IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/een/eenhrr/1051.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Ambitious are China and India's Emissions Intensity Targets?

Author

Listed:
  • David I. Stern

    (Arndt-Corden Division of Economics, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University)

  • Frank Jotzo

    (ANU Climate Change Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University)

Abstract

Several developing economies have announced carbon emissions targets for 2020 as part of the negotiating process for a post-Kyoto climate policy regime. China and India¹s commitments are framed as reductions in the emissions intensity of the economy by 40-45% and 20-25% respectively between 2005 and 2020. How feasible are the proposed reductions in emissions intensity for China and India, and how do they compare with the targeted reductions in the US and the EU? In this paper, we use a stochastic frontier model of energy intensity to decompose energy intensity into input and output mix, climate, and a residual technology variable. We use the model to produce emissions projections for China and India under a number of scenarios regarding the pace of technological change and changes in the share of non-fossil energy. We find that China is likely to need to adopt ambitious carbon mitigation policies in order to achieve its stated target, and that its targeted reductions in emissions intensity are on par with those implicit in the US and EU targets. India¹s target is less ambitious, and might be met with only limited or even no dedicated mitigation policies.

Suggested Citation

  • David I. Stern & Frank Jotzo, 2009. "How Ambitious are China and India's Emissions Intensity Targets?," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1051, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    • Handle: RePEc:een:eenhrr:1051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/pdf/EERH_RR51.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ross Garnaut & Stephen Howes & Frank Jotzo & Peter Sheehan, 2008. "Emissions in the Platinum Age: the implications of rapid development for climate-change mitigation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(2), pages 377-401, Summer.
    2. K. Hadri & C. Guermat & J. Whittaker, 2003. "Estimation of technical inefficiency effects using panel data and doubly heteroscedastic stochastic production frontiers," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 203-222, January.
    3. Hodrick, Robert J & Prescott, Edward C, 1997. "Postwar U.S. Business Cycles: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Frank Jotzo & John Pezzey, 2007. "Optimal intensity targets for greenhouse gas emissions trading under uncertainty," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(2), pages 259-284, October.
    5. Warwick J. Mckibbin & Adele C. Morris & Peter J. Wilcoxen, 2011. "Comparing Climate Commitments: A Model-Based Analysis Of The Copenhagen Accord," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(02), pages 79-103.
    6. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    7. Stern, David I., 2010. "Energy quality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1471-1478, May.
    8. Lopez, Ramon & Mitra, Siddhartha, 2000. "Corruption, Pollution, and the Kuznets Environment Curve," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 137-150, September.
    9. Stern, David I., 2010. "Modeling International Trends in Energy Efficiency and Carbon Emissions," Research Reports 94950, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    10. Subodh Kumar & R. Robert Russell, 2002. "Technological Change, Technological Catch-up, and Capital Deepening: Relative Contributions to Growth and Convergence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 527-548, June.
    11. Garnaut,Ross, 2008. "The Garnaut Climate Change Review," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521744447, November.
    12. Kumbhakar, Subal C & Ghosh, Soumendra & McGuckin, J Thomas, 1991. "A Generalized Production Frontier Approach for Estimating Determinants of Inefficiency in U.S. Dairy Farms," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 9(3), pages 279-286, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Comparing the Copenhagen emissions targets," Working Papers 249378, Australian National University, Centre for Climate Economics & Policy.
    2. Stern, David I., 2012. "Modeling international trends in energy efficiency," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 2200-2208.
    3. Emanuele Massetti, 2011. "Carbon tax scenarios for China and India: exploring politically feasible mitigation goals," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 209-227, September.
    4. Garth Heutel, 2012. "How Should Environmental Policy Respond to Business Cycles? Optimal Policy under Persistent Productivity Shocks," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 15(2), pages 244-264, April.
    5. Sabrina Auci & Laura Castellucci & Manuela Coromaldi, 2021. "How does public spending affect technical efficiency? Some evidence from 15 European countries," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 108-130, January.
    6. Lowry, Mark Newton & Getachew, Lullit, 2009. "Statistical benchmarking in utility regulation: Role, standards and methods," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1323-1330, April.
    7. Carmen L�pez Pueyo & M� Jes�s Manceb�n Torrubia, 2009. "Sources of productivity growth and convergence in ict industries: an intertemporal non-parametric frontier approach?," Documentos de Trabajo dt2009-04, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Zaragoza.
    8. Jeitschko, Thomas D. & Kim, Soo Jin & Pal, Pallavi, 2024. "Curbing price fluctuations in cap-and-trade auctions under changing demand expectations," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    9. Arnab Bhattacharjee & Eduardo Castro & Chris Jensen-Butler, 2009. "Regional variation in productivity: a study of the Danish economy," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 195-212, June.
    10. Pezzey, John C.V. & Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Tax-Versus-Trading and Free Emission Shares as Issues for Climate Policy Design," Research Reports 95049, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    11. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Diluiso, Francesca, 2019. "International transmission of the business cycle and environmental policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    12. Simon Baptist & Cameron Hepburn, 2012. "Intermediate inputs and economic productivity," GRI Working Papers 95, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    13. Stern, David I., 2010. "Between estimates of the emissions-income elasticity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2173-2182, September.
    14. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Di Dio, Fabio, 2015. "Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-21.
    15. Olli-Pekka Kuusela & Maria S. Bowman & Gregory S. Amacher & Richard B. Howarth & Nadine T. Laporte, 2020. "Does infrastructure and resource access matter for technical efficiency? An empirical analysis of fishing and fuelwood collection in Mozambique," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1811-1837, March.
    16. Kato, Shinya & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2017. "A CGE analysis of a rate-based policy for climate change mitigation," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 88-95.
    17. Huw McKay & Ligang Song, 2010. "China as a Global Manufacturing Powerhouse: Strategic Considerations and Structural Adjustment," China & World Economy, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 18(1), pages 1-32, January.
    18. Wang, Banban & Pizer, William A. & Munnings, Clayton, 2022. "Price limits in a tradable performance standard," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Yiyong Cai & Yingying Lu & Alison Stegman & David Newth, 2017. "Simulating emissions intensity targets with energy economic models: algorithm and application," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 141-155, August.
    20. Boris Bravo-Ureta & Daniel Solís & Víctor Moreira López & José Maripani & Abdourahmane Thiam & Teodoro Rivas, 2007. "Technical efficiency in farming: a meta-regression analysis," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 57-72, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:een:eenhrr:1051. 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: CAP Web Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/asanuau.html .

    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.