Effects of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on the carbon emission space and cost of China and India

Abstract

Climate mitigation has become a global issue and most countries have promised their greenhouse gas reduction target. However, after Trump took office as president of the United States (US), the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement. As the biggest economy, this would have impacts on the emission space of other countries. This paper, by using the integrated model of energy, environment and economy/computable general equilibrium (IMED/CGE) model, assesses the impacts of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on China, India in terms of carbon emission space and mitigation cost under Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and 2°C scenarios due to changed emission pathway of the US. The results show that, under the condition of constant global cumulative carbon emissions and fixed burden sharing scheme among the countries, the failure of the US to honor its NDC commitment will increase its carbon emission space and decrease its mitigation cost. However, the carbon emission space of other regions, including China and India, will be reduced and their mitigation costs will be raised. In 2030, under the 2°C target, the carbon price will increase by US$14.3 to US$45.3/t in China and by US$10.7 to US$33.9/t in India. In addition, China and India will incur additional GDP loss. Under the 2°C target, the GDP loss of China would increase by US$23.3 to US$72.6 billion (equivalent to US$17.4 to US$54.2/capita), and that of India would rise by US$14.2 to US$43.1 billion (equivalent to US$9.3 to US$28.2/capita).

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Paris Agreement / China and India / the US withdrawal / carbon emission space / mitigation cost

References

[1] Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Hoehne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 2016, 534: 631–639

[2] Rockstroem J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber H J. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 2017, 355: 1269–1271

[3] Pan X, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Teng F, Wang L. Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 74: 49–56

[4] Van Soest H L, de Boer H S, Roelfsema M, Early action on Paris Agreement allows for more time to change energy systems. Climatic Change, 2017, 144: 165–179

[5] Roelfsema M, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Are major economies on track to achieve their pledges for 2020? An assessment of domestic climate and energy policies. Energy Policy, 2014, 67: 781–796

[6] Van Ruijven B J, Weitzel M, den Elzen M G J, Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches. Energy Policy, 2012, 46: 116–134

[7] Chandran Govindaraju V G R, Tang C F. The dynamic links between CO₂ emissions, economic growth and coal consumption in China and India. Applied Energy, 2013, 104: 310–318

[8] Alam M M, Murad M W, Noman A H M, Relationships among carbon emissions, economic growth, energy consumption and population growth: testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 70: 466–479

[9] Hof A F, den Elzen M G J, Admiraal A, Global and regional abatement costs of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and of enhanced action to levels well below 2°C and 1.5°C. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 71: 30–40

[10] Mi Z, Wei Y M, Wang B, Socioeconomic impact assessment of China’s CO₂ emissions peak prior to 2030. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 142: 2227–2236

[11] Zhang C, Wang Q, Shi D, Scenario-based potential effects of carbon trading in China: an integrated approach. Applied Energy, 2016, 182: 177–190

[12] Cui L B, Fan Y, Zhu L, Bi Q H. How will the emissions trading scheme save cost for achieving China’s 2020 carbon intensity reduction target? Applied Energy, 2014, 136: 1043–1052

[13] Wu J, Fan Y, Xia Y. How can China achieve its nationally determined contribution targets combining emissions trading scheme and renewable energy policies? Energies, 2017, 10: 1166

[14] Sun X, Zhang B, Tang X, McLellan B, Höök M. Sustainable energy transitions in China: renewable options and impacts on the electricity system. Energies, 2016, 9(12): 980

[15] Xunzhang P, Wenying C, Clarke L E, Lining W, Guannan L. China’s energy system transformation towards the 2°C goal: implications of different effort-sharing principles. Energy Policy, 2017, 103: 116–126

[16] Huang W, Ma D, Chen W. Connecting water and energy: assessing the impacts of carbon and water constraints on China’s power sector. Applied Energy, 2017, 185: 1497–1505

[17] Wan L, Wang C, Cai W. Impacts on water consumption of power sector in major emitting economies under INDC and longer-term mitigation scenarios: an input-output based hybrid approach. Applied Energy, 2016, 184: 26–39

[18] Yang X, Teng F, Wang X, Zhang Q. System optimization and co-benefit analysis of China’s deep de-carbonization effort towards its INDC target. Energy Procedia, 2017, 105: 3314–3319

[19] Byravan S, Ali M S, Ananthakumar M R, Quality of life for all: a sustainable development framework for India’s climate policy reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Energy for Sustainable Deve-lopment, 2017, 39: 48–58

[20] Busby J W, Shidore S. When decarbonization meets development: the sectoral feasibility of greenhouse gas mitigation in India. Energy Research & Social Science, 2017, 23: 60–73

