中国碳中和目标下不同减排路径的能源转型差异研究

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2025.276

气候变化研究进展 ›› 2026, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (2): 213-223.doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2025.276

中国碳中和目标下不同减排路径的能源转型差异研究

王家兴¹^,², 何小玉³, 王雨涵¹^,², 李彦³, 鲁玺¹^,²^,⁴(), 贺克斌¹^,²^,⁴

¹ 清华大学环境学院，北京 100084
² 环境模拟与污染控制国家重点联合实验室，北京 100084
³ 同济大学环境科学与工程学院，上海 200092
⁴ 清华大学碳中和研究院，北京 100084

收稿日期:2025-12-31 修回日期:2026-02-10 出版日期:2026-03-30 发布日期:2026-03-20
通讯作者: 鲁玺，男，教授，xilu@tsinghua.edu.cn
作者简介:王家兴，男，博士研究生
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目(72025401);国家自然科学基金项目(72140003);国家自然科学基金项目(72104117);国家自然科学基金项目(72243007)

Divergent energy transition pathways under varied carbon emission reduction trajectories for China’s carbon neutrality goal

WANG Jia-Xing¹^,², HE Xiao-Yu³, WANG Yu-Han¹^,², LI Yan³, LU Xi¹^,²^,⁴(), HE Ke-Bin¹^,²^,⁴

¹ School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
² State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control, Beijing 100084, China
³ College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
⁴ Institute for Carbon Neutrality, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Received:2025-12-31 Revised:2026-02-10 Online:2026-03-30 Published:2026-03-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

全球温控目标要求将人为CO₂排放约束在有限的碳预算范围内。不同的碳预算分配方案将显著影响国家未来潜在的排放限制，同时，减排路径的差异也将进一步影响能源转型进程。为综合评估全球1.5℃与2℃温控目标下中国采取不同碳中和路径决策对能源转型的差异化影响，本研究基于不同碳预算分配方案与碳中和路径方案组合形成24种碳中和能源转型情景，并基于全球变化评估模型（GCAM）从一次能源消费、终端能源电气化、电力结构与碳价格变化等多方面探讨了不同路径下的能源转型综合影响。结果表明，在1.5℃目标下，中国未来碳预算仅为1034亿~1413亿t，而2℃情景下，碳预算将提升至2397亿~3294亿t；采取不同的减排路径将对我国的能源转型造成显著差异，尤其在1.5℃目标下，采取“先慢后快”的减排路径将显著增加对碳移除技术的依赖；积极稳妥推进碳达峰与碳中和（“先快后慢”和“中间路径”）将有效避免潜在的社会成本上升。在1.5℃目标下，采取“先慢后快”减排路径的2060年碳价格均值较积极降碳的路径将提高56%~89%，在2℃目标下将提高9%~21%。中国提出的2035年非化石能源消费占比超过30%的新国家自主贡献（NDC）目标超过大多数2℃目标要求，其中“先快后慢”和“中间路径”情景中2035年的非化石能源消费更接近中国新NDC目标。

关键词: 碳预算, 能源转型, 碳中和, 减排路径, 全球变化评估模型（GCAM）

Abstract:

Global temperature control goals require constraining anthropogenic carbon emissions within a limited carbon budget, where different allocation schemes significantly influence national emission constraints and varying pathway strategies profoundly impact energy transition processes. China’s carbon neutrality commitment necessitates unprecedented energy system transformation within three decades, making comprehensive assessment of pathway impacts under global carbon budgets critically important. This study developed 24 carbon-neutral energy transition scenarios combining carbon budget allocation schemes with pathway strategies, utilizing the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) to analyze impacts on primary energy consumption, end-use electrification, power structure transformation, and carbon pricing. Results demonstrate that under 1.5℃ target, China’s carbon budget remains severely constrained at 103.4-141.3 Gt CO₂, while 2℃ target permits larger budget of 239.7-329.4 Gt CO₂, with equity-based principles imposing more stringent constraints than grandfathering principles due to historical emission considerations. The choice of emission reduction pathways will profoundly shape the trajectory of China’s energy transition. Under 1.5℃ target, an emission reduction strategy characterized by initial delay followed by accelerated action (“delayed-action”) would substantially increase reliance on CO₂ removal technologies. Conversely, “rapid-then-slow” and “intermediate pathways” will effectively avoid potential increases in social costs. Specifically, within the 1.5℃ target, the average carbon price by 2060 under the “delayed-action” pathway is projected to be 56% to 89% higher than under the “rapid-then-slow” and “intermediate pathways”. This persists at 9%-21% even under 2℃ target. Furthermore, the new Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) target for China to exceed 30% non-fossil energy consumption by 2035 will surpass most 2℃ target scenarios. Among these, the non-fossil energy consumption in the “rapid-then-slow” and “intermediate pathway” scenarios for 2035 is closer to China’s new NDC target.

