4.4 Article

Intersectoral burden sharing of CO2 mitigation in China in 2020

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11027-014-9566-3

Keywords

Burden sharing; China; Choice preference; CO2 mitigation; CO2 intensity; Multi criteria; Sectoral allocation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71373173]
  2. National Social Science Foundation of China [12ZD208]
  3. Ministry of Education of China [20130032110072]
  4. National Climate Change Strategy Research and International Cooperation Center Project [2013H3-0010]
  5. Tianjin Government [ZFZX2013-21]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this paper is to provide a sector-based method for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions control and to disaggregate China's national CO2 mitigation burden at the sectoral level. Based on a detailed analysis of three burden sharing indicators-responsibility, capacity, and efficiency-this paper derives a mitigation burden index to suggest which economic sectors should bear more (or less) mitigation burden. A multi criteria allocation model of sectoral CO2 intensity (CO2 per unit of added value) is then constructed to determine each sector's mitigation target for 2020. The main findings are: (1) Allocation results based on multi criteria are more acceptable and practical than those based on only one criterion. (2) Policy maker preference for criteria has a significant effect on allocation results. (3) The fours sectors, manufacture of raw chemical materials and chemical products, manufacture of non-metallic mineral products, smelting and pressing of ferrous metals, and other services, consistently bear the highest mitigation burden. This paper offers policy makers a sector-based method to control CO2 emissions. Combining this method with sectoral potential for technological advancement and sectoral mitigation costs would produce a more feasible and cost effective burden sharing scheme.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available