The cost of reducing China’s total greenhouse gas emissions is likely to reach $438bn a year within 20 years, and developed economies will have to bear much of that cost, according to a group of Beijing’s leading climate economists.
The figure, equivalent to about 7.5 per cent of China’s estimated gross domestic product in 2030, is likely to be deployed to support Beijing’s argument at December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen that industrialised nations must share the cost of cutting emissions in developing countries.
The figure, equivalent to about 7.5 per cent of China’s estimated gross domestic product in 2030, is likely to be deployed to support Beijing’s argument at December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen that industrialised nations must share the cost of cutting emissions in developing countries.
The analysis suggests that China must substantially increase its spending on curbing greenhouse gases in the next 20 years, or face enormous bills for cutting emissions from 2030.
Economic studies such as the landmark 2006 UK review of the costs of climate change by Lord Stern, and a host of subsequent reports, have found that early action on emissions is cheapest, and that deferring curbs to emissions leads to far greater costs in the medium term.
Zou Ji, head of the department of environmental economics and management at the Renmin University in Beijing, which conducted the study, told the Financial Times China could be expected to pay for measures to slow the growth of emissions. But the cost of doing more than that should be shared by the international community because it was aimed at the “global public good” of saving the planet, he said.
In May, Beijing said developed countries should spend 0.5-1 per cent of annual GDP to help poorer countries cut emissions – a contribution that would cost the Group of Eight developed economies more than $300bn (€210bn, £185bn) a year.
A much larger figure of $438bn assumes that China continues its current measures to improve energy efficiency and to increase the use of renewable fuels.
China has resisted committing itself to any cap on its emissions, citing economic development needs while holding out for pledges of financial support for cuts. Su Wei, director-general of the climate change department at China’s National Development and Reform Commission, told the FT last month that the country’s emissions would peak by 2050.
Professor Zou said he believed that a proposal to halve total global emissions by 2050 would be impossible technologically. His group’s study estimated the cost of more aggressive measures to curtail Chinese emissions growth after 2030 at $284bn a year through to 2050 and $508bn annually after that.
Actually reducing the level of emissions after 2030 would cost an additional $154bn a year, according to results from the study seen by the FT. A peak in 2030 was “technologically feasible but financially very challenging,” said Prof Zou.
The study bases its calculations on 62 technologies considered crucial by the researchers to cutting emissions, and argues that for many of these technologies, China lacks intellectual property rights or the research capacity to develop them as quickly as can be done in economically advanced countries.
Prof Zou said the cost of cutting emissions would rise over time, and researchers worked on the assumption that real cuts in Chinese emissions would come from technologies that would start to move beyond the experimental stage only around 2030. The Renmin University scholars also assumed higher rates of inflation than used in other studies.
Economic studies such as the landmark 2006 UK review of the costs of climate change by Lord Stern, and a host of subsequent reports, have found that early action on emissions is cheapest, and that deferring curbs to emissions leads to far greater costs in the medium term.
Zou Ji, head of the department of environmental economics and management at the Renmin University in Beijing, which conducted the study, told the Financial Times China could be expected to pay for measures to slow the growth of emissions. But the cost of doing more than that should be shared by the international community because it was aimed at the “global public good” of saving the planet, he said.
In May, Beijing said developed countries should spend 0.5-1 per cent of annual GDP to help poorer countries cut emissions – a contribution that would cost the Group of Eight developed economies more than $300bn (€210bn, £185bn) a year.
A much larger figure of $438bn assumes that China continues its current measures to improve energy efficiency and to increase the use of renewable fuels.
China has resisted committing itself to any cap on its emissions, citing economic development needs while holding out for pledges of financial support for cuts. Su Wei, director-general of the climate change department at China’s National Development and Reform Commission, told the FT last month that the country’s emissions would peak by 2050.
Professor Zou said he believed that a proposal to halve total global emissions by 2050 would be impossible technologically. His group’s study estimated the cost of more aggressive measures to curtail Chinese emissions growth after 2030 at $284bn a year through to 2050 and $508bn annually after that.
Actually reducing the level of emissions after 2030 would cost an additional $154bn a year, according to results from the study seen by the FT. A peak in 2030 was “technologically feasible but financially very challenging,” said Prof Zou.
The study bases its calculations on 62 technologies considered crucial by the researchers to cutting emissions, and argues that for many of these technologies, China lacks intellectual property rights or the research capacity to develop them as quickly as can be done in economically advanced countries.
Prof Zou said the cost of cutting emissions would rise over time, and researchers worked on the assumption that real cuts in Chinese emissions would come from technologies that would start to move beyond the experimental stage only around 2030. The Renmin University scholars also assumed higher rates of inflation than used in other studies.
Source: The Financial Times
No comments:
Post a Comment