4.7 Article

Carbon emissions in China: How far can new efforts bend the curve?

Journal

ENERGY ECONOMICS
Volume 54, Issue -, Pages 388-395

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.002

Keywords

China; Economic reform; Energy; Climate policy; CO2 pricing; Energy-economic model

Categories

Funding

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China [09ZD029]
  2. Rio Tinto China
  3. Eni S.p.A.
  4. French Development Agency (AFD)
  5. ICF International
  6. Shell International Limited
  7. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While China is on track to meet its global climate commitments through 2020, China's post-2020 CO2 emissions trajectory is highly uncertain, with projections varying widely across studies. Over the past year, the Chinese government has announced new policy directives to deepen economic reform, to protect the environment, and to limit fossil energy use in China. To evaluate how new policy directives could affect energy and climate change outcomes, we simulate two levels of policy effort-a continued effort scenario that extends current policies beyond 2020 and an accelerated effort scenario that reflects newly announced policies-on the evolution of China's energy and economic system over the next several decades. We perform simulations using the China in-Global Energy Model, C-GEM, a bespoke recursive-dynamic computable general equilibrium model with global coverage and detailed calibration of China's economy and future trends. Importantly, we find that both levels of policy effort would bend down the CO2 emissions trajectory before 2050 without undermining economic development. Specifically, in the accelerated effort scenario, we find that coal use peaks around 2020, and CO2 emissions level off around 2030 at 10 bmt, without undermining continued economic growth consistent with China reaching the status of a well-off society by 2050. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available