The effects of energy efficiency improvement in China with global interaction

Solveig Glomsrød; Taoyuan Wei; Solveig Glomsrød; Taoyuan Wei

doi:10.3934/energy.2016.1.37

AIMS Energy

2016, Volume 4, Issue 1: 37-51. doi: 10.3934/energy.2016.1.37

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

The effects of energy efficiency improvement in China with global interaction

Solveig Glomsrød ,
Taoyuan Wei ^,

Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO), P.O. Box 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway

Received: 19 November 2015 Accepted: 07 January 2016 Published: 12 January 2016

China has pledged to reduce its carbon intensity defined as carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40–45% by 2020 and by 60–65% by 2030 compared to the 2005 level. To fulfill the pledges, China’s government has made energy efficiency its de facto climate policy. This article raises the question to what extent energy efficiency will be an efficient mitigation measure for reaching the targets as pledged by China to the UNFCCC. In this context, two issues blur the picture. One is the potential rebound effect, generally causing one percent improvement in energy efficiency to generate less than one percent reduction in energy-related emissions since users adapt to the direct and indirect productivity gains and cost reductions in energy use. Further, there is the impact on energy use in China from interaction with global markets, in which China has emerged as a dominant player. In the present paper, we study the net implications of energy efficiency improvement in China within alternative global climate policy regimes. Our results show that a one percent energy efficiency improvement in China reduces energy use by 0.38–0.59 percent per year depending on alternative international contexts. Hence, policy makers should consider climate policies adopted by the other regions such as carbon trading system when assessing the implications of energy efficiency for energy consumption and climate mitigation. Policy makers should also consider overlapping effects of alternative energy policies, as energy efficiency improvement might have no effect on energy and emission reduction if there is global carbon trade. However, policy makers can expect more reduction in energy use and emissions due to energy efficiency improvement in the new mechanism announced in the Paris Agreement at the COP21.
- Carbon intensity,
- rebound effects,
- global climate policy regime
Citation: Solveig Glomsrød, Taoyuan Wei. The effects of energy efficiency improvement in China with global interaction[J]. AIMS Energy, 2016, 4(1): 37-51. doi: 10.3934/energy.2016.1.37

Related Papers:

Abstract

China has pledged to reduce its carbon intensity defined as carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40–45% by 2020 and by 60–65% by 2030 compared to the 2005 level. To fulfill the pledges, China’s government has made energy efficiency its de facto climate policy. This article raises the question to what extent energy efficiency will be an efficient mitigation measure for reaching the targets as pledged by China to the UNFCCC. In this context, two issues blur the picture. One is the potential rebound effect, generally causing one percent improvement in energy efficiency to generate less than one percent reduction in energy-related emissions since users adapt to the direct and indirect productivity gains and cost reductions in energy use. Further, there is the impact on energy use in China from interaction with global markets, in which China has emerged as a dominant player. In the present paper, we study the net implications of energy efficiency improvement in China within alternative global climate policy regimes. Our results show that a one percent energy efficiency improvement in China reduces energy use by 0.38–0.59 percent per year depending on alternative international contexts. Hence, policy makers should consider climate policies adopted by the other regions such as carbon trading system when assessing the implications of energy efficiency for energy consumption and climate mitigation. Policy makers should also consider overlapping effects of alternative energy policies, as energy efficiency improvement might have no effect on energy and emission reduction if there is global carbon trade. However, policy makers can expect more reduction in energy use and emissions due to energy efficiency improvement in the new mechanism announced in the Paris Agreement at the COP21.

