Effects of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on the carbon emission space and cost of China and India

doi:10.1007/s11708-018-0574-y

Frontiers in Energy

2018, Vol. 12

Issue (3): 362-375 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-018-0574-y

本期目录

Effects of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on the carbon emission space and cost of China and India

Hancheng DAI¹, Yang XIE²(

), Haibin ZHANG³, Zhongjue YU⁴, Wentao WANG⁵

¹. College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100875, China
². School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
³. School of International Studies, Peking University, Beijing 100875, China
⁴. School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
⁵. The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21, Ministry of Science and Technology, Beijing 100038, China

全文: PDF(843 KB) HTML

Abstract：

Climate mitigation has become a global issue and most countries have promised their greenhouse gas reduction target. However, after Trump took office as president of the United States (US), the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement. As the biggest economy, this would have impacts on the emission space of other countries. This paper, by using the integrated model of energy, environment and economy/computable general equilibrium (IMED/CGE) model, assesses the impacts of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on China, India in terms of carbon emission space and mitigation cost under Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and 2°C scenarios due to changed emission pathway of the US. The results show that, under the condition of constant global cumulative carbon emissions and fixed burden sharing scheme among the countries, the failure of the US to honor its NDC commitment will increase its carbon emission space and decrease its mitigation cost. However, the carbon emission space of other regions, including China and India, will be reduced and their mitigation costs will be raised. In 2030, under the 2°C target, the carbon price will increase by US$14.3 to US$45.3/t in China and by US$10.7 to US$33.9/t in India. In addition, China and India will incur additional GDP loss. Under the 2°C target, the GDP loss of China would increase by US$23.3 to US$72.6 billion (equivalent to US$17.4 to US$54.2/capita), and that of India would rise by US$14.2 to US$43.1 billion (equivalent to US$9.3 to US$28.2/capita).

Key words： Paris Agreement China and India the US withdrawal carbon emission space mitigation cost

收稿日期: 2017-12-30 出版日期: 2018-09-05

Corresponding Author(s): Yang XIE

引用本文:

. [J]. Frontiers in Energy, 2018, 12(3): 362-375.
Hancheng DAI, Yang XIE, Haibin ZHANG, Zhongjue YU, Wentao WANG. Effects of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on the carbon emission space and cost of China and India. Front. Energy, 2018, 12(3): 362-375.

链接本文:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/CN/10.1007/s11708-018-0574-y
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/CN/Y2018/V12/I3/362

