 GHG emission entitlement allocation. European Environment, 14, 300–316. doi:10.1002/eet.359
6. The Cabinet. (2009a). Chikyuu ondanka no chuuki mokuhyou no sentakushi (Options for the mid-term climate mitigation target). In Japanese. Tokyo:Cabinet Secretariat. Retrieved from http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/tikyuu/kaisai/dai07tyuuki/siryou1_honbun.pdf
7. The Cabinet. (2009b). Speech on the environment by Prime Minister Taro ASO. Tokyo:Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet.
8. L.Clarke, K.Jiang, K.Akimoto, M.Babiker, G.Blanford, K.Fisher-Vanden, … D.P.van Vuuren, (2014). Assessing transformation pathways. In O.Edenhofer (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Ch. 6). Cambridge/New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
9. R.De Vos, P.van Breevoort, N.Höhne, T.Winkel, & C.Sachweh, (2014). Assessing the EU 2030 climateand energy targets assessing the EU 2030 climate and energy targets (Briefing paper). Utrecht:Ecofys.
10. M.Den Elzen, P.Lucas, & D.van Vuuren, (2005). Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes. Energy Policy, 33, 2138–2151. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2004.04.012
11. M.Den Elzen, & M.Meinshausen, (2006). Meeting the EU 2°C climate target:Global and regional emission implications. Climate Policy, 6, 545–564. doi:10.1080/14693062.2006.9685620
12. M.G.J.Den Elzen, A.M.Beltran, A.F.Hof, B.van Ruijven, & J.van Vliet, (2012). Reduction targets and abatement costs of developing countries resulting from global and developed countries’ reduction targets by 2050. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18, 491–512. doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9371-9
13. M.G.J.Den Elzen, M.M.Berk, P.Lucas, B.Eickhout, & D.P.van Vuuren, (2003). Exploring climate regimes for differentiation of commitments to achieve the EU climate target (RIVM Report 728001023/2003). Bilthoven:National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, the Netherlands (RIVM).
14. M.G.J.Den Elzen, & P.Lucas, (2005). The FAIR model:A tool to analyse environmental and costs implications of climate regimes. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 10(2), 115–134. doi:10.1007/s10666-005-4647-z
15. 2-equivalent concentrations. Climatic Change, 90, 243–268. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9466-1
16. O.Edenhofer, B.Knopf, T.Barker, L.Baumstark, E.Bellevrat, B.Chateau, … D.P.van Vuuren, (2010). The economics of low stabilization:Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue), 11–48.
17. H.Fekete, M.Hagemann, & N.Höhne, (2013). Australia's carbon budget based on global effort sharing (Technical report, Commissioned by WWF Australia). Cologne:Ecofys.
18. M.Fleurbaey, S.Kartha, S.Bolwig, Y.L.Chee, Y.Chen, E.Corbera, … A.D.Sagar, (2014). Sustainable development and equity. In O.Edenhofer (Eds.), Climate change 2014:Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge/New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
19. GoJ. (2010, January 26). Note verbale submitted to the UNFCCC secretariat. Berlin:The Embassy of Japan.
20. GoJ. (2013, December 2013). Japan's First Biennial Report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Tokyo:The Government of Japan.
21. J.M.Gregory, C.D.Jones, P.Cadule, & P.Friedlingstein, (2009). Quantifying carbon cycle feedbacks. Journal of Climate, 22, 5232–5250. doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2949.1
22. H.Groenenberg, K.Blok, & J.van der Sluijs, (2004). Global triptych:A bottom-up approach for the differentiation of commitments under the climate convention. Climate Policy, 4, 153–175. doi:10.1080/14693062.2004.9685518
23. A.F.Hof, M.G.J.den Elzen, & D.P.van Vuuren, (2010). Including adaptation costs and climate change damages in evaluating post-2012 burden-sharing regimes. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15, 19–40. doi:10.1007/s11027-009-9201-x
24. N.Höhne, M.den Elzen, & D.Escalante, (2014). Regional GHG reduction targets based on effort sharing:A comparison of studies. Climate Policy, 14, 122–147. doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.849452
25. N.Höhne, M.den Elzen, & M.Weiss, (2006). Common but differentiated convergence (CDC):A new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy. Climate Policy, 6, 181–199. doi:10.1080/14693062.2006.9685594
26. N.Höhne, & S.Moltmann, (2008). Distribution of emission allowances under the Greenhouse Development Rights and other effort sharing approaches. Berlin:Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
27. N.Höhne, & S.Moltmann, (2009). Sharing the effort under a global carbon budget (A commissioned report by WWF International). Cologne:Ecofys.
28. B.Horstmann, & I.Scholz, (2011). Burden-sharing and allocation criteria under the UN climate regime– Neither fair nor effective (Briefing Paper 15/2011). Bonn:German Development Institute (DIE).
29. IIASA. (2015a). AMPERE public database version 1.0.0. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Retrieved from https://secure.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/AMPEREDB/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome
30. IIASA. (2015b). LIMITS project scenario database version 0.9.3. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Retrieved from https://secure.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/LIMITSDB/
31. IPCC. (2013). Climate change 2013:The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge/New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
32. R.Kawase, & Y.Matsuoka, (2013). Reduction targets under three burden-sharing schemes for 50% global GHG reduction toward 2050. Energy Policy, 63, 1126–1138. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.036
33. Kiko Network. (2015, May 1). Plans, bids, shut down of coal power plants in Japan. Tokyo:Kiko Network. Retrieved from http://sekitan.jp/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/150501coalpowerplant_plansbidsshutdown_en.pdf
34. B.Knopf, O.Edenhofer, T.Barker, N.Bauer, L.Baumstark, B.Chateau, … D.van Vuuren, (2009). The economics of low stabilisation:Implications for technological change and policy. In Making climate change work for us European perspectives on adaptation and mitigation strategies (Environmental policy, economics and law) (pp. 291–318). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
35. B.Knopf, M.Kowarsch, M.Lüken, O.Edenhofer, & G.Luderer, (2012). A global carbon market and the allocation of emission rights. In O.Edenhofer (Eds.), Climate change, justice and sustainability (pp. 269–285). Dordrecht:Springer Netherlands.
