Here, simulation17. Simulated dynamic EMEDA results show as real

Here, we mainly discuss decomposed real value-added of simulated dynamic EMEDA results under SSPs-RCPs combination scenarios compared to those under a BaU scenario. A dynamic EMEDA emphasizes the effects of CO2 emissions reductions in the world as eight regions. For consistent with other CGE studies in climate change impacts, we interpret our results using five regions, although our dynamic EMEDA simulates direct and insirect impacts in eight regions. Following other studies, Japan, USA and OECD8 are combined as OECD, and Asia has China and OAsiaOceania. The other EMEDA regions are not changed (See Table 8). The General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) is used for EMEDA simulation17. Simulated dynamic EMEDA results show as real valueadded (2004US$). First, we discuss regional impacts of decomposed value-added with CO2 emission reduction costs under various SSP-RCP combination scenarios. Then, sectoral impacts and regional and sectoral impacts are discussed. All results are reported by a rate of change which is the difference between simulated value-added under a SSP-RCP combination scenario minus that under a BaU society, which does not include mitigation or CO2 emission reduction. Calculated value-added is decomposed by three parts: direct climate change damage 15Total radiative forcing does not exceed 6.0W/m2 before 2100. 16Other GHGs are given exogenously according to RICE2010. 17The GAMS website is found at http://www.gams.com/. 10 costs, mitigation costs, and the other value-added. Reported rate of change in direct climate change damage costs (blue part in figures) is a rate of change in climate change damage costs under a SSP-RCP scenario which has CO2 emission reduction minus that under a BaU scenario. Therefore, results of SSP1-RCP2.6 equals the rate of change under the SSP1-RCP2.6 minus that under a BaU scenario. A blue is always non-negative since climate damage costs under a BaU is always larger than those under SSP-RCP scenarios. A red part in figures is a rate of change in mitigation costs that is mitigation costs under a SSP-RCP combination scenario. Since there is no mitigation under a BaU scenario, reported a rate of change in mitigation costs is always non-positive. Green parts in figures are a rate of change in value-added except direct costs and mitigation costs. Therefore, a rate of change in the other value-added can be both positive and negative. Finally, a rate of change in real value-added, which is a rate of change in real value-added under a SSP-RCP scenario minus that under a BaU scenario, is given by a black-colored line. This is a rate of change in non-decomposed value-added. Figures 5 to 18 are decomposed dynamic EMEDA results with a non-decomposed value-added. 3.1. Regional Impacts Figures 5, 6 and 7 are decomposed results under the SSP1-RCP2.6, -RCP4.5, and – RCP6.0, respectively. Results under the SSP2-RCPs and the SSP3-RCPs are reported in Figures 8-10 and 11-13, respectively. Decomposed results under the SSP1-RCP2.6, SSP2- RCP2.6 and SSP3-RCP2.6 are similar movements because the SSP scenario differences are smaller than the RCP scenario differences. The SSP1-RCP6.0 is the scenario in which each region reduces CO2 emissions under low CO2 emission reduction rates. The SSP2- RCP4.5 is the standard scenario in which each region reduces CO2 emissions for limiting temperature rise to less than 3 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. The SSP3-RCP2.6 is the scenario in which each region reduces CO2 emissions for limiting temperature rise to less than 2?C by the year 2100. Global Total Using EMEDA simulation, we find that each region’s rate of change in real value-added in the year 2100 ranges from -17% to -4% in the SSP3-RCP2.6, while it ranges from -0.2% to 0.2% in the SSP1-RCP6.0. For the SSP2-RCP4.5, each region’s rate of change in real value-added are from -4.5% to 0.5% in the year 2100. Comparing these scenarios, the rate of change in real value-added of the SSP3-RCP2.6 is unacceptably lower rates than that in the other scenarios. This is because of severe CO2 emissions reduction under huge CO2 emissions (e.g., SSP3 scenario). Results under the SSP3-RCP2.6 is the largest negative rate of change among three SSP3-RCPs because the RCP2.6 scenario requires larger mitigation. Negative increases a red part in figure by year indicate increasing mitigation costs, while it positively increases a blue part in figure by year because a society