Multi-model analyses of the economic and energy implications for China and India in a post-Kyoto climate regime
AbstractThis paper presents a modeling comparison project on how the 2°C climate target could affect economic and energy systems development in China and India. The analysis uses a framework that harmonizes baseline developments and soft-links seven national and global models being either economy wide (CGE models) or energy system models. The analysis is based on a global greenhouse gas emission pathway that aims at a radiative forcing of 2.9 W/m2 in 2100 and with a policy regime based on convergence of per capita CO2 emissions with emissions trading. Economic and energy implications for China and India vary across models. Decreased energy intensity is the most important abatement approach in the CGE models, while decreased carbon intensity is most important in the energy system models. Reliance on Coal without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is significantly reduced in most models, while CCS is a central abatement technology in energy system models, as is renewable and nuclear energy. Concerning economic impacts China bears in general a higher cost than India, as China benefits less from emissions trading. Costs are also affected by changes in fossil fuel prices, currency depreciation from capital inflow from carbon trading and timing of emission reductions
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Kiel Institute for the World Economy in its series Kiel Working Papers with number 1808.
Length: 36 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2012
Date of revision:
Climate policy; China; India;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- N7 - Economic History - - Economic History: Transport, International and Domestic Trade, Energy, and Other Services
- O13 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
- P28 - Economic Systems - - Socialist Systems and Transition Economies - - - Natural Resources; Environment
- Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-12-06 (All new papers)
- NEP-CMP-2012-12-06 (Computational Economics)
- NEP-ENE-2012-12-06 (Energy Economics)
- NEP-ENV-2012-12-06 (Environmental Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- van Ruijven, Bas J. & Weitzel, Matthias & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & Hof, Andries F. & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Peterson, Sonja & Narita, Daiju, 2012. "Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 116-134.
- Shukla, Priyadarshi R. & Chaturvedi, Vaibhav, 2012. "Low carbon and clean energy scenarios for India: Analysis of targets approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S3), pages S487-S495.
- Yasuko Kameyama, 2004. "The Future Climate Regime: A Regional Comparison of Proposals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 307-326, December.
- Andries Hof & Michel Elzen & Detlef Vuuren, 2009. "Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes: what can we learn from model studies?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 39-62, February.
- Kretschmer, Bettina & Narita, Daiju & Peterson, Sonja, 2009. "The economic effects of the EU biofuel target," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 32984, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
- Fisher-Vanden, K. A. & Shukla, P. R. & Edmonds, J. A. & Kim, S. H. & Pitcher, H. M., 1997. "Carbon taxes and India," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 289-325, July.
- Chen, Wenying & Li, Hualin & Wu, Zongxin, 2010. "Western China energy development and west to east energy transfer: Application of the Western China Sustainable Energy Development Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7106-7120, November.
- Hoekstra, Rutger & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M., 2003. "Comparing structural decomposition analysis and index," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 39-64, January.
- Liang, Qiao-Mei & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2012. "Distributional impacts of taxing carbon in China: Results from the CEEPA model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 545-551.
- Liang, Qiao-Mei & Fan, Ying & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2007. "Carbon taxation policy in China: How to protect energy- and trade-intensive sectors?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 311-333.
- Barun Deb Pal & Sanjib Pohit & Joyashree Roy, 2012. "Social Accounting Matrix For India," Economic Systems Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 77-99, August.
- Gernot Klepper & Sonja Peterson & Katrin Springer, 2003. "DART97: A Description of the Multi-regional, Multi-sectoral Trade Model for the Analysis of Climate Policies," Kiel Working Papers 1149, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- 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: (Dieter Stribny).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.