|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
112894
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
To meet ambitious global climate targets, mitigation effort in China and India is necessary. This paper presents an analysis of the scientific literature on how effort-sharing approaches affect emission allowances and abatement costs of China and India. We find that reductions for both China and India differ greatly in time, across- and within approaches and between concentration stabilisation targets. For China, allocated emission allowances in 2020 are substantially below baseline projections. Moreover, they may be below 2005 emission levels, particularly for low concentration targets (below 490 ppm CO2-eq). Effort-sharing approaches based on allocating reduction targets lead to relatively lower reductions for China than approaches that are based on allocating emission allowances. For 2050, emission allowances for China are 50-80% below 2005 levels for low concentration targets with minor differences between approaches. Still, mitigation costs of China (including emissions trading) remain mostly below global average. According to literature, Chinese emission allowances peak before 2025-2030 for low concentration targets. India's emission allowances show high increases compared to 2005 levels. If emission trading is allowed, financial revenues from selling credits might compensate mitigation costs in most approaches, even for low concentration targets. India's emission allowances peak around 2030-2040 for all concentration targets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
126601
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper analyses the impact of postponing global mitigation action on abatement costs and energy systems changes in China and India. It compares energy-system changes and mitigation costs from a global and two national energy-system models under two global emission pathways with medium likelihood of meeting the 2 °C target: a least-cost pathway and a pathway that postpones ambitious mitigation action, starting from the Copenhagen Accord pledges. Both pathways have similar 2010-2050 cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis shows that postponing mitigation action increases the lock-in in less energy efficient technologies and results in much higher cumulative mitigation costs. The models agree that carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear energy are important mitigation technologies, while the shares of biofuels and other renewables vary largely over the models. Differences between India and China with respect to the timing of emission reductions and the choice of mitigation measures relate to differences in projections of rapid economic change, capital stock turnover and technological development. Furthermore, depending on the way it is implemented, climate policy could increase indoor air pollution, but it is likely to provide synergies for energy security. These relations should be taken into account when designing national climate policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
110716
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Energy use in developing countries is heterogeneous across households. Present day global energy models are mostly too aggregate to account for this heterogeneity. Here, a bottom-up model for residential energy use that starts from key dynamic concepts on energy use in developing countries is presented and applied to India. Energy use and fuel choice is determined for five end-use functions (cooking, water heating, space heating, lighting and appliances) and for five different income quintiles in rural and urban areas. The paper specifically explores the consequences of different assumptions for income distribution and rural electrification on residential sector energy use and CO2 emissions, finding that results are clearly sensitive to variations in these parameters. As a result of population and economic growth, total Indian residential energy use is expected to increase by around 65-75% in 2050 compared to 2005, but residential carbon emissions may increase by up to 9-10 times the 2005 level. While a more equal income distribution and rural electrification enhance the transition to commercial fuels and reduce poverty, there is a trade-off in terms of higher CO2 emissions via increased electricity use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|