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Tab.5

1	J Rogelj, M den Elzen, N Hoehne, T Fransen, H Fekete, H Winkler, et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 2016, 534: 631–639 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307
2	J Rockstroem, O Gaffney, J Rogelj, M Meinshausen, N Nakicenovic, H J Schellnhuber. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 2017, 355: 1269–1271 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah3443
3	X Pan, M den Elzen, N Höhne, F Teng, L Wang. Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 74: 49–56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.020
4	H L Van Soest, H S de Boer, M Roelfsema, et al. Early action on Paris Agreement allows for more time to change energy systems. Climatic Change, 2017, 144: 165–179 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2027-8
5	M Roelfsema, M den Elzen, N Höhne, et al. Are major economies on track to achieve their pledges for 2020? An assessment of domestic climate and energy policies. Energy Policy, 2014, 67: 781–796 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.055
6	B J Van Ruijven, M Weitzel, M G J den Elzen, et al. Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches. Energy Policy, 2012, 46: 116–134 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.042
7	V G R Chandran Govindaraju, C F Tang. The dynamic links between CO2 emissions, economic growth and coal consumption in China and India. Applied Energy, 2013, 104: 310–318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.042
8	M M Alam, M W Murad, A H M Noman, et al. Relationships among carbon emissions, economic growth, energy consumption and population growth: testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 70: 466–479 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.043
9	A F Hof, M G J den Elzen, A Admiraal, et al. Global and regional abatement costs of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and of enhanced action to levels well below 2°C and 1.5°C. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 71: 30–40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.02.008
10	Z Mi, Y M Wei, B Wang, et al. Socioeconomic impact assessment of China’s CO2 emissions peak prior to 2030. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 142: 2227–2236 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.055
11	C Zhang, Q Wang, D Shi, et al. Scenario-based potential effects of carbon trading in China: an integrated approach. Applied Energy, 2016, 182: 177–190 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.133
12	L B Cui, Y Fan, L Zhu, Q H Bi. How will the emissions trading scheme save cost for achieving China’s 2020 carbon intensity reduction target? Applied Energy, 2014, 136: 1043–1052 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.05.021
13	J Wu, Y Fan, Y Xia. How can China achieve its nationally determined contribution targets combining emissions trading scheme and renewable energy policies? Energies, 2017, 10: 1166 https://doi.org/10.3390/en10081166
14	X Sun, B Zhang, X Tang, B McLellan, M Höök. Sustainable energy transitions in China: renewable options and impacts on the electricity system. Energies, 2016, 9(12): 980 https://doi.org/10.3390/en9120980
15	P Xunzhang, C Wenying, L E Clarke, W Lining, L Guannan. China’s energy system transformation towards the 2°C goal: implications of different effort-sharing principles. Energy Policy, 2017, 103: 116–126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.020
16	W Huang, D Ma, W Chen. Connecting water and energy: assessing the impacts of carbon and water constraints on China’s power sector. Applied Energy, 2017, 185: 1497–1505 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.048
17	L Wan, C Wang, W Cai. Impacts on water consumption of power sector in major emitting economies under INDC and longer-term mitigation scenarios: an input-output based hybrid approach. Applied Energy, 2016, 184: 26–39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.013
18	X Yang, F Teng, X Wang, Q Zhang. System optimization and co-benefit analysis of China’s deep de-carbonization effort towards its INDC target. Energy Procedia, 2017, 105: 3314–3319 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.754
19	S Byravan, M S Ali, M R Ananthakumar, et al. Quality of life for all: a sustainable development framework for India’s climate policy reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Energy for Sustainable Deve-lopment, 2017, 39: 48–58 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.04.003
20	J W Busby, S Shidore. When decarbonization meets development: the sectoral feasibility of greenhouse gas mitigation in India. Energy Research & Social Science, 2017, 23: 60–73 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.011
21	R Sundriyal, P Dhyani. Significance of India’s INDC and climate justice: an appraisal. Current Science, 2015, 109: 2186–2187
22	Y X Zhang, Q C Chao, Q H Zheng, L Huang. The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2017, 8(4): 213–219 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.08.005
23	B Deese. Paris isn’t burning why the climate agreement will survive trump. Foreign Affairs, 2017, 96: 83–92
24	J C Peters, T W Hertel. Achieving the clean power plan 2030 CO2 target with the new normal in natural gas prices. Energy Journal, 2017, 38: 39–66 https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.38.5.jpet
25	L Kemp. Better out than in. Nature Climate Change, 2017, 7: 458–460
26	N Nakicenovic, J Alcamo, A Grubler, et al. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), a Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. London: Cambridge University Press, 2000
27	D P van Vuuren, J Edmonds, M Kainuma, et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 5–31 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
28	D P van Vuuren, E Stehfest, M G J den Elzen, et al. RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 95–116 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3
29	A M Thomson, K V Calvin, S J Smith, et al. RCP4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 77–94 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4
30	T Masui, K Matsumoto, Y Hijioka, et al. An emission pathway for stabilization at 6 Wm−2 radiative forcing. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 59–76 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0150-5
31	R Dellink, J Chateau, E Lanzi, et al. Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 200–214 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.004
32	M Leimbach, E Kriegler, N Roming, et al. Future growth patterns of world regions—a GDP scenario approach. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 215–225 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.005
33	K Riahi, D P van Vuuren, E Kriegler, et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 153–168 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009
34	D P van Vuuren, K Riahi, K Calvin, et al. The shared socio-economic pathways: trajectories for human development and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 148–152 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.009
35	H Dong, H Dai, L Dong, et al. Pursuing air pollutant co-benefits of CO2 mitigation in China: a provincial leveled analysis. Applied Energy, 2015, 144: 165–174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.020
36	H Dai, P Mischke, X Xie, et al. Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China’s regional energy use and CO2 emissions. Applied Energy, 2016, 162: 1355–1373 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.069
37	Y Xie, H Dai, H Dong, et al. Economic impacts from PM2.5 pollution-related health effects in China: a provincial-level analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50: 4836–4843 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05576
38	H Dai, T Masui, Y Matsuoka, S Fujimori. Assessment of China’s climate commitment and non-fossil energy plan towards 2020 using hybrid AIM/CGE model. Energy Policy, 2011, 39: 2875–2887 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.062
39	H Dai, T Masui, Y Matsuoka, et al. The impacts of China’s household consumption expenditure patterns on energy demand and carbon emissions towards 2050. Energy Policy, 2012, 50: 736–750 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.023
40	H Dai, X Xie, Y Xie, et al. Green growth: the economic impacts of large-scale renewable energy development in China. Applied Energy, 2016, 162: 435–449 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.049
41	B Cheng, H Dai, P Wang, et al. Impacts of carbon trading scheme on air pollutant emissions in Guangdong province of China. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 27: 174–185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.06.001
42	B Cheng, H Dai, P Wang, et al. Impacts of low-carbon power policy on carbon mitigation in Guangdong province, China. Energy Policy, 2016, 88: 515–527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.11.006
43	H Dai. Integrated assessment of China’s provincial low carbon economy development towards 2030: Jiangxi province as an example. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Tokyo: Institute of Technology, 2012
44	R Wu, H Dai, Y Geng, et al. Achieving China’s INDC through carbon cap-and-trade: insights from Shanghai. Applied Energy, 2016, 184: 1114–1122 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.011
45	X Tian, Y Geng, H Dai, et al. The effects of household consumption pattern on regional development: a case study of Shanghai. Energy, 2016, 103: 49–60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.140
46	X Tian, H Dai, Y Geng. Effect of household consumption changes on regional low-carbon development: a case study of Shanghai. China Population Resources and Environment, 2016, 26: 55–63
47	P Wang, H Dai, S Ren, D Zhao, T Masui. Achieving Copenhagen target through carbon emission trading: economic impacts assessment in Guangdong province of China. Energy, 2015, 79: 212–227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.009
48	T F Rutherford. Applied general equilibrium modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS subsystem: an overview of the modeling framework and syntax. Computational Economics, 1999, 14: 1–46 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008655831209
49	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). 2015
50	B C O’Neill, E Kriegler, K Riahi, et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 2014, 122: 387–400 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2
51	International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) Database Version 0.9.3. 2015
52	D P van Vuuren, E Stehfest, D E H J Gernaat, et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 237–250 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.008
53	The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. The new climate economy report: better growth, better climate. 2018–03

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed