Search

This study developed a climatic-economic-technological integrated assessment model named CIECIA-TD-F. Based on model, the implementation effects of low carbon technology financing on climate mitigation, technology promotion, and economic development in the context of climate change cooperation were studied. The results indicate that carbon reduction, under the current pledged climate financing scale, is limited. Global surface warming in 2100 is still around 2.38 °C even when the technologies are globally shared. Low carbon technology financing improves technology R&D and absorptive capacities of the least developed countries. Their carbon reduction rates reach 50 percent under the capacity principle. However, donations impair the R&D inputs of developed countries and delay their advanced technological progress, leading to 1 percent more carbon emissions. This limits the imitations of China and Russia in turn by decreasing their imitation numbers by 1–2 percent. Collecting 800 billion USD per year from 2030 to 2100 is a climatically effective means. It holds global warming to 1.99 °C. However, the donors suffer more than 1 percent of economic losses. That indicates the economic feasibility of this means is weak. On this basis, we proposed a Pareto-improvement scheme which combines financing with technology sharing and national R&D improvements. This policy mix both achieves the 2 °C goal and protect the economic benefits of all countries. Thus, policy mix combining different measures will be more suitable for improving reduction effects and achieving multiple goals. Compared with sole technology financing, it has more significant global carbon governance meanings and is noteworthy in future climate negotiations. • Nine combinations of typical collection and dispensation principles were assessed. • The current scale of climate financing pledge was insufficient. • 2 °C goal can be achieved by improving financing scale dramatically in short term. • Advanced technology innovation was delayed for the economic losses of the funding donors. • A Pareto improving scheme was proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]