[21] Sundriyal R, Dhyani P. Significance of India’s INDC and climate justice: an appraisal. Current Science, 2015, 109: 2186–2187

[22] Zhang Y X, Chao Q C, Zheng Q H, Huang L. The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2017, 8(4): 213–219

[23] Deese B. Paris isn’t burning why the climate agreement will survive trump. Foreign Affairs, 2017, 96: 83–92

[24] Peters J C, Hertel T W. Achieving the clean power plan 2030 CO₂ target with the new normal in natural gas prices. Energy Journal, 2017, 38: 39–66

[25] Kemp L. Better out than in. Nature Climate Change, 2017, 7: 458–460

[26] Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Grubler A, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), a Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. London: Cambridge University Press, 2000

[27] van Vuuren D P, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 5–31

[28] van Vuuren D P, Stehfest E, den Elzen M G J, RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 95–116

[29] Thomson A M, Calvin K V, Smith S J, RCP4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 77–94

[30] Masui T, Matsumoto K, Hijioka Y, An emission pathway for stabilization at 6 Wm⁻² radiative forcing. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 59–76

[31] Dellink R, Chateau J, Lanzi E, Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 200–214

[32] Leimbach M, Kriegler E, Roming N, Future growth patterns of world regions—a GDP scenario approach. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 215–225

[33] Riahi K, van Vuuren D P, Kriegler E, The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 153–168

[34] van Vuuren D P, Riahi K, Calvin K, The shared socio-economic pathways: trajectories for human development and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 148–152

[35] Dong H, Dai H, Dong L, Pursuing air pollutant co-benefits of CO₂ mitigation in China: a provincial leveled analysis. Applied Energy, 2015, 144: 165–174

[36] Dai H, Mischke P, Xie X, Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China’s regional energy use and CO₂ emissions. Applied Energy, 2016, 162: 1355–1373

[37] Xie Y, Dai H, Dong H, Economic impacts from PM_2.5 pollution-related health effects in China: a provincial-level analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50: 4836–4843

[38] Dai H, Masui T, Matsuoka Y, Fujimori S. Assessment of China’s climate commitment and non-fossil energy plan towards 2020 using hybrid AIM/CGE model. Energy Policy, 2011, 39: 2875–2887

[39] Dai H, Masui T, Matsuoka Y, The impacts of China’s household consumption expenditure patterns on energy demand and carbon emissions towards 2050. Energy Policy, 2012, 50: 736–750

[40] Dai H, Xie X, Xie Y, Green growth: the economic impacts of large-scale renewable energy development in China. Applied Energy, 2016, 162: 435–449

[41] Cheng B, Dai H, Wang P, Impacts of carbon trading scheme on air pollutant emissions in Guangdong province of China. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 27: 174–185

[42] Cheng B, Dai H, Wang P, Impacts of low-carbon power policy on carbon mitigation in Guangdong province, China. Energy Policy, 2016, 88: 515–527

[43] Dai H. Integrated assessment of China’s provincial low carbon economy development towards 2030: Jiangxi province as an example. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Tokyo: Institute of Technology, 2012

[44] Wu R, Dai H, Geng Y, Achieving China’s INDC through carbon cap-and-trade: insights from Shanghai. Applied Energy, 2016, 184: 1114–1122

[45] Tian X, Geng Y, Dai H, The effects of household consumption pattern on regional development: a case study of Shanghai. Energy, 2016, 103: 49–60

[46] Tian X, Dai H, Geng Y. Effect of household consumption changes on regional low-carbon development: a case study of Shanghai. China Population Resources and Environment, 2016, 26: 55–63

[47] Wang P, Dai H, Ren S, Zhao D, Masui T. Achieving Copenhagen target through carbon emission trading: economic impacts assessment in Guangdong province of China. Energy, 2015, 79: 212–227

[48] Rutherford T F. Applied general equilibrium modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS subsystem: an overview of the modeling framework and syntax. Computational Economics, 1999, 14: 1–46

[49] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). 2015

[50] O’Neill B C, Kriegler E, Riahi K, A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 2014, 122: 387–400

[51] International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) Database Version 0.9.3. 2015

[52] van Vuuren D P, Stehfest E, Gernaat D E H J, Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 237–250

[53] The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. The new climate economy report: better growth, better climate. 2018–03

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71704005), “The Impacts of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Global Climate Governance and China’s Response” (Grant No. 71741011) of the 2017 National Natural Science Foundation Project, and the special fund of State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (Grant No. 18K01ESPCP).

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2018 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature