IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v46y2012icp116-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:46:y:2012:i:c:p:116-134
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Zhongxiang Zhang, 2011. "In what format and under what timeframe would China take on climate commitments? A roadmap to 2050," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 245-259, September.
    6. 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.
    7. 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, March.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. P. R. Shukla & Subash Dhar & Diptiranjan Mahapatra, 2008. "Low-carbon society scenarios for India," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(sup1), pages 156-176, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Odile Blanchard, 2002. "Scenarios for differentiating commitments," Post-Print halshs-00476847, HAL.
    23. 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.
    24. ZhongXiang Zhang, 2010. "Copenhagen and Beyond: Reflections on China's Stance and Responses," Economics Study Area Working Papers 111, East-West Center, Economics Study Area.
    25. 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.
    26. Leimbach, Marian, 2003. "Equity and carbon emissions trading: a model analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 1033-1044, August.
    27. Sudhakara Reddy, B. & Assenza, Gaudenz B., 2009. "The great climate debate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2997-3008, August.
    28. 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.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    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. 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.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
    35. Odile Blanchard, 2002. "Scenarios for differentiating commitments : a quantitative analysis," Post-Print halshs-00199611, HAL.
    36. Peterson, Sonja & Klepper, Gernot, 2007. "Distribution matters: Taxes vs. emissions trading in post Kyoto climate regimes," Kiel Working Papers 1380, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    37. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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).
    2. Weitzel, Matthias & Ghosh, Joydeep & Peterson, Sonja & Pradhan, Basanta K., 2015. "Effects of international climate policy for India: evidence from a national and global CGE model," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(04), pages 516-538, August.
    3. Wang, Ke & Zhang, Xian & Wei, Yi-Ming & Yu, Shiwei, 2013. "Regional allocation of CO2 emissions allowance over provinces in China by 2020," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 214-229.
    4. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    5. repec:eee:tefoso:v:125:y:2017:i:c:p:258-274 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:eee:eneeco:v:64:y:2017:i:c:p:542-551 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Johansson, Daniel J. A. & Lucas, Paul L. & Weitzel, Matthias & Ahlgren, Erik O. & Bazaz, A. B. & Chen, Wenying & den Elzen, Michel G. J. & Ghosh, Joydeep & Grahn, Maria & Liang, Qiao-Mei & Peterson, S, 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 (IfW).
    8. Zhang, Yue-Jun & Wang, Ao-Dong & Tan, Weiping, 2015. "The impact of China's carbon allowance allocation rules on the product prices and emission reduction behaviors of ETS-covered enterprises," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 176-185.
    9. Zhang, Yue-Jun & Wang, Ao-Dong & Da, Ya-Bin, 2014. "Regional allocation of carbon emission quotas in China: Evidence from the Shapley value method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 454-464.
    10. Meriem Hamdi-Cherif & Henri Waisman, 2016. "Global carbon pricing and the “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities”: the case of China," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 671-689, October.
    11. Li, Wei & Jia, Zhijie, 2016. "The impact of emission trading scheme and the ratio of free quota: A dynamic recursive CGE model in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-14.
    12. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:7:p:1104-:d:102558 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. A. F. Hof & M. G. J. Elzen & A. Mendoza Beltran, 2016. "The EU 40 % greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2030 in perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 375-392, June.
    14. Pan, Xunzhang & Teng, Fei & Wang, Gehua, 2014. "A comparison of carbon allocation schemes: On the equity-efficiency tradeoff," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 222-229.
    15. Lucas, Paul L. & Shukla, P.R. & Chen, Wenying & van Ruijven, Bas J. & Dhar, Subash & den Elzen, Michel G.J. & van Vuuren, Detlef P., 2013. "Implications of the international reduction pledges on long-term energy system changes and costs in China and India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1032-1041.
    16. Mittal, Shivika & Dai, Hancheng & Fujimori, Shinichiro & Masui, Toshihiko, 2016. "Bridging greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy deployment target: Comparative assessment of China and India," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 301-313.
    17. Lining Wang & Wenying Chen & Hongjun Zhang & Ding Ma, 2017. "Dynamic equity carbon permit allocation scheme to limit global warming to two degrees," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 609-628, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Climate policy; China; India;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.