alternative pathways toward sustainable development and ......dears main focus: 2020-2030, until the...

1

Research Institute of Innovative

Technology for the Earth

ALternative Pathways toward Sustainable development and climate stabilization (ALPS) – Project Outline

– Development of alternative scenarios under the world countries having multiple objects and

the different priorities

Background and Objective

The purpose of this study is to develop alternative scenarios with realistic assumptions that nations, as actors

in the global community, have multiple objectives with different priorities. A variety of emissions scenarios for

climate change research have been developed so far, and made a due contribution to policy-making in the

climate change mitigation efforts. The traditional approaches in modeling exercises for scenario development,

however, tend to describe a simplified world under which mitigation or adaptation costs are minimized with the

ideal conditions. The reality is more complex: different actors have different policy priorities based on their

economic level, natural circumstances and other constraints, which leads to difficulty in creating a coordinated

uniform policy, as observed in the COP15 negotiations and in the domestic policymaking processes. Climate

change is not the only issue on the global agenda, so it should be addressed in a balanced manner across multiple

dimensions. Traditional global abatement scenarios may be too simplified to capture richness of detail and

context of the real world situation. The results reveal that climate policy with the highly-idealized premises

sometimes does not deliver relevant outcomes, or rather causes unduly confusion to the society.

The ALPS project aims at providing alternative plausible future scenarios and through quantification of

multiple aspects of society on the assumptions that the real-world society is intrinsically consist of a wide range

of values. This approach allows us to inform decision makers of more appropriate strategies toward sustainable

development and climate stabilization from longer and wider perspectives. Another focus is to gain a clearer

understanding of CO2 emissions structure on a national, sectoral and technological basis in order to deal with

short and mid-term climate challenges. The scenarios on combinations of macro and micro views would generate

further insights into climate change mitigation and sustainable development.

Socio-economic Scenario Development

Modeling simulations are powerful tools to support decision making even though they tend to assume

perfect information or perfectly rational behavior. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind that the real

world is less elegant and simple. The gap between the real world and virtual model world creates a risk of

sending wrong message. Therefore this ALPS project starts from a deep understanding of the current world

situation and learns from historical trends in order to avoid such trap. Based on the insights gained from the

socio-economic analysis above, narrative storylines with great details are worked out from broader

perspectives.

There are three pillars for core narrative scenarios; 1) Socio-economic scenarios, 2) Climate Change Policy

scenarios, and 3) Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios. Furthermore sub-scenarios focus on

the subject matter of development and diffusion of climate friendly technologies, economic growth of least

developed countries and impacts of inter/intra national economic gap (see Figure 1).

With regard to the socio-economic scenarios, a key scenario driver is technological progress, which involves

significant uncertainty. Although policy can have impact on technology progress to some extent, other factors

can bring larger uncertainty about the future technological change beyond policy impact. It is quite difficult to

forecast future innovation and technological progress with high accuracy, so we prepare two discrete scenarios

to cover the uncertainty. Scenario A (Medium technological progress scenario) illustrates a gradual shift from

dynamic economic development toward a well matured economy especially in developed countries. Scenario B

(High technological progress scenario) describes a future world of very rapid economic growth with brilliant

2



innovation.

As for scenarios of climate change priority in the broader global agenda, we develop three different

narratives. Scenario I named “Pluralistic society scenario” is approximate to the current real world situation

with people’s diverse values in nature. This scenario is premised on the existence of various barriers to

technology diffusion. Scenario II is a “Climate policy prioritized scenario” is a one under which climate

change policy is prioritized and people’s behavior are rational in the sense that mitigation measures are taken in

a cost effective way. This assumption was implicitly adopted by most of the traditional climate change

assessment. Scenario III called “Energy security prioritized scenario” in which each nation puts high priority

on domestic energy resources from energy security perspective.

Our future emissions scenarios are fully harmonized with a set of four RCPs for IPCC AR5. The RCPs have

been selecting from existing literature to span the full range of possible trajectories for future greenhouse

concentration: a very high emission scenario leading to 8.5 W/m2, a high stabilization scenario leading to 6

W/m2, an intermediate stabilization scenario leading to 4.5 W/m2 and a low mitigation scenario leading to 2.6

W/m2 (RCP 3-PD). Additionally we go over 3.7 W/m2 scenario, which comes to five emission pathways in

total.

