Skip to main content
Log in

CIECIA: A new climate change integrated assessment model and its assessments of global carbon abatement schemes

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Science China Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From the perspective of global economic general equilibrium, this study developed a new climate change IAM named CIECIA. The economic core of this IAM is a multi-country-sector general equilibrium model. The endogenous technology progress mode is introduced into CIECIA. Based on this model, three assessment principles of the global cooperating abatement scheme are proposed, including effectiveness, feasibility, and fairness. This study simulated and analyzed six types of primary global cooperating abatement schemes. The simulated results indicate that all of the selected schemes can satisfy the climate mitigation targets by 2100. Thus, they are all effective schemes. However, the schemes have quite different feasibilities and fairness. The Stern Scheme benefits the developed countries, but is unfair to the developing countries. The Nordhaus Scheme promotes the developments of the developing countries. However, it leads to negative impacts on the interests of the developed countries. The principle of convergence on accumulated carbon emissions per capita and the principle of convergence on carbon emissions per capita benefit the economic developments of the middle and low developing countries most. However, these two types of schemes cause tremendous losses to the main economic entities in the world including China. The Pareto Improvement Scheme, which was developed from the Global Economic Growth Scheme, balances the fairness and feasibility in the carbon abatement process and realizes the Pareto improvement of accumulated utilities in all the participating countries. Thus, the Pareto Improvement Scheme is the most reasonable global cooperating carbon abatement scheme.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abel A B. 2003. The effects of a baby boom on stock prices and capital accumulation in the presence of social security. Econometrica, 71: 551–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman F, DeCanio S J, Howarth R B, Sheeran K. 2009. Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Clim Change, 95: 297–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhtar M, Wibe J, Simonovicc S P, MacGeed J. 2013. Integrated assessment model of society-biosphere-climate-economy energy system. Environ Model Softw, 49: 1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosetti V, Massetti E, Tavoni M. 2007. The WITCH model structure, baseline, solutions. FEEM Working Paper Series No. 10, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchner B, Carraro C. 2005. Modelling climate policy: Perspectives on future negotiations. J Policy Model, 227: 711–732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buonanno P, Carraro C, Galeotti M. 2003. Endogenous induced technical change and the costs of Kyoto. Res Energy Econ, 25: 11–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen W, Wu Z, He J. 2005. Two-convergence approach for future global carbon permit allocation. J Tsinghua Univ (Sci Tech), 45: 850–853

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding Z, Duan X, Ge Q, Zhang Z. 2009. Control of atmospheric CO2 concentration by 2050. An allocation on the emission rights of different countries. Sci China Ser D-Earth Sci, 39: 1009–1027

    Google Scholar 

  • Gu G X, Wang Z. 2014. A research on the trends of multi-country-section carbon emissions and energy uses driven by technology progress. Urban Environ Stud, 1: 56–74

    Google Scholar 

  • He J K, Liu B, Chen W Y. 2004. Analysis on the equity of global climate change issues. China Popul Res Environ, 14: 12–15

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. 2014. IPCC Assessment Report 5, Mitigation of Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin K. 2012. Industrial structure and capital flows. Amer Econ Rev, 102: 2111–2146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly D L, Kolstad C D. 1999. Integrated assessment models for climate change control. In: Folmer H, Tietenberg T, eds. International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 1999/2000: A Survey of Current Issues. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 171–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, Oliveira-Martins J, van der Mensbrugghe D. 1994. The OECD GREEN Model: An Updated Overview. OCED Development Centre, Working Paper 97. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu C X. 2013. The construction of a new style of IAM and study on the global corporations for the mitigation of the carbon dioxide. Doctoral Dissertation. Beijing: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorentz A, Savona M. 2008. Evolutionary micro-dynamics and changes in the economic structure. J Evol Econ, 18: 389–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manne A S, Mendelsohn R, Richels R. 1995. MERGE: A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies. Energy Policy, 23: 17–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan B, Walmsley T L. 2008. Global Trade, Assistance, and Production: The GTAP 7 Data Base. Washington DC: Center for Global Trade Analysis, Purdue University

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson R R, Winter S G. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus W D. 1992. An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases. Science, 258: 1315–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus W D. 2008. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies. New Haven: Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus W D, Yang Z. 1996. Regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Amer Econ Rev, 86: 741–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Paltsev S, Reilly J M, Jacoby H D, Eckaus R S, McFarland J R, Sarofim M C, Asadoorian M O, Babiker M H M. 2005. The MIT emissions prediction and policy analysis (EPPA) model: Version 4. MIT Joint Program for the Science and Policy of Global Change. Report No. 125. Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizer W A. 1999. The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty. Res Energy Econ, 21: 255–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J. 1990. IMAGE: An Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect. Netherlands: Kluwer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider S H. 1997. Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions? Environ Model Assess, 2: 229–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton E A, Ackerman F, Kartha S. 2009. Inside the integrated assessment models: Four issues in climate economics. Clim Dev, 1: 166–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern N. 2006. Stern review on the economics of climate change. Report to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Economics of Climate Change. London, United Kingdom

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Svirezhev Y, Brovkin V, von Bloh W, Schellnhuber H J, Petschel-Held G. 1999. Optimisation of reduction of global CO2 emission based on a simple model of the carbon cycle. Environ Model Assess, 4: 23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol, R S J. 1997. On the optimal control of carbon dioxide emissions: An application of FUND. Environ Model Assess, 2: 151–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol R S J. 2001. Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part 1: Benchmark estimates. Environ Res Econ, 21: 47–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNDP. 2007. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. Human Development Report, 2007/2008. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2011. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Liu X, Liu C, Tian Y, Huang R. 2014. Several issues of climate change ethics. Sci China Earth Sci, 44: 1600–1608

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Zhang S, Wu J. 2012. A new RICEs model with the global emission reduction schemes. Chin Sci Bull, 57: 4373–4380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Z, Jiang Y, Wu J, Zheng Y, Li H. 2006. The research on China’s potetial abatement of CO2 by technological progress. Acta Ecol Sin, 26: 423–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman M L. 2009. On modeling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Econ Stat, 91: 1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyant J P, Davidson O, Dowlatabadi H, Edmonds J A, Grubb M J, Parson E A, Richels R G, Rotmans J, Shukla P R, Tol R S J, Cline W R, Fankhauser S. 1996. Integrated assessment of climate change: An overview and comparison of approaches and results. In: Bruce J P, Lee H, Haites E F, eds. Climate Change 1995. Economic and Social Dimensions- Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 367–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman S, Good G, Donoghue E, Benbow N, Shou W, Mou S. 1997. Mortality in Chicago attributed to the July 1995 heat wave. Amer J Pub Health, 87: 1515–1518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J, Zhu Q, Liu C, Wang Z. 2014. Comparison of the carbon cycle models in DICE/RICE. Acta Ecol Sin, 34: 6734–6744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S. 2012. Design and Implementation of the System for Climate Protection Based on RICE Models of IAM. Master’s thesis. Beijing: Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Q. 2012. Integrated assessment model for climate change with carbon trading mechanism: An agent-based simulation system. Doctoral Dissertation. Beijing: Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zheng Wang.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Z., Gu, G., Wu, J. et al. CIECIA: A new climate change integrated assessment model and its assessments of global carbon abatement schemes. Sci. China Earth Sci. 59, 185–206 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-015-5141-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-015-5141-3

Keywords

Navigation