Search

We compare the effectiveness of absolute vs. intensity targets in preparing China for progressively stronger climate action under the Paris Agreement. The Agreement requires countries to submit nationally determined contributions (NDCs) every five years and in addition calls for submission of long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies up to 2050. This study conducts a multi-criteria comparison of the adoption of an absolute vs. an intensity interim target in 2030, followed by an absolute target in 2050, for China. In doing so, we explicitly consider economic growth uncertainty as it is the main motivation behind China's and other developing countries' adoption of intensity targets for 2030. We perform the target comparison analytically, as well as using the stochastic version of a large-scale integrated assessment model. The stochastic model is based on expected utility theory and explicitly accounts for uncertainty. Key policy insights If China wants to hedge against higher than expected economic growth, it is reasonable to adopt an intensity target. However, in the case of lower economic growth, this choice becomes problematic as policy costs will rise while the economy grows slow The difference in costs due to the 2030 target choice can be of the same order of magnitude as the overall climate policy costs themselves An interim absolute target performs better than an equivalent intensity target, under multiple criteria [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although a rapidly growing economy, India faces many challenges, including in meeting the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. Moreover, post-2020 climate actions outlined in India's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement envision development along low-carbon emission pathways. With coal providing almost three-quarters of Indian electricity, achieving such targets will have wide-ranging implications for economic activity. Assessing such implications is the focus of our research. To do so, we use a hybrid modelling architecture that combines the strengths of the AIM/Enduse bottom-up model of energy systems and the IMACLIM top-down economy-wide model. This hybrid architecture rests upon an original dataset that brings together national accounting, energy balance and energy price data. We analyse four scenarios ranging to mid-century: business-as-usual (BAU), 2°C, sustainable 2°C and 1.5°C. Our 2°C pathway proves compatible with economic growth close to the 6% yearly rate of BAU from 2012 to 2050, at the cost of reduced household consumption but with significant positive impact on foreign debt accumulation. The latter impact stems from improvement of the trade balance, whose current large deficit is the primary cause of high fossil fuel imports. Further mitigation effort backing our 1.5°C scenario shows slightly higher annual GDP growth, thereby revealing potential synergies between deep environmental performance and economic growth. Structural change assumptions common to our scenarios significantly transform the activity shares of sectors. The envisioned transition will require appropriate policies, notably to manage the conflicting interests of entrenched players in traditional sectors like coal and oil, and the emerging players of the low-carbon economy. Key policy insights Low carbon pathways are compatible with Indian growth despite their high investment costs Moving away from fossil fuel-based energy systems would result in foreign exchange savings to the tune of $1 trillion from 2012 to 2050 for oil imports. Achieving deep decarbonization in India requires higher mobilized capital in renewables and energy efficiency enhancements. Phasing out fossil fuels would, however, require careful balancing of interests between conventional and emerging sector players through just transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]