Scenario A:Medium technological

progress scenario

Scenario B:High technological progress scenario

Scenarios for macro-level and socio-economic conditions in the long term

Climate change policy scenarios

Scenarios for emission reduction levels

Scenarios for other climate change policies

Scenario for the timing of countries’ participation in the

framework of emission reduction

Scenario for international offset mechanisms

(e.g. REDD)

I：Pluralistic society scenario

II：Climate policy prioritized scenario

III: Energy security prioritized scenario

RCP3.0PD

RCP4.5

RCP6.0

RCP8.5

Scenario for domestic economic gap

Scenario for economic development in least developed countries

Economic scenarios

Scenario for preventing population decrease in

developed countries

Nuclear power scenario

Scenarios for energy technologies

Renewable energy scenario

EV scenario

Smart grid scenario

Scenario for oil price

Scenario for natural resources

Scenario for agricultural productivity

Scenarios for other technologies

ALPS core scenarios

etc. etc.

CCS scenario

etc.

etc.

etc.

Scenario for Geo-engineering

Figure 1: Scenarios to be developed in the ALPS project

Model Group

The ALPS project performs comprehensive modeling scenarios supplemented with the existing models

developed by RITE. Scenarios associated with climate change need to be developed in the context of

sustainable development with a wide-ranging set of models to reflect a multifaceted reality. The DNE21+

Model assesses CO2 emissions from fuel combustion with great details of national, sectoral and technological

descriptions. Along with the food demand-supply model, fresh water model, and land use model, a wide

variety of plausible future scenarios and narratives are assessed in an integrated and consistent manner.

The models are chosen appropriately in accordance with time frame and objectives of the assessment. For

near and medium term analysis, detailed descriptions of the nation, of sector and of technology are underscored.

For longer term analysis, interactions between climate impacts and socio-economic activities are more

highlighted.

3



DNE21+ Main focus: 2020-2030, until the year 2050

DEARS Main focus: 2020-2030, until the year2050, with whole economy and integrated with climate model

DNE21 Until the year 2150,with whole economy,integrated with climate model

Simplified climate change model

Grid-based estimation of climate change

Non-CO2 GHG ModelMain focus: 2020-2030, until the year 2150

Model for the analysis of food demand/supply, water resource and land use change (until the year 2150)

GHGs excluding energy-related CO2

Energy

Climate changeEconomy

Land use, food, water resource

Assessment model for impact on biodiversity (using BIOME model)

Assessment model for health impact

Industrial structural changeFinance

Model for the analysis of environmentally friendly cities

Population, GDP

Energy security assessment model

Water security assessment modelFood security assessment model

Gap in domestic income

Distribution of urban population

Impact of global warming

Figure 2: Models for the development of ALPS quantitative scenarios

Future perspectives based on quantitative understanding of the world

Adequate understanding of complicated real world situation is necessary to address climate change because

challenges of global warming are closely linked to the various global agenda. They may not be captured by a

simplified index. In this study, we explore a range of indices from both macro perspective and micro perspective,

to understand current situation and to depict future prospects.

- Socio-economic trends and future perspectives

Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively show global population and global GDP of the socio-economic scenarios,

“Scenario A: Medium technological Progress Scenario” and “Scenario B: High Technological Progress

Scenario.” For Scenario A, we assume medium population growth, referring to the UN medium population

projection of the “2008 Revision of the World Population Prospects” In this scenario global population will get

to 9.1 billion by 2050, and expected to grow stably to reach 9.3 billion by 2100. Alternatively Scenario B is

characterized by rapid economic growth due to higher technological progress. In this scenario global population

moderately increases from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 8.6 billion people by 2050, and then peaks out at 7.4 billion by

2100. The average global GDP growth rate over the period of 2000-2050 is 2.5% per year for Scenario A and

2.8 % year for Scenario B. Over the 21st century GDP increases at a growth rate of 2.0% per year in Scenario A

and 2.3% per year in Scenario B.

4



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

人口（億人）

Range in SRES

SRES A2（IIASA1996 High）

SRES B2（UN1998 Medium）

SRES A1/B1（IIASA1996 Low）

IIASA2007（10-90 percentile）

UN2008 medium

UN2008 High

UN2008 Low

Range in UN2008

Range in ALPS

ALPS-Scenario B

ALPS-Scenario AP

op

ula

tio

n (

100 m

illio

n)

Figure 3 Global Population Scenarios

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

GD

P (T

rilli

on 2

000 U

SD

)

ALPS-Scenario A

ALPS-Scenario B

Range in SRES

SRES A2

SRES A1 SRES B1

SRES B2

EIA-IEO2010

IEA-ETP2010

Range in ALPS

Figure 4 Global GDP Scenarios

Note: Historical data to 2008 and RITE projection after 2009. SRES stands for the “Special Report on Emissions

Scenarios”, a report prepared by the IPCC. We adjust them at 2000 prices since SRES is based on the 1990 prices.

