All models include six GHGs regulated under the Kyoto Protocol and cover multi-sectors. However, the coverage of mitigation measures
differs from one to another. For example, GCAM and CFTRinh-172 clinical trial McKinsey include mitigation potentials considering carbon sinks in the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sector in the UNFCCC classification; however, AIM/Enduse[Global], DNE21+, and GAINS exclude mitigation potentials in LULUCF. In addition, resolutions of sectors and definitions of service demands BEZ235 in these sectors differ from one to another in some sectors. For example, DNE21+ and McKinsey divide the industry sector into steel, cement, paper and pulp, chemicals, and others, but AIM/Enduse
defines steel, cement, and others and GCAM defines cement and others based on the different purposes of development of each model. Table 1 Comparable variables used in this study Items Socio-economic information Population, GPD Emissions Baseline emissions Mitigation potentials from baseline Mitigation potentials by sector under several carbon prices Energy consumptions Primary energy consumptions by energy type Major mitigation options Carbon capture and storage Global JAK inhibitor and major groups Global, OECD, Non-OECD, Annex I, Non-Annex I, Asia Major countries and regions USA, EU27, Russia, China, India, Japan Table 2 Overview of models participating Model Model type Regions Gases Sectors Organization Reference AIM/Enduse Bottom-up model Global 32 regions CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, Thiamet G PFCs, SF6 Multi-sectors excluding LULUCF NIES, Japan Akashi and Hanaoka (2012) DNE21+ Bottom-up model Global 54 regions CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 Multi-sectors excluding LULUCF RITE, Japan Akimoto et al. (2012) GAINS Bottom-up model Annex I 40 regions CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 Multi-sectors excluding LULUCF IIASA, Austria Wagner et al. (2012) GCAM Hybrid model including bottom-up
Global 14 regions CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 Multi-sectors including LULUCF PNNL, US Thomson et al. (2011) McKinsey Bottom-up cost curves Global 21 regions CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 Multi-sectors including LULUCF McKinsey International McKinsey and Company (2009a, b) Harmonizing the baseline is an important issue but a complicated discussion on which to reach a consensus across the different models in Table 2, because model structures differ from each other, such as the difference of regional aggregations in the world regions, difference of sectoral resolutions, difference of units of various service demands and so on. Moreover, in a bottom-up type analysis, there are several ways to set a baseline scenario by explicitly describing technology features such as a fixed-technology scenario, a business-as-usual (BaU) scenario considering autonomous energy efficiency improvement.