Key words: Carbon budget, Energy transition, Carbon neutrality, Carbon emission reduction pathways, Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM)

王家兴, 何小玉, 王雨涵, 李彦, 鲁玺, 贺克斌. 中国碳中和目标下不同减排路径的能源转型差异研究[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2026, 22(2): 213-223.

WANG Jia-Xing, HE Xiao-Yu, WANG Yu-Han, LI Yan, LU Xi, HE Ke-Bin. Divergent energy transition pathways under varied carbon emission reduction trajectories for China’s carbon neutrality goal[J]. Climate Change Research, 2026, 22(2): 213-223.

图/表 9

图1 碳预算与减排路径情景矩阵

Fig. 1 Carbon budget and emission reduction path scenario matrix

表1 中国碳预算分配情况

Table 1 Carbon budget allocation in China 亿t CO2

图2 中国碳预算分配额度

Fig. 2 Carbon budget allocation for China

图3 不同温控目标碳预算水平下的中国碳中和减排路径

Fig. 3 China’s emission reduction pathways under different temperature control targets and carbon budget levels

图4 不同情景下一次能源消费情况注：图中阴影区表示最值范围。

Fig. 4 Primary energy consumption under different scenarios

图5 不同情景下2035年非化石能源消费情况

Fig. 5 Non-fossil energy consumption in 2035 under different scenarios

图6 不同情景下电气化率变化情况注：图中阴影区表示最值范围。

Fig. 6 Electrification rate changes under different scenarios

图7 不同情景下2060年电力结构与总发电量

Fig. 7 Power mix and total electricity generation in 2060 under different scenarios