EIA-IEA 2010 data at 2005 prices is also aligned with the base-year. PPP based IEA-ETP 2010 is converted into MER

accounts in accordance with the global average ratio of PPP/MER under the ALPS Scenario A’s assumptions.

United States30%

EU1524%

EU27(+12)1%

Japan14%

Other Annex I6%

China6%

India2%

Other Asia5%

Latin America7%

Africa2%

Other Non Annex I

3%

2005

United States19%

EU1513%

EU27(+12)2%

Japan6%

Other Annex I6%

China22%

India7%

Other Asia7%

Latin America8%

Africa5%

Other Non Annex I

5%

2050

United States15%

EU159% EU27(+12)

1%

Japan3%

Other Annex I4%

China16%

India11%

Other Asia12%

Latin America11%

Africa11%

Other Non Annex I

7%

2100

Figure 5 Share of world GDP in Scenario A

5



- The current state of energy efficiency

The widespread deployment of a range of energy efficient technologies can lead to a more secure and

sustainable future. Keeping track of details of technology situation at sector and national level, sector wise

energy efficiency is estimated on a technology basis. This allows to analyze potential impact of CO2

emissions reduction through accelerating technology deployment.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pri

mary

en

erg

y c

on

su

mp

tio

n o

f b

asic

o

xyg

en

fu

rnace s

teel

(GJ/t

-cru

de s

teel) 2000 2005

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Th

erm

al e

ne

rgy c

onsu

mption

of clinke

r

pro

du

ctio

n (

GJ/t

-clinke

r)

2005

Figure 6 Energy efficiency in steel and cement sector

Note: The analysis above was carried out by RITE through other research project.

- Power generating costs and their projections

As for power sector, current and future generation costs and technology perspectives were widely

surveyed. Figure 7 shows projections of power generating costs including grid costs. Costs of coal-fired

power plants and nuclear power range between 8yen/kWh and 12yen/kWh, of gas-fired power plants

between 10yen/kWh and 14yen/kWh, of wind power plants between 16yen/kWh and 18yen/kWh, and of

solar PV between 55yen/kWh and 63yen/kWh. Costs of renewable sources themselves are expected to

decline as capacities expand, whereas their ancillary costs are expected to grow because locational

conditions become less favorable and because additional investments are required for grid stability to

secure reliable power supply. While the costs of wind power generation is nearly equivalent to the costs of

fossil power plants when its installed capacity is small, wind power is getting lack of competitiveness in

the power market as its capacity grows.

PV

Wind

Nuclear power

Coal

Natural gasElectricity

prices

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

発電単価（円

/kW

h）

Po

wer

gen

era

tio

n c

osts

(Y

en

/kW

h)

Figure 7 Projections of power generating costs by generation type in Japan

6



- Future outlook of crude steel production

The Iron and Steel sector is one of the largest energy intensive industries and has a significant impact

on global energy consumption and CO2 emissions. As shown Figure 8 and Figure 9 we extrapolate future

crude steel production and scrap availability. Crudes steel production in China has expanded rapidly in the

past decade, but their production level will be saturated sooner or later, judging from historical data on

apparent steel consumption per capita. Alternatively steel production in India is expected to increase. We

estimate global steel production is expected to reach approximately 2.2 billion tons per year by 2050.

There are mainly two types of steel production process, the scrap/EAF route and the BF/BOF route. In

terms of energy/carbon-intensity, the scrap/EAF is less intensive because there is no need to reduce iron

ore to iron and because it cuts out the need for the ore preparation and coke-making steps. In that sense it

is crucial to estimate scrap availability and potential of EAF in projecting global CO2 emissions from iron

and steel sector. One of the biggest challenges in the estimation is to know the volume of social stock of

steel scrap and their availability. With limited information and data, we explore two approaches to assess

future scrap availability in the world, referring to previous studies. Global availability of process scrap and

obsolete scrap increases ranging from 0.8 to 1.0 billion tones per year in 2050. The volume of home scrap

is estimated to reach 0.15 million tones and the sum of the total scrap availability, including home scrap,

process scrap and obsolete scrap, is expected to range from 0.95 billion tones to 1.15 billion tones whereas

IEA(2009) estimates around 1.25 billion tones scrap availability in 2050. This suggests the fact that IEA

overestimates scrap availability by about from 0.1 billion tones to 0.3 billion tones.

