RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

  • Hancheng DAI 1 ,
  • Yang XIE , 2 ,
  • Haibin ZHANG 3 ,
  • Zhongjue YU 4 ,
  • Wentao WANG 5
Expand
  • 1. College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100875, China
  • 2. School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
  • 3. School of International Studies, Peking University, Beijing 100875, China
  • 4. School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
  • 5. The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21, Ministry of Science and Technology, Beijing 100038, China

Received date: 30 Dec 2017

Accepted date: 03 Apr 2018

Published date: 05 Sep 2018

Copyright

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

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).

Cite this article

Hancheng DAI , Yang XIE , Haibin ZHANG , Zhongjue YU , Wentao WANG . Effects of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on the carbon emission space and cost of China and India[J]. Frontiers in Energy, 2018 , 12(3) : 362 -375 . DOI: 10.1007/s11708-018-0574-y

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).
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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

37
Xie Y, Dai H, Dong H, Economic impacts from PM2.5 pollution-related health effects in China: a provincial-level analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50: 4836–4843

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

DOI

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

Outlines

/