This analysis aims at giving a flavour of what is happening between the European and Chinese markets with reference to selected energy indicators and economic variables. More precisely the analysis is concerned with t...This analysis aims at giving a flavour of what is happening between the European and Chinese markets with reference to selected energy indicators and economic variables. More precisely the analysis is concerned with the convergence between European countries (EU15 + Norway) and China in terms of both per capita GDP and "sustainability indicators". The variables we refer to as "sustainability indicators" are two: energy intensity (EI) and carbon intensity (CI). The paths of such variables will be investigated both looking at the economy as a whole and by analysing what is happening in three sectors of economic activity, namely industry, agriculture and services. It finds strong evidence of convergence in energy intensity and carbon intensity between the EU and China, with rates fast enough to achieve 90% convergence in a matter of two decades.展开更多
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 e...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 adapt at ion responses by 2100 for both of no policy and Paris agreemen t policy.Tt 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 uncertain ties in the parame ters of damage function.展开更多
文摘This analysis aims at giving a flavour of what is happening between the European and Chinese markets with reference to selected energy indicators and economic variables. More precisely the analysis is concerned with the convergence between European countries (EU15 + Norway) and China in terms of both per capita GDP and "sustainability indicators". The variables we refer to as "sustainability indicators" are two: energy intensity (EI) and carbon intensity (CI). The paths of such variables will be investigated both looking at the economy as a whole and by analysing what is happening in three sectors of economic activity, namely industry, agriculture and services. It finds strong evidence of convergence in energy intensity and carbon intensity between the EU and China, with rates fast enough to achieve 90% convergence in a matter of two decades.
基金supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos.71673019,71503242,71273253,71210005,71690245
文摘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 adapt at ion responses by 2100 for both of no policy and Paris agreemen t policy.Tt 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 uncertain ties in the parame ters of damage function.
