K. Renee Horton, PhD Southeastern conference for Undergraduate Women in Physics 1/12 – 1/15/2012.
Yinying PhD Conference 2012
-
Upload
anucrawfordphd -
Category
Documents
-
view
396 -
download
1
Transcript of Yinying PhD Conference 2012
Emissions Intensity Targe0ng: �From China's 12th Five Year Plan to its
Copenhagen Commitment�
Yingying Lu Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis
Crawford School of Public Policy
2012 Crawford PhD conference, November 27, 2012�
Mo?va?on �
In 2010, energy related CO2 emissions from China, accounted for a quarter of the world total. �
China is currently the world’s largest single source of fossil fuel related CO2 emissions. �
Source: EIA staDsDcs. �
Mo?va?on �
• China’s Response – Interna?onal commitment: the Copenhagen Commitment
• By 2020, emissions intensity reduced by 40%-‐45% rela0ve to 2005
– Domes?c commitment: the 12th Five-‐Year-‐Plan
• By 2015, emissions intensity reduced by 17% rela0ve to 2010
Mo?va?on �
2010� 2015� 2020�
Start of 12-‐5YP �
End of 12-‐5YP �
12-‐5YP emissions intensity reduc0on target �
Copenhagen emissions intensity reduc0on target�
Cut-‐off of Copenhagen Accord�
If both targets are just met….
Emissions intensity VS.
emissions level
Future uncertain?es
2012�
Regime transi0on �
Mr. Hu� Mr. Xi�
Research Ques?ons�
• How stringent are the two targets in terms of absolute
emissions reduc?ons?
• What is the rela?onship between China’s 2015 domes?c
commitment and its 2020 Copenhagen commitment?
• What are the policy implica?ons of targe?ng emissions
intensity? How do these differ from emissions level targe?ng?
• How to appropriately model intensity targets, par?cularly
when future uncertainDes are important? �
Modelling Approach �
• G-‐Cubed model (developed by McKibbin & Wilcoxen)
– Version 108E: 9 regions, 12 sectors (6 energy sectors)
• Assump?ons about climate policy
– In the form of carbon tax
– A par?cular rule of carbon tax path: increase by 4% each year
– Recycling of carbon tax revenues
• Policy simula?on algorithm
Baseline Projec?on-‐-‐China�
Real GDP projec?ons� CO2 emissions projec?ons �
CO2 emissions intensity projec?ons �
Policy Scenarios �
2013�Scenario CH20�
2013�Scenario CH1520_Q �
2015� 2020�Tax path from
CH1520 ?ll 2015 �
Cumula?ve emissions over 2013-‐2020 from CH20 �
Just hit!�
Just hit!� Just hit!�
2020 Intensity Target �
2015 Intensity Target �
2013�Scenario CH1520 �
2020 Intensity Target �
Results: Carbon Tax Path �
Source: Policy simulations from G-Cubed (version 108E).
Carbon tax paths from all the policy scenarios under baseline�
A tax rate jump under the par0cular policy rule!�
Results: GDP and Emissions �
Devia?ons of real GDP rela?ve to baseline�
Devia?ons of emissions rela?ve to baseline�
Source: Policy simulations from G-Cubed (version 108E).
Less cumula?ve emissions reduced in CH1520
Less cumula?ve GDP loss in CH1520
But targe?ng cumula?ve emissions (CH1520_Q) will incur more GDP loss.�
Sensi?vity Analysis: Baseline Assump?ons�
Emissions intensi?es based on different baseline assump?ons �
CH1520 scenarios based on different baselines�
Source: Policy simulations from G-Cubed (version 108E).
The results are qualita?vely robust with different baseline assump?ons. �
Sensi?vity Analysis: Unexpected shocks�
Source: Policy simulations from G-Cubed (version 108E).
In high-‐growth periods, the policy is eased under emissions intensity targe?ng.
In low-‐growth periods, an intensity target further restricts the emissions
growth. �
Thank you for your attention!�
Policy simula?on algorithm