36. E.Kriegler, K.Riahi, N.Bauer, V.J.Schwanitz, N.Petermann, V.Bosetti, … O.Edenhofer, (2015). Making or breaking climate targets:The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 24–44. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.09.021
37. T.Kuramochi, (2015). Review of energy and climate policy developments in Japan before and after Fukushima. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 1320–1332. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.001
38. T.Kuramochi, N.Shimizu, T.Fransen, & S.Nakhooda, (2012). The Japanese fast-start finance contribution (WRI Working Paper). Washington, DC:World Resources Institute.
39. A.Kuriyama, & T.Kuramochi, (2015). Impact assessment of recent coal-fired power plant construction plans on Japan's mid- to long-term climate policy (IGES Working Paper No.WP1503). In Japanese. Hayama:Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
40. H.D.Matthews, & K.Caldeira, (2008). Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L04705.
41. H.D.Matthews, N.P.Gillett, P.A.Stott, & K.Zickfeld, (2009). The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions. Nature, 459, 829–832. doi:10.1038/nature08047
42. M.Meinshausen, N.Meinshausen, W.Hare, S.C.B.Raper, K.Frieler, R.Knutti, … M.R.Allen, (2009). Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 458, 1158–1162. doi:10.1038/nature08017
43. MOE. (2012a). 2013 nen ikou no taisaku sesaku ni kansuru houkokusho (Heisei 24 nen 6 gatsu). chikyuuondankataisaku no sentakushi no gen-an ni tsuite (Report on the global warming countermeasures beyond 2013. Proposal of options. June 2012). In Japanese. Global Environment Committee, Central Environment Council, Ministry of the Environment, Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved http://www.env.go.jp/earth/report/h24–03/index.html
44. MOE. (2012b). The fourth basic environment plan (English translated version).Tokyo:Environmental Policy Bureau, Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved from http://www.env.go.jp/en/focus/docs/files/20120427-01_01.pdf
45. MOE & GIO. (2013). National greenhouse gas inventory report of JAPAN (2013). Tokyo/Tsukuba:Low-carbon Society Promotion Office, Global Environment Bureau, Ministry of the Environment, and Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office of Japan (GIO), Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies.
46. MOE & GIO. (2015). National greenhouse gas inventory report of Japan (2015). Low-carbon Society Promotion Office, Global Environment Bureau, Ministry of the Environment, and Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office of Japan (GIO), Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies.
47. S.Nakhooda, T.Fransen, T.Kuramochi, A.Caravani, A.Prizzon, N.Shimizu, … B.Welham, (2013). Mobilising international climate finance:Lessons from the fast-start finance period. Washington, DC:World Resources Institute/London:Overseas Development Institute/Hayama:Institute for Global Environmental Strategies.
48. NIES. (2009). Chuuchouki mokuhyou kentou ni tsuite (Comment on the mid-term target formulation). In Japanese. Onogawa:National Institute for Environmental Studies.
49. NPU. (2011). Interim compilation of discussion points for the formulation of ‘Innovative strategy for energy and the environment’. Tokyo:Energy and Environment Council, National Policy Unit, Government of Japan.
50. OECD. (2015). Climate change:The zero emissions goal. Paris:Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/environment/focus-eliminate-emissions-cop19.htm
51. X.Pan, F.Teng, & G.Wang, (2014). Sharing emission space at an equitable basis:Allocation scheme based on the equal cumulative emission per capita principle. Applied Energy, 113, 1810–1818. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.021
52. D.Phylipsen, J.W.Bode, K.Blok, H.Merkus, & B.Metz, (1998). A triptych approach to burden differentiation:GHG emissions in the European bubble. Energy Policy, 26, 929–943. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(98)00036-6
53. K.Tamura, T.Kuramochi, & J.Asuka, (2013). A process for making nationally-determined mitigation contributions more ambitious. Carbon and Climate Law Review, 4, 231–241.
54. M.Tavoni, E.Kriegler, T.Aboumahboub, K.Calvin, G.de Maere, M.Wise, … D.van Vuuren, (2013). The distribution of the major economies’ effort in the Durban platform scenarios. Climate Change Economics, 4(4), 1340009, 25 p. doi:10.1142/S2010007813400095
55. UNEP. (2014). The emissions gap report 2014. A UNEP synthesis report. Nairobi:United Nations Environment Programme.
56. UNFCCC. (1997). FCCC/AGBM/1997/MISC.1/Add.3. Implementation of the Berlin Mandate. Additionalproposals from Parties. Addendum:Note by the secretariat. Ad hoc group on the Berlin Mandate, Seventh session, 31 July–7 August 1997, Item 3 of the provisional agenda. Bonn:United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
57. UNFCCC. (2010). Decision 1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements (contained in UNFCCC document FCCC/CP/2010/7/ Add.1).
58. UNFCCC. (2014). FCCC/CP/2014/10/Add.1. Addendum part two:Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twentieth session. Decision 1/CP.20 Lima Call for Climate Action, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
59. D.P.Van Vuuren, M.Isaac, M.G.J.den Elzen, E.Stehfest, & J.van Vliet, (2010). Low stabilization scenarios and implications for major world regions from an integrated assessment perspective. The Energy Journal, 31(Special Issue), 165–191.
60. WBGU. (2009). Solving the climate dilemma:The budget approach. Berlin:German Advisory Council on Global Change.