IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1884-d150734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying the Climate Impact of the US Policy Choices Using an Economic and Earth System Model

Author

Listed:
  • Shili Yang

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Process and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
    Business School, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Changxin Liu

    (Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)

  • Wenjie Dong

    (Atmospheric Science School, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510000, China
    Zhuhai Joint Innovative Center for Climate-Environment-Ecosystem, Future Earth Research Institute, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai 519087, China)

  • Jieming Chou

    (State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Process and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Di Tian

    (State Key Laboratory of Satellite Ocean Environment Dynamics, Second Institute of Oceanography, Hangzhou 310012, China)

  • Ting Wei

    (Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Yuan Tian

    (Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China)

Abstract

Climate policy plays an important role in keeping global temperature rises below the target of 1.5–2 °C above pre-industrial levels, and technological innovations are key to determining the effectiveness of climate policy. In this study, we investigated the climate impact of the USA’s policy choices using the enforced multi-factor regional climate and economy system (EMRICES,) and the Earth system model from Beijing Normal University (BNU-ESM). Three emission scenarios were designed based on the assumption of whether or not the US follows its proposed nationally determined contribution (NDC) and makes use of technological innovations. The results showed that if the US does not implement the NDC and had no technological progress, there would be an extra 176.7 Gt of cumulative carbon emissions by the end of the 21st century compared to that of all the countries that follow their NDC. The additional emissions would lead to an increase of 62 ppm in CO 2 concentration and a 0.4 °C increase in global warming by 2100. It would also lead to a 2% loss for the US and Chinese economies, compared to the NDC scenario. The Earth system model results also show that even if all the countries follow the DNC, it would be difficult to keep the temperature from increasing less than 1.5 °C. This study implies that the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and their refusal to adopt technological progress is not conducive to achieving the 1.5 °C goal, and more stringent emission reduction targets or technology innovations would be required for the world to control global warming to a level below 1.5 °C.

