The Impacts of U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on the Carbon Emission Space and Mitigation Cost of China, EU and Japan Under Constraints of Global Carbon Emission Space

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2017.134

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model and scenario analysis, this article assesses the impacts of the United States' (U.S.) withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on China, European Union (EU) and Japan in terms of carbon emission space and mitigation cost under Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and 2℃ scenarios due to changed emission pathway of U.S. The results show that, under the condition of constant global cumulative carbon emissions and fixed burden sharing scheme among countries, the failure of the U.S. to honor its NDC commitment to different degrees will increase its carbon emission space and decrease its mitigation cost. However, the carbon emission space of other parties, including China, EU and Japan, will be reduced and their mitigation costs will be raised. In 2030, under the 2℃ target, the carbon price will increase by 4.4-14.6 US$/t in China, by 9.7-35.4 US$/t in EU, and by 16.0-53.5 US$/t in Japan. In addition, China, EU and Japan will incur additional GDP loss. Under the 2℃ target in 2030, the GDP loss of China would increase by US$ 22.0 billion-71.1 billion (equivalent to 16.4-53.1 US$ per capita), EU's GDP loss would rise by US$ 9.4 billion-32.1 billion (equivalent to 20.7-71.1 US$ per capita), and Japan's GDP loss will rise by US$ 4.1 billion-13.5 billion (equivalent to 34.3-111.6 US$ per capita).

Key words: U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, carbon emission space, mitigation cost

Dai Hancheng, Zhang Haibin, Wang Wentao. The Impacts of U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on the Carbon Emission Space and Mitigation Cost of China, EU and Japan Under Constraints of Global Carbon Emission Space[J]. Climate Change Research, 2017, 13(5): 428-438.

References

[1] Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Hoehne N, et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2℃[J]. Nature, 2016, 534:631-639. DOI:10.1038/nature18307
[2] Rockstroem J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, et al. Climate policy a roadmap for rapid decarbonization[J]. Science, 2017, 355:1269-1271. DOI:10.1126/science.aah3443
[3] Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Grubler A, et al. Special report on emissions scenarios (SRES), a special report of working group Ⅲ of the intergovernmental panel on climate change[M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2000
[4] van Vuuren D P, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, et al. The representative concentration pathways:an overview[J]. Climatic Change, 2011, 109:5-31. DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
[5] van Vuuren D P, Stehfest E, den Elzen M G J, et al. RCP2.6:exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2℃[J]. Climatic Change, 2011, 109:95-116. DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3
[6] Thomson A M, Calvin K V, Smith S J, et al. RCP4.5:a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100[J]. Climatic Change, 2011, 109:77-94. DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4
[7] Masui T, Matsumoto K, Hijioka Y, et al. An emission pathway for stabilization at 6 wm(-2) radiative forcing[J]. Climatic Change, 2011, 109:59-76. DOI:10.1007/s10584-011-0150-5
[8] Dellink R, Chateau J, Lanzi E, et al. Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42:200-214. DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.004
[9] Leimbach M, Kriegler E, Roming N, et al. Future growth patterns of world regions:a GDP scenario approach[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42:215-225. DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.005
[10] van Riahi K, Vuuren D P, Kriegler E, et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications:an overview[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42:153-168. DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009
[11] van Vuuren D P, Riahi K, Calvin K, et al. The shared socio-economic pathways:trajectories for human development and global environmental change[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42:148-152. DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.009
[12] Dai H C, Masui T, Matsuoka Y, et al. Assessment of China's climate commitment and non-fossil energy plan towards 2020 using hybrid AIM/CGE model[J]. Energy Policy, 2011, 39:2875-2887
[13] Dai H C, Masui T, Matsuoka Y, et al. The impacts of China's household consumption expenditure patterns on energy demand and carbon emissions towards 2050[J]. Energy Policy, 2012, 50:736-750
[14] Dai H C, Xie X X, Xie Y, et al. Green growth:the economic impacts of large-scale renewable energy development in China[J]. Applied Energy, 2016, 162:435-449
[15] Cheng B B, Dai H C, Wang P, et al. Impacts of carbon trading scheme on air pollutant emissions in Guangdong province of China[J]. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 27:174-185
[16] Dong H J, Dai H C, Dong L, et al. Pursuing air pollutant co-benefits of CO₂ mitigation in China:a provincial leveled analysis[J]. Applied Energy, 2015, 144:165-174
[17] Cheng B B, Dai H C, Wang P, et al. Impacts of low-carbon power policy on carbon mitigation in Guangdong province, China[J]. Energy Policy, 2016, 88:515-527
[18] Dai H C. Integrated assessment of China's provincial low carbon economy development towards 2030:Jiangxi province as an example. Ph.D. dissertation[D]. Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2012
[19] Wu R, Dai H C, Geng Y, et al. Achieving China's INDC through carbon cap-and-trade:insights from Shanghai[J]. Applied Energy, 2016. DOI:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.011
[20] Tian X, Geng Y, Dai H C, et al. The effects of household consumption pattern on regional development:a case study of Shanghai[J]. Energy, 2016,103:49-60
[21] Tian X, Dai H C, Geng Y. Effect of household consumption changes on regional low-carbon development:a case study of Shanghai[J]. China Population, Resources and Environment, 2016, 26:55-63
[22] Xie Y, Dai H C, Dong H J, et al. Economic impacts from PM2.5 pollution-related health effects in China:a provincial-level analysis[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50:4836-4843
[23] Wang P, Dai H C, Ren S Y, et al. Achieving Copenhagen target through carbon emission trading:economic impacts assessment in Guangdong province of China[J]. Energy, 2015, 79:212-227
[24] Dai H C, Mischke P, Xie X, et al. Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China's regional energy use and CO₂ emissions[J]. Applied Energy, 2016, 162:1355-1373
[25] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) 2015[EB/OL]. 2017[2017-05-02]. http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php
[26] O'Neill B C, Kriegler E, Riahi K, et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research:the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways[J]. Climatic Change, 2014, 122:387-400
[27] International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (ⅡASA). Shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP) database version 0.9.3[D]. 2015
[28] van Vuuren D P, Stehfest E, Gernaat D E H J, et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42:237-250. DOI:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.008