图8 不同情景下的碳价格变化情况

Fig. 8 Carbon price changes under different scenarios

参考文献 43

[1]	Pye S, Li F G N, Price J, et al. Achieving net-zero emissions through the reframing of UK national targets in the post-Paris Agreement era[J]. Nature Energy, 2017, 2 (3): 17024 doi: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.24
[2]	潘晓滨. 碳中和背景下国家碳预算的理论同构与立法路径[J]. 湖南大学学报(社会科学版), 2024, 38 (1): 112-118.
	Pan X B. Theoretical isomorphism and legislative path of national carbon budget under carbon neutralization[J]. Journal of Hunan University (Social Sciences), 2024, 38 (1): 112-118 (in Chinese)
[3]	Paulus N. Developing individual carbon footprint reduction pathways from carbon budgets: examples with Wallonia and France[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2024, 198: 114428 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2024.114428 URL
[4]	Pan X Z, Teng F, Robiou Du Pont Y, et al. Understanding equity-efficiency interaction in the distribution of global carbon budgets[J]. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2023, 14 (1): 13-22 doi: 10.1016/j.accre.2022.08.002 URL
[5]	Wang J X, Lu X, Wang H, et al. Reassessing immediate coal phase-out: dual imperatives of capacity control and renewables expansion in China’s net-zero strategy[J]. Nexus, 2025, 2 (3): 100081 doi: 10.1016/j.ynexs.2025.100081 URL
[6]	谢克昌. 新型能源体系发展思考与建议[J]. 中国工程科学, 2024, 26 (4): 1-8. doi: 10.15302/J-SSCAE-2024.04.014
	Xie K C. Strategic thinking and suggestions on new energy system[J]. Strategic Study of CAE, 2024, 26 (4): 1-8 (in Chinese) doi: 10.15302/J-SSCAE-2024.04.014
[7]	Breton C, Blanchet P, Amor B, et al. A novel method to calculate SSP-consistent remaining carbon budgets for the building sector: a case study of Canada[J]. Building and Environment, 2025, 269: 112474 doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112474 URL
[8]	Lamboll R D, Nicholls Z R J, Smith C J, et al. Assessing the size and uncertainty of remaining carbon budgets[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2023, 13 (12): 1360-1367 doi: 10.1038/s41558-023-01848-5
[9]	Cox P M, Williamson M S, Friedlingstein P, et al. Emergent constraints on carbon budgets as a function of global warming[J]. Nature Communications, 2024, 15 (1): 1885 doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-46137-7 pmid: 38424076
[10]	Chin M Y, Qin Y T, Hoy Z X, et al. Assessing carbon budgets and reduction pathways in different income levels with neural network forecasting[J]. Energy, 2024, 305: 132331 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.132331 URL
[11]	Xiong S W, Yang F, Li J Y, et al. Temporal-spatial variation and regulatory mechanism of carbon budgets in territorial space through the lens of carbon balance: a case of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River urban agglomerations, China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2023, 154: 110885 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110885 URL
[12]	Mc Guire J, Rogan F, Balyk O, et al. Developing decarbonisation pathways in changing TIMES for Irish homes[J]. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2023, 47: 101086 doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2023.101086 URL
[13]	Aryanpur V, Balyk O, Daly H, et al. Decarbonisation of passenger light-duty vehicles using spatially resolved TIMES-Ireland model[J]. Applied Energy, 2022, 316: 119078 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119078 URL
[14]	óriordan V, Mac Uidhir T, Rogan F. Policy simulation modelling to inform national carbon budget pathways[J]. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2023, 50: 101237 doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2023.101237 URL
[15]	Li S S, Kong W L, Wang Y J, et al. Medium and long-term energy demand forecasts by sectors in China under the goal of “carbon peaking & carbon neutrality”: based on the LEAP-China model[J]. Energy, 2024, 310: 133017 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.133017 URL
[16]	Duan H B, Zhou S, Jiang K J, et al. Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5℃ warming limit[J]. Science, 2021, 372 (6540): 378-385 doi: 10.1126/science.aba8767 URL
[17]	Abrell J, Bilici s, Blesl M, et al. Optimal allocation of the EU carbon budget: a multi-model assessment[J]. Energy Strategy Reviews, 2024, 51: 101271 doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2023.101271 URL
[18]	王文军, 黄辉泉, 赵栩婕, 等. 国外碳预算制度剖析及中国适用性研究[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2025, 40 (8): 1408-1420.
	Wang W J, Huang H Q, Zhao X J, et al. Analysis of international carbon budget management systems and their applicability to China[J]. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2025, 40 (8): 1408-1420 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/j.issn.1000-3045.20240712003 URL
[19]	汤宏波, 余海峰, 李富山, 等. 气候正义视角下的全球CO₂排放的历史责任与发展权[J]. 地球环境学报, 2025: 1-15.
	Tang H B, Yu H F, Li F S, et al. Climate justice: the historical responsibility for global CO₂ emissions and the right to development[J]. Journal of Earth Environment, 2025: 1-15 (in Chinese)
[20]	李佳馨, 顾佰和, 于东晖. 英国、德国、法国碳预算制度的比较研究及对我国的启示[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2025, 21 (5): 684-697.
	Li J X, Gu B H, Yu D H. A comparative study of the carbon budget systems in the UK, Germany and France and the implications for China[J]. Climate Change Research, 2025, 21 (5): 684-697 (in Chinese)
[21]	Pan X Z, Teng F, Wang G H. Sharing emission space at an equitable basis: allocation scheme based on the equal cumulative emission per capita principle[J]. Applied Energy, 2014, 113: 1810-1818 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.021 URL