OECD Europe

OECD North America

OECD Pacific

China

India

Other developing Asia

Economies in transition

Africa and Middle East

Latin America

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Cru

de

ste

el p

rod

uct

ion

(M

illio

n t

on

/yr)

Statistics

Scenario

Figure 8 Historical crude steel production and its projection by region

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

Scra

p c

on

sum

pit

ion

（M

illio

n t

on

/yr)

Scenario (based on estimation logic no.2)

Scenario (based on estimation logic no.1)

Estimate (based on logic no.2)

Estimate (based on logic no.1)

Prompt scrap + obsolete scrap (Fe-equivalent)

Figure 9 Global historical scrap (prompt scrap and obsolete scrap) consumption

and projection of future scrap availability

7



GHGs emissions and their emissions reduction projections

Global GHGs emissions were 32 Gt CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq) in 1990 and 39 Gt CO2-eq. Without

climate policy, they are estimated to reach 55 Gt CO2-eq in 2020 and around 79 Gt CO2-eq in 2050, which

is more than twice the current emissions level. Particularly emissions from developing countries are

expected to grow faster as their economy expands.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

GH

G e

mis

sio

n[G

tCO

2eq./yr]

Other Non Annex I

Africa

Latin America

Other Asia

India

China

Other Annex I

Japan

EU27(+12)

EU15

United States

Figure 10 Global GHG emission outlook

Note: Historical data to 2008 and RITE projection after 2009 based on the “Scenario A: Medium technological Progress

Scenario” in combination with “Scenario I: Pluralistic society scenario”, which is approximate to the real-world social

behavior. GHGs cover the Kyoto’s six gases. Emissions from LULUCF, international aviation and maritime transport

are excluded.

Annex I exc. US: 22%

Annex I: 58%

Annex I exc.

US: 27%

United States19%

EU1513%

EU27(+12)4%

Japan4%

Other Annex I

18%

China12%

India5%

Other Asia6%

Latin America

7%

Africa5%

Other Non Annex I

7%

1990

United States18%

EU1511%

EU27(+12)2%

Japan4%

Other Annex I

10%China19%

India6%

Other Asia9%

Latin America

8%

Africa6%

Other Non Annex I

7%

2005

United States15%

EU159%

EU27(+12)2%

Japan3%Other

Annex I8%

China25%

India8%

Other Asia9%

Latin America

7%

Africa6%

Other Non Annex I

8%

2020

United States12%

EU157%

EU27(+12)3%

Japan1%

Other Annex I

7%

China24%India

11%

Other Asia10%

Latin America

8%

Africa9%

Other Non Annex I

8%

2050

Figure 11 GHG emissions by region

8



Figure 12 and Figure 13 illustrate regional and technological contribution to cut global emissions in

half by 2050 respectively. They imply significant contribution by energy efficiency to CO2 reduction.

From longer perspective, nuclear power generation, renewable energy and Carbon capture and storage

(CCS) will play an important role in 2050. From regional perspective, developing countries have larger

potential to reduce emissions, which suggests that global actions are necessary to meet the target.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Ene

rgy-

rela

ted

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns

and

Re

du

ctio

ns

[GtC

O2

/yr]

Year

Electricity generation: CCS

Electricity generation: Renewables

Electricity generation: Nucleaer

Electricity generation: Efficiency improvement & Fuel switching among fossil fuels

Other energy conversion sector

Residential sector

Transportation sector

Industrial sector

CO2 Emission

17%

14%

15%

11%

43%

Baseline emissions:57 GtCO2/yr

Emissions when halving global emissions: 13 GtCO2/yr

Figure 12 Reduction contribution by technology for halving global emissions by 2050 (Scenario A-I)

Note: Estimated by RITE DNE21+. CO2 from fuel combustion only. Emissions from international aviation and maritime

transport are excluded.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Ene

rgy-

rela

ted

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns

& R

ed

uct

ion

s[G

tCO

2/y

r]

Year

Other non-OECD

Other OME

India

China

Other OECD

USA

CO2 emissions

6%

10%

24%

17%

13%

30%

Baseline emissions:57 GtCO2/yr

Emissions when halving global emissions: 13 GtCO2/yr

Figure 13 Reduction contribution by region for halving global emissions by 2050 (Scenario A-I)

