Can China benefit from adopting a binding emissions target?

In the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, the USA announced an emissions reduction target of 17% by 2020 (relative to 2005), and the EU of 20–30% (relative to 1990). For the same time horizon, China offered to reduce the CO 2-intensity of its economy by 40–45% (relative to 2005), but rejects a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEnergy policy Vol. 38; no. 7; pp. 3763 - 3770
Main Authors Schmidt, Robert C., Marschinski, Robert
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Kidlington Elsevier Ltd 01.07.2010
Elsevier
Elsevier Science Ltd
SeriesEnergy Policy
Subjects
Abatement costs
Abatement costs Emissions trading Climate policy
Air pollution caused by fuel industries
Applied sciences
Binding
Binding energy
Carbon emissions
China
China (People's Republic)
Climate
Climate change
Climate policy
Commitments
Economics
Emission analysis
Emissions control
Emissions trading
Energy
Energy planning
Energy policy
Energy. Thermal use of fuels
Environmental policy
European Union
Exact sciences and technology
Gain
General. Regulations. Norms. Economy
Studies
Asia
China
United States > US
Europe
Denmark, Copenhagen
USA
China, People's Rep
Climate policy
Abatement costs
Emissions trading
Emission permit
Environmental policy
Pollution control
Pollution prevention
Cost analysis
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:In the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, the USA announced an emissions reduction target of 17% by 2020 (relative to 2005), and the EU of 20–30% (relative to 1990). For the same time horizon, China offered to reduce the CO 2-intensity of its economy by 40–45% (relative to 2005), but rejects a legally binding commitment. We use the targets announced by the EU and the USA to analyze the potential gain for China if it were to adopt a binding emissions target and join an international emissions trading scheme. We show that China would likely benefit from choosing a binding target well below its projected baseline emissions for 2020.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
ISSN:0301-4215
1873-6777
DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.054