However, it cannot deal explicitly with mitigation measures. In recent years, another method called “Hybrid” modeling (Hourcade et al. 2006) has been discussed to reconcile bottom-up and top-down approaches in order to analyze both technological aspects and its economic impacts. A hybrid model is an ideal model, but there have still been systematic challenges and there are not yet many hybrid models on a global scale with multi-regions and multi-sectors. In general, the top-down BMN 673 mw approach produces a larger estimated amount of mitigation potentials than the bottom-up approach (IPCC 2007; Hoogwijk et al. 2010), because the bottom-up

approach is based on technological information under the limitations of data availability, for example, a lack of data availability of innovative technologies, a lack of coverage of mitigation technologies in certain sectors and so on. Another important C646 order feature of the bottom-up approach is that it is suitable for the analysis of the technological feasibility in the short to mid-term (for example, Hanaoka et al. 2009b; Akimoto et al. 2010), but it

is difficult to apply this approach to the long-term (beyond 2050) analysis because there is the limitations of data availability to set distinct see more and detailed data of mitigation technologies in multi-sectors and multi-regions for the long-term future, whereas the top-down approach (e.g., van Vuuren et

al. 2011; Thomson et al. 2011; Masui et al. 2011) examines the long-term analysis by assuming economic parameters based on data from historical trends or future outlooks. Both the bottom-up and top-down approach have merits and demerits, but this comparison study focuses more on the technological feasibility of mitigation Thymidine kinase potentials and costs in 2020 and 2030, based on the results from the bottom-up analysis, in order to assess the transitions in major GHG emitting countries, especially in Asian regions. Overview of comparison design This comparison study focuses on MAC curves estimated by using energy-engineering bottom-up type models. In order to analyze the reasons for the difference in MAC curves by region, several major variables are focused on to compare different models. In addition, to analyze mid-term GHG emissions mitigation targets in 2020 and 2030, major GHG emitting countries and regions as well as the global scale are compared. Table 1 shows the comparable variables and geographical breakdowns, and Table 2 an overview of participating models in this comparison study. When developing models in general, approaches adopted for regional aggregations in world regions differ depending on the purpose of the analysis. It is important to note the caveat that some models do not accurately fit into the regional classification such as Annex I or OECD shown in Table 1.