under the scenario requires more CO2 reduction costs. The SSP3-RCP6.0 results are unique that a rate of change in mitigation costs (a red 11 part in figures) is a “w” shape, indicating that world needs to mitigate more by early this century. Then, mitigation costs are decreased by the year 2080. Finally, world mitigates more and/or less for achieving the scenario goal. Each negative impact in regional real value-added worsens until the year 2070 for many scenarios of the SSPs-RCP2.6 and – RCP4.5 because of the cost of CO2 emission reduction to reach the stabilization target of radiative forcing by the year 2100. Next, we find that total climate damages are more significant in the Former Soviet Union (ranging from -17% to 0% in 2100), Asia (from -11% to -0.1% in 2100) and Middle East and African countries (from -17% to -0.2% in 2100) than those in OECD (ranging from -4% to 0.2% in 2100) and Latin American countries (from -5% to 0.2% in 2100). These results are different from RICE2010 in Nordhaus (2010) because the RICE2010 measures total rates of change in national income under the optimal scenario of the Copenhagen Accord that likely equals the SSP-RCP4.5 scenario. OECD OECD is a group of developed countries. Interestingly, there is a few change in mitigation costs by 2100 under the SSP3-RCP6.0 because OECD has less large population and GDP changes, while rates of change in direct climate change damage costs and the other valueadded are positives. ASIA Results of a rate of change under the SSP3-RCP6.0 has a “v” shape that a peak of mitigation costs are early this century. This indicates that Asian and Oceanian countries need tight mitigation around the year 2050, and can relax from “mitigation” after that. Former Soviet Union There are the largest rate of change in value-added in the Former Soviet Union. Especially, rates of change in mitigation costs and the other value-added under the SSPs-RCP2.6 and -RCP4.5 are huge although a rate of change in direct damage costs is similar to global total. This indicates that the Former Soviet Union spends large costs for mitigation in early this century. Latin America Similar to OECD, Latin America has smaller rates of change in value-added under most scenarios. Latin America suffers a negative total rate of change (-2% in 2070) in real value-added for the SSP2-RCP2.6 because of a deceleration of total rates of change in real value-added. There is also a “w” shape movement under the SSP3-RCP6.0. Middle East and Africa Similar to the Former Soviet Union, Middle East and Africa have large mitigation costs because this region has higher population and GDP growth. Only the Middle East and 12 African countries increase a rate of change in mitigation costs under the SSP1-RCP4.5. Unlike global total or Latin America, there is a milder “w” shape under the SSP3-RCP6.0. 3.2. Sectoral Impacts Figures 14, 15 and 16 are decomposed results of EMEDA simulation by sector under the SSP1-RCPs, SSP2-RCPs and SSP3-RCPs, respectively. Again, blue in figures shows a rate of change in direct climate damage costs, red is mitigation costs under the scenario, and green parts are value-added except direct climate change costs and mitigation costs under the scenario of the SSP-RCP minus that under the BaU. Primary Industry Agriculture, forestry, and fishing are in the primary sector. The primary sector in the SSP3-RCP2.6 has larger negative the other value-added (green in the figures), positive direct climate change costs and negative mitigation costs. Again, the results are similar by SSPs. The total rate of change in real value-added in the year 2100 ranges from -11% to 0.1% for the primary sector. The results under the SSPs-RCP2.6 and -RCP4.5 are similar movements that increases cost by year. The results under the SSP1-RCP6.0 are unique that mitigation costs are generated only a few years because the SSP1-RCP6.0 world has closer to the BaU society while there is a “w” shape move under the SSP3-RCP6.0 that the primary sector has tightly mitigated before the year 2050, and it mildly mitigates for achieving the SSP3-RCP6.0 combination scenario goals. Secondary Industry The secondary sector has Extraction, light manufacturing (LightMnfc), and heavy manufacturing (HeavyMnfc). Results in the secondary sector has different from those in the primary sector that there are huge mitigation costs (red part) in each scenario since the secondary sector mitigates more global warming and climate change environments among three sectors. Only the secondary sector has both