9



Scenarios on the climate change priority in the broader global agenda

The differences among three scenarios (I, II and III) toward 2050 is analyzed by DNE21+ model with

socio-economic assumptions of Scenario A. In our real world, energy efficient appliances and technologies

are not necessarily chosen by consumer due to the existence of the efficiency gap. We assume relatively

shorter payback period (or higher implicit discount rate) as observed in the real world situation for

Scenario I, “Pluralistic society scenario”, while Scenario II, namely “Climate policy prioritized scenario”,

is characterized by the longer payback period. Figure 14 provides an idea of difference in technology

choice between Scenario I and Scenario II. Scenarios III “Energy security prioritized scenario” is

differentiated in higher tariff barriers for oil and gas export.

(Source) IEA ETP 2010

The total cost of standard technology is

lower than the one of efficient technology

with these implicit costs.

The total cost of efficient technology will

be lower than the one of standard

technology if these implicit costs are

removed through bottom-up measures.

These implicit costs are higher in

developing countries, and lower in

Japan. In general, these costs are

higher in residential sector.

Scenario I

Scenario II

Figure 14 Image of technology choice

Figure 15 and Figure 16 identify differences in total primary energy supply and power generation mix

respectively for the baseline case among Scenario I, II, and III. The share of nuclear power generation is

higher in Scenario III than in Scenario I. Power generation mix of Scenario II is characterized by higher

share of nuclear power generation and of highly efficient fossil fuel power plants regardless of their

expensive initial costs.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

24000

Scen

ario

I

Scen

ario

II

Scen

ario

III

Scen

ario

I

Scen

ario

II

Scen

ario

III

Scen

ario

I

Scen

ario

II

Scen

ario

III

Y2020 Y2030 Y2050

Pri

mar

y En

erg

y Su

pp

ly[M

toe

/yr] Others

Biomass & Waste

Hydro & Geothermal

Nuclear

Natural Gas

Oil

Coal

Figure 15 Baseline of total primary energy supply (Scenario I, II and III)

10



0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

Scen

ario

I

Scen

ario

II

Scen

ario

III

Scen

ario

I

Scen

ario

II

Scen

ario

III

Scen

ario

I

Scen

ario

II

Scen

ario

III

2020 2030 2050

Po

we

r ge

ne

rati

on

[TW

h/y

r]

PV

Wind

Biomass-High

Biomass-Low

Hydro&Geothermal

Nuclear

Gas-CHP

Gas-High

Gas-Middle

Gas-Low

Oil-CHP

Oil-High

Oil-Middle

Oil-Low

Coal-High

Coal-Middle

Coal-Low

Figure 16 Baseline global power generation (Scenario I, II and III)

Figure 17 compares marginal abatement costs to reduce global emissions in half among Scenario I, III,

and II. Scenario I and III imply higher carbon prices due to longer payback period in accordance with the

real world situation, while Scenario II leads to lower marginal abatement costs. This result suggests that

explicit carbon prices can be very high to meet the targets, which causes great difficulty in implementation,

and that detailed measures to remove market barriers to energy efficiency can lower mitigation costs as

described in Scenario II.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

CO

2 m

argi

nal

ab

ate

me

nt

cost

[$/t

CO

2]

Year

Scenario I

Scenario II

Scenario III

Scenario I and III

Scenario II

Figure 17 CO2 marginal abatement cost in Scenario I, II and III

11



Socio-economic scenarios and emissions pathways

The divergence between Scenario A and Scenario B and among the RCP scenarios are analyzed with

the underlying assumptions of Scenario I, using DNE21 model, which has a simpler structure but longer

timeframe than DNE21+ has. Figure 18 shows global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for the

baseline cases of Scenario A (Medium Technology Progress) and Scenario B (High Technology Progress),

and emission pathways of each RCP category. Given the uncertainty of economic growth and

technological change, it is assumed that the baselines for global CO2 emissions make little difference

between Scenario A and Scenario B. Their global CO2 emissions are expected to double by 2050 and triple

by 2100. The atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2100 will range approximately from 700 to 770

ppm-CO2.

