IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p1109-d140052.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-Benefits of CO 2 Mitigation for NO X Emission Reduction: A Research Based on the DICE Model

Author

Listed:
  • Xi Xie

    (School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
    The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Yuwei Weng

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
    Joint Center for Global Change Studies, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Wenjia Cai

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
    Joint Center for Global Change Studies, Beijing 100875, China)

Abstract

Actions to reduce carbon emissions often entail co-benefits for environmental protection, like air pollutants reduction. Previous studies made contributions to estimate these co-benefits, but few considered the feedbacks from the socioeconomic system and the natural system. This paper extends the Dynamic Integrated model of Climate and the Economy (DICE) model, a classical Integrated Assessment model (IAM), into the Dynamic Integrated model of Climate, Air pollution and the Economy (DICAE) model. Through the hard link between a new air pollution module and the other modules in the original DICE, this paper quantifies the co-benefits of mitigating CO 2 emissions for NO X emission reduction, and compares the predicted climate change, economic output and social utility under seven mixed policy scenarios. In addition, uncertainty analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation is carried out to verify the robustness of the DICAE model. The results indicate that the NO X emissions co-emitted with CO 2 emissions would be over 0.6 Gt/year in a no-policy scenario. In policy scenarios, mitigating CO 2 emissions can simultaneously reduce at least 15% of the NO X emissions, and the more severe the climate mitigation target is, the more obvious co-benefits for NO X emission reduction. Although these co-benefits can offset some mitigation costs, it will not be cost-effective when NO X emission reduction is achieved completely depending on ambitious carbon mitigation, so the end-of-pipe technology for NO X emission is also indispensable. For policymakers, they should recognize the co-benefits of climate policies, actively taking mitigation actions. Moreover, they are encouraged to combine CO 2 mitigation with NO X emission reduction and coordinate their policy intensities to make wise use of the co-benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Xi Xie & Yuwei Weng & Wenjia Cai, 2018. "Co-Benefits of CO 2 Mitigation for NO X Emission Reduction: A Research Based on the DICE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1109-:d:140052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1109/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1109/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bollen, Johannes & van der Zwaan, Bob & Brink, Corjan & Eerens, Hans, 2009. "Local air pollution and global climate change: A combined cost-benefit analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 161-181, August.
    2. Yang, Xi & Teng, Fei & Wang, Gehua, 2013. "Incorporating environmental co-benefits into climate policies: A regional study of the cement industry in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 1446-1453.
    3. Simon Dietz, 2011. "High impact, low probability? An empirical analysis of risk in the economics of climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 519-541, October.
    4. Burtraw, Dallas & Krupnick, Alan & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Toman, Michael & Bloyd, Cary, 2003. "Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 650-673, May.
    5. Sébastien Dessus & David O'Connor, 2003. "Climate Policy without Tears CGE-Based Ancillary Benefits Estimates for Chile," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 287-317, July.
    6. Pizer, William A., 1999. "The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 255-287, August.
    7. Dong, Huijuan & Dai, Hancheng & Dong, Liang & Fujita, Tsuyoshi & Geng, Yong & Klimont, Zbigniew & Inoue, Tsuyoshi & Bunya, Shintaro & Fujii, Minoru & Masui, Toshihiko, 2015. "Pursuing air pollutant co-benefits of CO2 mitigation in China: A provincial leveled analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 165-174.
    8. Nordhaus, William D., 1993. "Rolling the 'DICE': an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 27-50, March.
    9. John Weyant, 2017. "Some Contributions of Integrated Assessment Models of Global Climate Change," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 115-137.
    10. Dietz, Simon, 2011. "High impact, low probability?: an empirical analysis of risk in the economics of climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 38586, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Rypdal, Kristin & Rive, Nathan & Astrom, Stefan & Karvosenoja, Niko & Aunan, Kristin & Bak, Jesper L. & Kupiainen, Kaarle & Kukkonen, Jaakko, 2007. "Nordic air quality co-benefits from European post-2012 climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6309-6322, December.