Suggested Citation

  • Shili Yang & Changxin Liu & Wenjie Dong & Jieming Chou & Di Tian & Ting Wei & Yuan Tian, 2018. "Quantifying the Climate Impact of the US Policy Choices Using an Economic and Earth System Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1884-:d:150734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1884/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1884/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zheng Wang & Jing Wu & Changxin Liu & Gaoxiang Gu, 2017. "Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change Economics," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-981-10-3945-4, December.
    2. Nordhaus, William D & Yang, Zili, 1996. "A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 741-765, September.
    3. Rui Xing & Tatsuya Hanaoka & Yuko Kanamori & Toshihiko Masui, 2017. "Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions of China’s Residential Sector: The Importance of Considering Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Christophe McGlade & Paul Ekins, 2015. "The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C," Nature, Nature, vol. 517(7533), pages 187-190, January.
    5. S. Niggol Seo, 2017. "Beyond the Paris Agreement: Climate change policy negotiations and future directions," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 121-140, June.
    6. Mark Watts, 2017. "Cities spearhead climate action," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(8), pages 537-538, August.
    7. Malte Meinshausen & Nicolai Meinshausen & William Hare & Sarah C. B. Raper & Katja Frieler & Reto Knutti & David J. Frame & Myles R. Allen, 2009. "Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C," Nature, Nature, vol. 458(7242), pages 1158-1162, April.
    8. Steven J. Smith and T.M.L. Wigley, 2006. "Multi-Gas Forcing Stabilization with Minicam," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 373-392.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yan Wang & Weihua Xiao & Yicheng Wang & Baodeng Hou & Heng Yang & Xuelei Zhang & Mingzhi Yang & Lishan Zhu, 2018. "Exploring City Development Modes under the Dual Control of Water Resources and Energy-Related CO 2 Emissions: The Case of Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    2. Hongjie Sun & Shuwen Niu & Xiqiang Wang, 2019. "Future Regional Contributions for Climate Change Mitigation: Insights from Energy Investment Gap and Policy Cost," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weth, Mark A. & Baltzer, Markus & Bertram, Christoph & Hilaire, Jérôme & Johnston, Craig, 2024. "The scenario-based equity price impact induced by greenhouse gas emissions," Discussion Papers 30/2024, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    2. Waldemar Karpa & Antonio Grginović, 2021. "(Not So) Stranded: The Case of Coal in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Antoine GODIN & Emanuele CAMPIGLIO & Eric KEMP-BENEDICT, 2017. "Networks of stranded assets: A case for a balance sheet approach," Working Paper d51a41b5-00ba-40b4-abe6-5, Agence française de développement.
    4. Linnenluecke, Martina K. & Smith, Tom & McKnight, Brent, 2016. "Environmental finance: A research agenda for interdisciplinary finance research," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 124-130.
    5. Adrian Amelung, 2016. "Das "Paris-Agreement": Durchbruch der Top-Down-Klimaschutzverhandlungen im Kreise der Vereinten Nationen," Otto-Wolff-Institut Discussion Paper Series 03/2016, Otto-Wolff-Institut für Wirtschaftsordnung, Köln, Deutschland.
    6. Stefano Carattini & Suphi Sen, 2019. "Carbon Taxes and Stranded Assets: Evidence from Washington State," CESifo Working Paper Series 7785, CESifo.
    7. Lorenzo Pellegrini & Murat Arsel & Gorka Muñoa & Guillem Rius-Taberner & Carlos Mena & Martí Orta-Martínez, 2024. "The atlas of unburnable oil for supply-side climate policies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Simon Dietz & Nicholas Stern, 2014. "Endogenous growth, convexity of damages and climate risk: how Nordhaus� framework supports deep cuts in carbon emissions," GRI Working Papers 159, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    9. Zhang, Hailing & Liu, Changxin & Wang, Can, 2021. "Extreme climate events and economic impacts in China: A CGE analysis with a new damage function in IAM," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    10. Fander Falconí & Rafael Burbano & Jesus Ramos-Martin & Pedro Cango, 2019. "Toxic Income as a Trigger of Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-25, April.
    11. Justin Ritchie & Hadi Dowlatabadi, 2015. "Divest from the Carbon Bubble? Reviewing the Implications and Limitations of Fossil Fuel Divestment for Institutional Investors," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 5, pages 59-80, May.
    12. Laurence Kotlikoff & Felix Kubler & Andrey Polbin & Jeffrey Sachs & Simon Scheidegger, 2021. "Making Carbon Taxation A Generational Win Win," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(1), pages 3-46, February.
    13. Khaled El Sakty & Mohamed Abdelraouf & Samira Allam, 2023. "How Logistics Performance Reshapes The Movement Of Stocks In The Context Of Climate Change?," Business Logistics in Modern Management, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Economics, Croatia, vol. 23, pages 43-62.
    14. Pranav P. Sharma & Xiao‐Dong Zhou, 2017. "Electrocatalytic conversion of carbon dioxide to fuels: a review on the interaction between CO2 and the liquid electrolyte," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), July.
    15. Tvinnereim, Endre & Ivarsflaten, Elisabeth, 2016. "Fossil fuels, employment, and support for climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 364-371.
    16. Fischer, Carolyn & Salant, Stephen W., 2017. "Balancing the carbon budget for oil: The distributive effects of alternative policies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 191-215.
    17. Luderer, Gunnar & Pietzcker, Robert C. & Kriegler, Elmar & Haller, Markus & Bauer, Nico, 2012. "Asia's role in mitigating climate change: A technology and sector specific analysis with ReMIND-R," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S3), pages 378-390.
    18. Ulrike Kornek & Jan Christoph Steckel & Kai Lessmann & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2017. "The climate rent curse: new challenges for burden sharing," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 855-882, December.
    19. Michael Jakob & Gunnar Luderer & Jan Steckel & Massimo Tavoni & Stephanie Monjon, 2012. "Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 79-99, September.
    20. Kühne, Kjell & Bartsch, Nils & Tate, Ryan Driskell & Higson, Julia & Habet, André, 2022. "“Carbon Bombs” - Mapping key fossil fuel projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1884-:d:150734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.