positive and negative the other valueadded because there are large CO2 emission reduction costs. These results imply that for enhancing utilities, each region compensates for a decrease in real value-added to the secondary sector by moving production factors (such as capital and labor) from the primary and tertiary sectors. Tertiary Industry The tertiary sector in the dynamic EMEDA consists of transportation and communication (TransComm), and other services (OthServices). The tertiary sector has similar results to that in the primary sector under all combination scenarios. The total rate of change in real value-added in the year 2100 ranges from -9% to 0.3% for tertiary industries. 13 3.3. Regional and Sectoral Impacts Finally, we discuss regional and sectoral impacts. For achieving the Paris Agreement, we mainly analyze decomposed impacts under the most challenging combination scenario, the SSP3-RCP2.6, in this section since the RCP2.6 is one of keys for achieving the Paris goals, and the SSP3 is higher challenges both of adaptation and mitigation18. Therefore, this scenario is the most serious case in which each region suffers high negative impacts of climate change and mitigation costs. Figures 17 and 18 show sectoral impacts in the SSP3-RCP2.6 scenario by region. OECD’s primary sector has larger rate of changes than the others. Mitigation costs in the secondary sector are relatively large but it peaks around the year 2070 in OECD. Comparing with OECD, the primary sector has similar rate of changes in Asia, while the secondary and tertiary sectors have larger rates, indicating that Asian and Oceanian countries suffer more CO2 emission reduction costs than developed countries. In the Former Soviet Union, rates of change are one of the largest among five regions. Especially, the secondary sector has close to negative twenty percent. This is because carbon intensity of economy in the Former Soviet Union tends to be higher than in the other regions. Results in Latin America are similar to OECD case, and one of the smallest rates among regions because Latin America is less expected population growth and GDP growth. Unlike OECD, the other value-added are small in Latin America, indicating that most value-added is either direct climate damage costs or mitigation costs. Finally, Middle East and Africa are one of the largest rates of change in all sectors because these regions are expected highest population growth and GDP growth in the end of this century. Similar to Asia, however, rates of change in direct climate change damage costs and mitigation costs are constantly small. 4. Conclusion This study decomposes regional and sectoral impacts of climate change shocks by the multi-sector model. We find that the rate of change in the other value-added of the primary and tertiary sectors, which are induced by mitigation costs, is generally high in the RCP2.6, while that in the secondary industry is negative. This is because higher mitigation costs in the secondary sector are offset by a rate of change in the other valueadded. This result suggests that the primary and tertiary industries such as agriculture and services sectors with low mitigation costs of climate change may experience more costs from offsetting mitigation costs in the secondary industry under the 2?C target in the Paris Agreement. In each region, we confirm several differences in the rates of change of global warming and climate change impacts. For each RCP2.6 scenario, Asia, Former Soviet Union, and Middle East and African countries suffer more damages from climate change than the 18Simulated results of the other eight SSP-RCP combination scenarios are not reported in this study. However, all results of dynamic-EMEDA simulations under the SSP-RCP combination scenarios are available from the authors upon request. 14 other regions. Additionally, more than half of the total rate of change in real value-added of these regions in the RCP2.6 derives from not mitigation costs but the other valueadded. In other words, the other value-added causes more severe damages to developing countries than the mitigation costs. Besides, total rates of change in real value-added are the lowest in the SSP1 and the highest in the SSP3 because of the difference in mitigation costs. This implies that it is important to evaluate the SSP-RCP combination scenarios, which can be regarded as the future state of the world for achieving the impacts of climate change under the Paris Agreement. These are new findings using decomposed analyses.