ベースライン

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100

CO

2 e

mis

sio

ns f

rom

en

erg

y (

GtC

O2

/yr)

RITE ALPS-A

RITE ALPS-B

ALPS-A650ppmCO2 (RCP6.0)


ALPS-A450ppmCO2

ALPS-A375ppmCO2

RCP8.5 (MESSAGE)

RCP6.0 (AIM)

RCP4.5 (MiniCAM)

RCP3-PD (IMAGE)

Figure 18 Baseline scenario for global CO2 emissions from energy

300

400

500

600

700

800

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Atm

osp

heric C

O2

co

ncentr

atio

n (

pp

m-C

O2)

RITE ALPS-A

RITE ALPS-B



ALPS-A450ppmCO2

ALPS-A375ppmCO2

Figure 19 Trajectories of atmospheric CO2 concentration

Figure 20 provides an insight into a loss of per cent GDP to meet the required mitigation target for a

given RCP scenario. There are little differences in GDP loss between 2050 and 2100. The 375 ppm-CO2

(corresponding to 350 ppm-CO2 eq) scenario gives approximately 4% GDP loss and the 450 ppm-CO2

(corresponding to 550 ppm-CO2 eq) scenario is about 3%. The gap between Scenario A and Scenario B is

also small.

Baseline

12



GDPロス(%)

限界削減費用

($/tCO2)

ALPS

Figure 20 Global GDP loss for each stabilization level (Compared with IPCC AR4)

Analysis of indicators on sustainable development

Maintaining a subtle balance between mitigation efforts and other global challenges enhances social

welfare and ensures sustainability of mitigation actions because a particular set of values and norms

constitute our real world collectively. We therefore assess our scenarios from a broad set of aspects to

understand climate change mitigation measures in the wider context of sustainable development.

Figure 21 and Figure 22 illustrate examples of energy security evaluation according to the IEA’s index.

The baseline scenario indicates that vulnerability to energy security risks is expected to increase toward

2050. It is noteworthy that energy system can be more vulnerable than the baseline in the scenario cutting

global CO2 emissions in half by 2050. Energy security will be enhanced in the “Energy Security Scenario”

of our scenario III based on our assessment. Figure 23 shows water-stressed population. Scenarios are also

examined by other indexes with multiple criteria.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

US

W. E

uro

pe

E.E

uro

pe

FSU

ME, T

urk

ey,

Nort

h A

fric

a

Jap

an

Chin

a

Indi

a

Kore

a, A

SEAN

World

avera

ge

Energ

y s

ecurity

index

Y2000

Y2050 - Baseline

Y2050 - 50% reduction in 2050Level of vulnerability

Figure 21 Energy security index by region (Scenario A-I)

GDP loss

(%)

13



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Sce

na

rio

I

Sce

na

rio

II

Sce

na

rio

III

Sce

na

rio

I

Sce

na

rio

II

Sce

na

rio

III

Y2000 Baseline 50% reduction in 2050

En

erg

y s

ecu

rity

ind

ex

Gas Oil

Y2050

Level of vulnerability

Figure 22 Global weighted average of energy security index for each scenario

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

U.S

.

Canada

Centr

al A

merica

Bra

zil

Oth

er S

outh

Am

erica

West

ern

Euro

pe

East

ern

Euro

pe, oth

er

FS

U

Russia

Nort

h A

fric

a, M

iddle

East

South

east A

fric

a

South

west

Afr

ica

Japan

Chin

a

Oth

er E

ast A

sia

South

east A

sia

India

Oth

er S

outh

Asia

Oceania

Wa

ter-

str

es

se

d p

op

ula

tio

n

(millio

n)

2000

2030 Baseline

2030 50% reduction in 2050

2050 Baseline

2050 50% reduction in 2050

Figure 23 Water-stressed population by scenario, period and region

Expected Outcome

Synthetic scenarios toward sustainable development and climate stabilization are expected to be generated

in a consistent and quantitative manner by the end of project period, March 2012. This study will provide

substantial insight into alternative pathways and catches the implied meaning from the quantitative assessment in

order to guide our future actions.

Findings and lessons learned from this research project, including scenario analysis, are returned to society.

The results of this study are expected to not only make scientific contribution to the IPCC but also to serve as

fundamental information for decision making on global and domestic climate change policy.

Project Period

From April 2007to March 2012

Contact to:

Keigo Akimoto

Group Leader, Systems Analysis Group

Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)

9-2 Kizugawadai, Kizugawa-shi Kyoto 619-0292 JAPAN

PHONE: +81-774-75-2304 FAX: +81-774-75-2317 E-mail: [email protected]

Update: April 2011
mailto:[email protected]

alternative pathways toward sustainable development and ......dears main focus: 2020-2030, until the...

Documents