Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches
AbstractTo meet ambitious global climate targets, mitigation effort in China and India is necessary. This paper presents an analysis of the scientific literature on how effort-sharing approaches affect emission allowances and abatement costs of China and India. We find that reductions for both China and India differ greatly in time, across- and within approaches and between concentration stabilisation targets. For China, allocated emission allowances in 2020 are substantially below baseline projections. Moreover, they may be below 2005 emission levels, particularly for low concentration targets (below 490ppm CO2-eq). Effort-sharing approaches based on allocating reduction targets lead to relatively lower reductions for China than approaches that are based on allocating emission allowances. For 2050, emission allowances for China are 50–80% below 2005 levels for low concentration targets with minor differences between approaches. Still, mitigation costs of China (including emissions trading) remain mostly below global average. According to literature, Chinese emission allowances peak before 2025–2030 for low concentration targets. India’s emission allowances show high increases compared to 2005 levels. If emission trading is allowed, financial revenues from selling credits might compensate mitigation costs in most approaches, even for low concentration targets. India’s emission allowances peak around 2030–2040 for all concentration targets.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Policy.
Volume (Year): 46 (2012)
Issue (Month): C ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Climate policy; China; India;
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Daniel J.A. Johansson & Paul L. Lucas & Matthias Weitzel & Erik O. Ahlgren & A.B. Bazaz & Wenying Chen & Michel G.J. den Elzen & Joydeep Ghosh & Qiao-Mei Liang & Sonja Peterson & Basanta K. Pradhan & , 2012. "Multi-model analyses of the economic and energy implications for China and India in a post-Kyoto climate regime," Kiel Working Papers 1808, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Schleich, Joachim & Dütschke, Elisabeth & Schwirplies, Claudia & Ziegler, Andreas, 2014. "Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: Empirical insights from China, Germany and the US," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
- Weitzel, Matthias & Ghosh, Joydeep & Peterson, Sonja & Pradhan, Basanta, 2013.
"Effects of international climate policy for India: Evidence from a national and global CGE model,"
Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order
79771, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
- Matthias Weitzel & Joydeep Ghosh & Sonja Peterson & Basanta K. Pradhan, 2012. "Effects of international climate policy for India: Evidence from a national and global CGE model," Kiel Working Papers 1810, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.