Multi-model analyses of the economic and energy implications for China and India in a post-Kyoto climate regime
This 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
|Date of creation:||Nov 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +49 431 8814-1
Fax: +49 431 85853
Web page: http://www.ifw-kiel.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- 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.
- Barun Deb Pal & Sanjib Pohit & Joyashree Roy, 2012. "Social Accounting Matrix For India," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 77-99, August.
- 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.
- S. Mahendra Dev, 2008. "India," Chapters, in: Handbook on the South Asian Economies, chapter 1 Edward Elgar.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- S. Narayan, 2009. "India," Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Trade Reform in Emerging Markets, chapter 7 Edward Elgar.
- Chen, Wenying & Wu, Zongxin & He, Jiankun & Gao, Pengfei & Xu, Shaofeng, 2007. "Carbon emission control strategies for China: A comparative study with partial and general equilibrium versions of the China MARKAL model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 59-72.
- 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.
- 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.
- Gunnar Luderer & Enrica DeCian & Jean-Charles Hourcade & Marian Leimbach & Henri Waisman & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2012. "On the regional distribution of mitigation costs in a global cap-and-trade regime," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 59-78, September.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kie:kieliw:1808. 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: (Dieter Stribny)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.