    12. Johannes Bollen & Bruno Guay & Stéphanie Jamet & Jan Corfee-Morlot, 2009. "Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: Literature Review and New Results," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 693, OECD Publishing.
    13. Ackerman, Frank & Stanton, Elizabeth A. & Bueno, Ramón, 2010. "Fat tails, exponents, extreme uncertainty: Simulating catastrophe in DICE," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1657-1665, June.
    14. Gilbert E. Metcalf & James Stock, 2015. "The Role of Integrated Assessment Models in Climate Policy: A User's Guide and Assessment," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0811, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    15. Shrestha, Ram M. & Pradhan, Shreekar, 2010. "Co-benefits of CO2 emission reduction in a developing country," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2586-2597, May.
    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. Pavel Tcvetkov, 2021. "Climate Policy Imbalance in the Energy Sector: Time to Focus on the Value of CO 2 Utilization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-22, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Bruin, Kelly & Kiran Krishnamurthy, Chandra, 2021. "Optimal Climate Policy with Fat-tailed Uncertainty: What the Models Can Tell Us," Papers WP697, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    2. Wang, Lining & Patel, Pralit L. & Yu, Sha & Liu, Bo & McLeod, Jeff & Clarke, Leon E. & Chen, Wenying, 2016. "Win–Win strategies to promote air pollutant control policies and non-fossil energy target regulation in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 244-253.
    3. Shuo Gao & Ping Jiang, 2020. "Detecting and understanding co-benefits generated in tackling climate change and environmental degradation in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 4589-4618, June.
    4. In Hwang & Frédéric Reynès & Richard Tol, 2013. "Climate Policy Under Fat-Tailed Risk: An Application of Dice," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 415-436, November.
    5. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    6. Francesco Lamperti & Giovanni Dosi & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Alessandro Sapio, 2018. "And then he wasn't a she : Climate change and green transitions in an agent-based integrated assessment model," Working Papers hal-03443464, HAL.
    7. Seth D. Baum & Timothy M. Maher & Jacob Haqq-Misra, 2013. "Double catastrophe: intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 168-180, March.
    8. Dietz, Simon, 2012. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-12.
    9. Pezzey, John C.V. & Burke, Paul J., 2014. "Towards a more inclusive and precautionary indicator of global sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 141-154.
    10. Bollen, Johannes, 2015. "The value of air pollution co-benefits of climate policies: Analysis with a global sector-trade CGE model called WorldScan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 178-191.
    11. Ikefuji, Masako & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Magnus, Jan R. & Muris, Chris, 2020. "Expected utility and catastrophic risk in a stochastic economy–climate model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 110-129.
    12. Nicolas Taconet & Céline Guivarch & Antonin Pottier, 2019. "Social Cost of Carbon under stochastic tipping points: when does risk play a role?," Working Papers hal-02408904, HAL.
    13. Kopp, Robert E. & Mignone, Bryan K., 2012. "The US government's social cost of carbon estimates after their first two years: Pathways for improvement," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 6, pages 1-41.
    14. Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Janda, Karel & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 394-406.
    15. Takeshita, Takayuki, 2012. "Assessing the co-benefits of CO2 mitigation on air pollutants emissions from road vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 225-237.
    16. Muller, Nicholas Z., 2012. "The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-722.
    17. Lamperti, F. & Dosi, G. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2018. "Faraway, So Close: Coupled Climate and Economic Dynamics in an Agent-based Integrated Assessment Model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 315-339.
    18. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5vt1fet9fq9o5pkgj2qh2vn1cm is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Mrkajic, Vladimir & Vukelic, Djordje & Mihajlov, Andjelka, 2015. "Reduction of CO2 emission and non-environmental co-benefits of bicycle infrastructure provision: the case of the University of Novi Sad, Serbia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 232-242.
    20. Lamperti, F. & Dosi, G. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2020. "Climate change and green transitions in an agent-based integrated assessment model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    21. Zhang, Shaohui & Worrell, Ernst & Crijns-Graus, Wina, 2015. "Synergy of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions of Chinese industries: A critical assessment of energy models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 93(P2), pages 2436-2450.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1109-:d:140052. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.