References

[1]	Li Z (2010) Quantitative analysis of sustainable energy strategies in China. Energy Policy 38: 2149-2160. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.031
[2]	Gan L (1998) Energy development and environmental constraints in China. Energy Policy 26: 119-128. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(97)00101-8
[3]	Zhang Z (2008) Asian energy and environmental policy: Promoting growth while preserving the environment. Energy Policy 36: 3905-3924. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.07.015
[4]	Zhu Q, Peng X, Lu Z, et al. (2009) Factors Decomposition and Empirical Analysis of Variations in Energy Carbon Emission in China. Resources Science 31: 2072-2079.
[5]	Dimitropoulos J (2007) Energy productivity improvements and the rebound effect: An overview of the state of knowledge. Energy Policy 35: 6354-6363. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.07.028
[6]	Greening L, Greene DL, Difiglio C (2000) Energy Efficiency and Consumption—The Rebound Effect: A Survey. Energy Policy 28: 389-401. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5
[7]	Saunders HD (2008) Fuel conserving (and using) production functions. Energy Economics 30: 2184-2235. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2007.11.006
[8]	Wei T (2010) A general equilibrium view of global rebound effects. Energy Economics 32: 661-672. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2009.09.002
[9]	Peters GP, Weber CL, Guan D, et al. (2007) China’s Growing CO2 Emissions: A Race between Increasing Consumption and Efficiency Gains. Environ Sci Technol 41: 5939-5944.
[10]	Zhang ZX (1998) The Economics of Energy Policy in China. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
[11]	Garbaccio RF, Ho MS, Jorgenson DW (1999) Controlling carbon emissions in China. Environment and Development Economics 4: 493-518. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X99000303
[12]	Wei T, Glomsrød S (2002) The impact of carbon tax on the Chinese economy and reductions of greenhouse gases. World Economics and International Politics: in Chinese.
[13]	Liang QM, Fan Y, Wei YM (2007) Carbon taxation policy in China: How to protect energy- and trade-intensive sectors? J Policy Modeling 29: 311-333. doi: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2006.11.001
[14]	Fan M, Zheng Y (2001) China’s tariff reductions and WTO accession: A computable General Equilibrium analysis. In: Lloyd P, Zhang XG, editors. Models of the Chinese Economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
[15]	Li AJ (2008) General Equilibrium Analysis of Mid-long Term Energy Intensity Changing Trend in China; Zhang H, Zhu KL, Han CL, editors. Marrickville: Aussino Acad Publ House. 1222-1226.
[16]	Glomsrød S, Wei T (2005) Coal cleaning: a viable strategy for reduced carbon emissions and improved environment in China? Energy Policy 33: 525-542. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.019
[17]	Wang K, Wang C, Chen JN (2009) Analysis of the economic impact of different Chinese climate policy options based on a CGE model incorporating endogenous technological change. Energy Policy 37: 2930-2940. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.023
[18]	Liang QM, Fan Y, Wei YM (2009) The effect of energy end-use efficiency improvement on China’s energy use and CO2 emissions: a CGE model-based analysis. Energy Efficiency 2: 243-262. doi: 10.1007/s12053-009-9043-0
[19]	Aaheim A, Rive N (2005) A model for global responses to anthropogenic changes in the environment (GRACE). Oslo, Norway: CICERO. 05 05.
[20]	Liu Y, Wei T (2014) Linking the emissions trading schemes of Europe and China - Combining climate and energy policy instruments. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change: 1-17.
[21]	Aaheim A, Gopalakrishnan R, Chaturvedi R, et al. (2011) A macroeconomic analysis of adaptation to climate change impacts on forests in India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 16: 229-245. doi: 10.1007/s11027-010-9266-6
[22]	Aaheim A, Amundsen H, Dokken T, et al. (2012) Impacts and adaptation to climate change in European economies. Global Environ Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 22: 959-968. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.005
[23]	Glomsrød S, Wei T, Mideksa T, et al. (2014) Energy market impacts of nuclear power phase-out policies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change: 1-17.
[24]	Wei T, Glomsrød S, Zhang T (2015) Extreme weather, food security and the capacity to adapt - the case of crops in China. Food Security forthcoming.
[25]	Rive N (2010) Climate policy in Western Europe and avoided costs of air pollution control. Economic Modelling 27: 103-115. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2009.07.025
[26]	Eskeland GS, Rive NA, Mideksa TK (2012) Europe’s climate goals and the electricity sector. Energy Policy 41: 200-211. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.038
[27]	Badri NG, Walmsley TL, editors (2008) Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 7 Data Base: Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University, Available from: https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/databases/v7/v7_doco.asp.
[28]	Lee HL (2007) An emissions data base for integrated assessment of climat change policy using GTAP. pp. GTAP Resource #1143, Latest update (1108/1106/2007).
[29]	NDRC (2009) China’s Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change—The Progress Report 2009. National Development and Reform Commission, Beijing, China, Availabel from: http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File571.pdf.
[30]	Glomsrød S, Wei T, Alfsen K (2013) Pledges for climate mitigation: the effects of the Copenhagen accord on CO2 emissions and mitigation costs. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18: 619-636. doi: 10.1007/s11027-012-9378-2
[31]	Sue Wing I (2006) The synthesis of bottom-up and top-down approaches to climate policy modeling: Electric power technologies and the cost of limiting US CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 34: 3847-3869. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.027
[32]	Rive N, Mideksa TK (2009) Disaggregating the Electricity Sector in the GRACE Model. Oslo, Norway: CICERO. 18 p.
[33]	Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, et al. (2005) The MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) Model: Version 4. Joint Program Report Series 71.
[34]	Jacoby HD, Reilly JM, McFarland JR, et al. (2006) Technology and technical change in the MIT EPPA model. Energy Economics 28: 610-631. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2006.05.014
[35]	Sorrell S (2014) Energy substitution, technical change and rebound effects. Energies 7: 2850-2873.
[36]	UNPD (2009) World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. United Nations Population Division ed. New York.
[37]	IEA (2009) World Energy Outlook 2009: International Energy Agency.
[38]	UNFCCC (2010) Information provided by Parties to the Convention relating to the Copenhagen Accord. In: Change UNFCoC, editor.
[39]	McKinsey C (2009) China’s green revolution: Prioritizing technologies to achieve energy and environmental sustainability. McKinsey&Company.
[40]	McKinsey C (2009) Pathways to a low carbon economy—Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve McKinsey&Company.
[41]	Flôres Junior RG (2008) Are CGE Models Still Useful in Economic Policy Making? FGV/EPGE Escola Brasileira de Economia e Finanças, Getulio Vargas Foundation (Brazil).

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)