IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches

  • van Ruijven, Bas J.
  • Weitzel, Matthias
  • den Elzen, Michel G.J.
  • Hof, Andries F.
  • van Vuuren, Detlef P.
  • Peterson, Sonja
  • Narita, Daiju

To 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.

If 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.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512002479
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Policy.

Volume (Year): 46 (2012)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 116-134

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:46:y:2012:i:c:p:116-134
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.042
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. P. R. Shukla & Subash Dhar & Diptiranjan Mahapatra, 2008. "Low-carbon society scenarios for India," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(sup1), pages S156-S176, December.
  2. Leimbach, Marian, 2003. "Equity and carbon emissions trading: a model analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 1033-1044, August.
  3. Kirsten Halsnæs & Priyadarshi Shukla, 2008. "Sustainable development as a framework for developing country participation in international climate change policies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 105-130, February.
  4. Niklas Höhne & Michel den Elzen & Martin Weiss, 2006. "Common but differentiated convergence (CDC): a new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 181-199, March.
  5. Jiahua Pan & Jonathan Phillips & Ying Chen, 2008. "China's balance of emissions embodied in trade: approaches to measurement and allocating international responsibility," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 354-376, Summer.
  6. Sudhakara Reddy, B. & Assenza, Gaudenz B., 2009. "The great climate debate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2997-3008, August.
  7. Sonja Peterson & Gernot Klepper, 2007. "Distribution Matters ; Taxes vs. Emissions Trading in Post Kyoto Climate Regimes," Kiel Working Papers 1380, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
  8. Heleen Groenenberg & Kornelis Blok & Jeroen van der Sluijs, 2004. "Global Triptych: a bottom-up approach for the differentiation of commitments under the Climate Convention," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 153-175, June.
  9. Zhang, ZhongXiang, 2009. "In what format and under what timeframe would China take on climate commitments? A roadmap to 2050," MPRA Paper 15587, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  10. ZhongXiang Zhang, 2011. "Assessing China’s carbon intensity pledge for 2020: stringency and credibility issues and their implications," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 13(3), pages 219-235, September.
  11. Michel Den Elzen & Niklas Höhne, 2010. "Sharing the reduction effort to limit global warming to 2°C," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 247-260, May.
  12. Andries F. Hof & Michel G.J. Den Elzen, 2010. "The effect of different historical emissions datasets on emission targets of the sectoral mitigation approach Triptych," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 684-704, November.
  13. Persson, Tobias A. & Azar, Christian & Lindgren, Kristian, 2006. "Allocation of CO2 emission permits--Economic incentives for emission reductions in developing countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(14), pages 1889-1899, September.
  14. Christoph Bohringer & Heinz Welsch, 2006. "Burden sharing in a greenhouse: egalitarianism and sovereignty reconciled," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(9), pages 981-996.
  15. Odile Blanchard, 2002. "Scenarios for differentiating commitments : a quantitative analysis," Post-Print halshs-00199611, HAL.
  16. Odile Blanchard, 2002. "Scenarios for differentiating commitments," Post-Print halshs-00476847, HAL.
  17. William D. Nordhaus, 2006. "After Kyoto: Alternative Mechanisms to Control Global Warming," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(2), pages 31-34, May.
  18. ZhongXiang Zhang, 2010. "Copenhagen and Beyond: Reflections on China’s Stance and Responses," Working Papers 2010.91, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  19. Lasse Ringius & Asbjørn Torvanger & Arild Underdal, 2002. "Burden Sharing and Fairness Principles in International Climate Policy," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, March.
  20. den Elzen, Michel & Lucas, Paul & Vuuren, Detlef van, 2005. "Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(16), pages 2138-2151, November.
  21. Manne, Alan & Mendelsohn, Robert & Richels, Richard, 1995. "MERGE : A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 17-34, January.
  22. Marcel M. Berk & Michel G.J. den Elzen, 2001. "Options for differentiation of future commitments in climate policy: how to realise timely participation to meet stringent climate goals?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(4), pages 465-480, December.
  23. Patrick Criqui & Alban Kitous & M. Berk, 2003. "Greenhouse gas reduction pathways in the UNFCCC process up to 2025 : policymakers summary and technical report," Post-Print halshs-00103326, HAL.
  24. Bohringer, Christoph & Welsch, Heinz, 2004. "Contraction and Convergence of carbon emissions: an intertemporal multi-region CGE analysis," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-39, January.
  25. Andries Hof & Michel Elzen & Detlef Vuuren, 2010. "Including adaptation costs and climate change damages in evaluating post-2012 burden-sharing regimes," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 19-40, January.
  26. den Elzen, Michel & Höhne, Niklas & Moltmann, Sara, 2008. "The Triptych approach revisited: A staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1107-1124, March.
  27. Ekholm, Tommi & Soimakallio, Sampo & Moltmann, Sara & Höhne, Niklas & Syri, Sanna & Savolainen, Ilkka, 2010. "Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1797-1810, April.
  28. Michel den Elzen & Malte Meinshausen, 2006. "Meeting the EU 2°C climate target: global and regional emission implications," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(5), pages 545-564, September.
  29. Ottmar Edenhofer , Brigitte Knopf, Terry Barker, Lavinia Baumstark, Elie Bellevrat, Bertrand Chateau, Patrick Criqui, Morna Isaac, Alban Kitous, Socrates Kypreos, Marian Leimbach, Kai Lessmann, Bertra, 2010. "The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I).
  30. Michel Elzen & Marcel Berk & Paul Lucas & Patrick Criqui & Alban Kitous, 2006. "Multi-Stage: A Rule-Based Evolution of Future Commitments under the Climate Change Convention," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-28, 03.
  31. Bert Metz & Marcel Berk & Michel den Elzen & Bert de Vries & Detlef van Vuuren, 2002. "Towards an equitable global climate change regime: compatibility with Article 2 of the Climate Change Convention and the link with sustainable development," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2-3), pages 211-230, September.
  32. McKibbin, Warwick J. & Wilcoxen, Peter J., 2009. "Uncertainty and climate change policy design," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 463-477, May.
  33. van Vuuren, Detlef P. & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & van Vliet, Jasper & Kram, Tom & Lucas, Paul & Isaac, Morna, 2009. "Comparison of different climate regimes: the impact of broadening participation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5351-5362, December.
  34. Benito Müller & Niklas Höhne & Christian Ellermann, 2009. "Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 593-611, November.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.
  37. Böhringer, Christoph & Helm, Carsten, 2008. "On the fair division of greenhouse gas abatement cost," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 260-276, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:46:y:2012:i:c:p:116-134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.