[22]	Raupach M R, Davis S J, Peters G P, et al. Sharing a quota on cumulative carbon emissions[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2014, 4 (10): 873-879 doi: 10.1038/nclimate2384
[23]	Winkler H, Letete T, Marquard A. Equitable access to sustainable development: operationalizing key criteria[J]. Climate Policy, 2013, 13 (4): 411-432 doi: 10.1080/14693062.2013.777610 URL
[24]	Chen X T, Yang F, Zhang S N, et al. Regional emission pathways, energy transition paths and cost analysis under various effort-sharing approaches for meeting Paris Agreement goals[J]. Energy, 2021, 232: 121024 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.121024 URL
[25]	Lucas P L, Wilting H C, Hof A F, et al. Allocating planetary boundaries to large economies: distributional consequences of alternative perspectives on distributive fairness[J]. Global Environmental Change, 2020, 60: 102017 doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102017 URL
[26]	Hahn T, Morfeldt J, Höglund R, et al. Estimating countries’ additional carbon accountability for closing the mitigation gap based on past and future emissions[J]. Nature Communications, 2024, 15 (1): 9707 doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-54039-x
[27]	Zhang X F, Li Z, Li G. Grandfather-based or benchmark-based: strategy choice for carbon quota allocation methods in the carbon neutrality era[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2024, 192: 114195 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.114195 URL
[28]	Damon M, Cole D H, Ostrom E, et al. Grandfathering: environmental uses and impacts[J]. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2019, 13 (1): 23-42 doi: 10.1093/reep/rey017
[29]	杨通进, 张一鸣. 全球气候治理视域下的全球气候正义: 原则、争议与展望[J]. 南京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2024, 23 (6): 9-24, 119.
	Yang T J, Zhang Y M. Global climate justice in the context of global climate governance: principles, controversies and prospects[J]. Journal of Nanjing Tech University (Social Science Edition), 2024, 23 (6): 9-24, 119 (in Chinese)
[30]	van den Berg N J, van Soest H L, Hof A F, et al. Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways[J]. Climatic Change, 2020, 162 (4): 1805-1822 doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02368-y
[31]	郑玉琳, 翟晓东, 马晨晨. 从典型碳排放权分配方案探析“气候公平”的发展方向[J]. 中国环境管理, 2017, 9 (4): 92-97.
	Zheng Y L, Zhai X D, Ma C C. A probe into the development direction of “climate justice” from several typical schemes concerning allocation of carbon emission right[J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Management, 2017, 9 (4): 92-97 (in Chinese)
[32]	World Bank. World bank open data[EB/OL]. 2026 [2026-01-10]. https://data.worldbank.org
[33]	Wigley T M L, Richels R, Edmonds J A. Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations[J]. Nature, 1996, 379 (6562): 240-243 doi: 10.1038/379240a0
[34]	Kang Y T, Tian P P, Feng K S, et al. Opportunities beyond net-zero CO₂ for cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation in China[J]. Science Bulletin, 2024, 69 (21): 3434-3443 doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2024.08.012 URL
[35]	Wang Z H, Zhang H T, Wang B, et al. Towards a synergistic future: the impact of power sector decarbonization on Sustainable Development Goals in China[J]. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 2025, 56: 385-395 doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2025.04.009 URL
[36]	Iyer G, Ou Y, Edmonds J, et al. Ratcheting of climate pledges needed to limit peak global warming[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2022, 12 (12): 1129-1135 doi: 10.1038/s41558-022-01508-0
[37]	巨展奇, 张贤, 樊静丽. 气候目标下全球直接空气捕集技术成本不确定性对碳移除贡献影响[J]. 能源与气候变化, 2025, 1 (6): 822-833.
	Ju Z Q, Zhang X, Fan J L. The impact of global direct air capture cost uncertainty on carbon removal contribution under climate targets[J]. Journal of Energy and Climate Change, 2025, 1 (6): 822-833 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3724/j.issn.2097-4981.JECC-2025-0064 URL
[38]	毛健雄, 郭慧娜, 吴玉新. 中国煤电低碳转型之路: 国外生物质发电政策/技术综述及启示[J]. 洁净煤技术, 2022, 28 (3): 1-11.
	Mao J X, Guo H N, Wu Y X. Road to low carbon transformation of coal power in China: a review of biomass co-firing policies and technologies for coal power abroad and its inspiration on biomass utilization[J]. Clean Coal Technology, 2022, 28 (3): 1-11 (in Chinese)
[39]	王克, 刘芳名, 尹明健, 等. 1.5℃温升目标下中国碳排放路径研究[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2021, 17 (1): 7-17.
	Wang K, Liu F M, Yin M J, et al. Research on China’s carbon emissions pathway under the 1.5℃ target[J]. Climate Change Research, 2021, 17 (1): 7-17 (in Chinese)
[40]	Tang R, Zhao J, Liu Y F, et al. Air quality and health co-benefits of China’s carbon dioxide emissions peaking before 2030[J]. Nature Communications, 2022, 13 (1): 1008 doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28672-3
[41]	Jiang K, Liu N, Wang K Y, et al. Spatiotemporal assessment of renewable adequacy during diverse extreme weather events in China[J]. Nature Communications, 2025, 16 (1): 5198 doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-60264-9
[42]	Wei Y M, Liu L C, Kang J N, et al. Navigating energy transition solutions for climate targets with minerals constraint[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2025, 15 (8): 833-841 doi: 10.1038/s41558-025-02373-3
[43]	刘吉臻, 杜忠明, 王庆华, 等. 新型电力系统下新一代煤电发展路径[J]. 新型电力系统, 2024, 2 (4): 357-370.
	Liu J Z, Du Z M, Wang Q H, et al. Development paths for next-generation coal-fired power generation under new electric power systems[J]. New Type Power Systems, 2024, 2 (4): 357-370 (in Chinese)

