A Comparison of Two Approaches for Damage Evaluation on Optimal Mitigation and Adaptation Responses in China

Climate policies making are strongly impacted by the approach of damage evaluation. China is leading carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the world, and has agreed with Paris agreement to reduce CO2 emissions. China is also expected to be negatively impacted by climate change. One of main concerns is how to assess and monetize the climate damage from country-specific level. This paper builds a model comprising two approaches of damage evaluation and assesses China’s mitigation and adaptation responses by 2100 for both of no policy and Paris agreement policy. It has the following findings: First, the emissions pathway and nonfossil fuel consumption share of total energy consumption differs slightly between the two approaches of damage evaluation. Second, with the Burkes approach, the climate damage avoided by adaptation is increasingly higher than that by mitigation when investment in adaptation starts to be massively injected with faster increasing trend by 2045. Third, climate expenses should be invested more to address higher level of the climate damage evaluated by the Burkes approach than by the Mannes approach. Fourth, the main findings in this paper are robust in terms of uncertainties in the parameters of damage function.

[1]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  A World induced Technical Change Hybrid Model , 2006 .

[2]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  AD-DICE: An Implementation of Adaptation in the DICE Mode , 2007 .

[3]  A. Hagihara,et al.  Variation in vulnerability to extreme-temperature-related mortality in Japan: A 40-year time-series analysis. , 2015, Environmental research.

[4]  Lei Zhu,et al.  Modelling the Evolutionary Paths of Multiple Carbon-Free Energy Technologies with Policy Incentives , 2015, Environmental Modeling & Assessment.

[5]  Alessandro Tavoni,et al.  Domestic Politics and the Formation of International Environmental Agreements , 2012 .

[6]  Lei Zu,et al.  An empirical investigation on the risk-return relationship of carbon future market , 2016, J. Syst. Sci. Complex..

[7]  Lei Zhu,et al.  Optimal carbon taxes in carbon-constrained China: A logistic-induced energy economic hybrid model , 2014 .

[8]  J. Graff Zivin,et al.  Temperature and the Allocation of Time: Implications for Climate Change , 2010, Journal of Labor Economics.

[9]  Jin Zhang,et al.  Evaluating the role of international trade in the growth of china’s CO2 emissions , 2015, J. Syst. Sci. Complex..

[10]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Rolling the ‘DICE’: an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases , 1993 .

[11]  Mark C. Freeman,et al.  How certain are we about the certainty-equivalent long term social discount rate? , 2016 .

[12]  Boqiang Lin,et al.  Comparing climate policies to reduce carbon emissions in China , 2013 .

[13]  Daniel H. Simon,et al.  The Effect of Competition on Toxic Pollution Releases , 2015 .

[14]  W. Schlenker,et al.  Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  M. Burke,et al.  Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production , 2015, Nature.

[16]  L. Schrattenholzer,et al.  Endogenous technological change in climate change modelling , 1999 .

[17]  Bo Tang,et al.  System simulation and reliability assessment of Chinese carbon sequestration market , 2014, J. Syst. Sci. Complex..

[18]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  MERGE. A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies , 1995 .