中国碳中和目标下不同减排路径的能源转型差异研究

Divergent energy transition pathways under varied carbon emission reduction trajectories for China’s carbon neutrality goal

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 43

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	李子琛, 张天翼, 张诗卉, 郑馨竺, 王灿. 2025全球碳中和进展评估及模式分类^①[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2026, 22(2): 252-257.
[2]	尚丽, 杨昊霖, 同丹, 徐源, 史乐, 冯锐, 武文佳, 刘家琰, 史正, 贾莉, 杨念, 张贤. 能源系统重构下交叉融合前沿方向研判与战略建议[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2026, 22(2): 258-264.
[3]	邓步青, 姜克隽, 贺晨旻, 向翩翩, 叶荣, 朱纹纹, 邹艺超, 焦钰捷. 我国海上风电发展情景及其对产业发展、区域电价影响分析[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2026, 22(1): 101-109.
[4]	吕晋宁, 张枢, 陈文颖. 碳中和目标下中国CCUS发展进程与国际经验启示[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2026, 22(1): 70-83.
[5]	李佳馨, 顾佰和, 于东晖. 英国、德国、法国碳预算制度的比较研究及对我国的启示[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2025, 21(5): 684-697.
[6]	谭显春, 程永龙, 闫洪硕, 幸绣程, 朱开伟, 王晨旭. IPCC第七次评估报告第三工作组减缓气候变化概要解读及启示[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2025, 21(4): 494-501.
[7]	苏小宁, 邱纪翔, 栾利民, 梅应丹. 碳中和目标下中国碳捕集、利用与封存源汇匹配与集群布局研究[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2025, 21(3): 373-386.
[8]	张人禾. 实现碳中和目标涉及的科学问题[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(6): 661-668.
[9]	柴麒敏, 刘伯翰, 马玉洁, 解瑞丽, 李墨宇. 能源转型与技术创新的全球盘点：进展与评估[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(6): 747-756.
[10]	安丰全, 解红力, 李长胜, 刘少慧. COP28能源转型新共识及其解读[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(6): 757-763.
[11]	吴沛泽, 陈莎, 刘影影, 李晓桐, 杜展霞, 崔淑芬, 姜克隽. 低排放分析平台LEAP：应对气候变化下的应用与挑战[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(5): 611-623.
[12]	解瑞丽, 柴麒敏. 基于SPAMC-Methane模型的中国甲烷减排路径研究[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(5): 593-610.
[13]	张贵驰, 李晓梅, 杨峰, 孙瑞玲. 基于“大清单”管理体系的城市减污降碳工作思路研究[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2024, 20(1): 75-84.
[14]	杨子艺, 胡姗, 徐天昊, 燕达, 江亿. 面向碳中和的各国建筑运行能耗与碳排放对比研究方法及应用[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(6): 749-760.
[15]	姜鹏南, 窦艳伟, 白富丽, 李一希, 赵星辰, 张旭, 陈子薇, 胡建信. 海南省房间空调行业温室气体协同减排潜力和效益分析[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2023, 19(4): 496-507.