China and India are two Asian giants and global players. They both have large populations and booming economies hungry for energy. China and India will therefore play a major role in shaping future global emissions of greenhouse gases. This paper assesses emissions reductions targets that can be realistically adopted by China and India in the following rounds of climate negotiations. The analysis is based on a business-as-usual (BaU) scenario and on four carbon tax scenarios until 2050, developed using the WITCH model. Results show that the lowest level of taxation (starting at 10$ per tonne of CO2 in 2020) would reduce emissions in 2050 by 25% in China and by 30% in India, with respect to the BaU, at little cost. The marginal abatement cost curves are, however, steep and a higher level of taxation brings little emissions reductions at high costs. In China, only the two highest tax levels reduce emissions in 2050 below the 2005 level. In India, emissions in 2050 are higher than in 2005 even with the highest tax. Therefore, the pledge of the G8 and the MEF of reducing global emissions by 50% in 2050—with high-income countries cutting them by 80% and low-income ones by 25–30%—appears extremely costly and therefore unrealistic. A more sensible international climate architecture would push for the introduction of a moderate control of emissions in China and India and would avoid overly ambitious targets.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
According to Wikipedia, the credit of coining the now popular term goes to Jairam Ramesh, an Indian politician.
Recently, the IAM community has gathered to discuss long-term energy and emissions scenarios for Asian economies in the Asia Modelling Exercise. However, a whole set of new scenarios will not be published until the end of 2011.
By combining the economy, energy, ecosystems and climate, IAMs allow the creation of scenarios on future GHG emissions and the study of transition pathways towards a low-carbon world. For a discussion of key characteristics and the use of IAMs see, among others, Dowlatabadi (1995), Ackerman et al. (2010) and Weyant (2010).
For a comparison of China and OECD economies see Carraro and Massetti (2011).
Using Purchasing Power Parities (PPP) instead of Market Exchange Rates (MER) to compare GDPs internationally would narrow the income gap between poor and rich countries.
Wood fuels are the cause of no net carbon emissions. When they are replaced with fossil fuels the carbon content of energy increases considerably.
Still 80% of cooking in rural India comes from fuelwood; in 2030, this share is expected to decline to about 55% (IEA 2008).
The emissions tax is obtained by solving the model imposing a global pattern of emissions that is consistent with the 2100 concentration target and allowing countries to trade emissions allowances internationally to equate marginal abatement costs. We then run the model imposing the carbon price as a tax, thus avoiding complex distribution issues. This concentration target is equivalent to a temperature increase of 2.5°C above the pre-industrial level with median probability in 2100, well above the stated objective of keeping temperature increase below 2°C.
WITCH is a perfect foresight model. The level of future taxation influences present decisions. Therefore, it is optimal to smooth the transition to a regime of emissions taxes in WITCH. This explains why emissions decline with respect to the BaU before 2020 in Figs. 7 and 8. Equivalently, the high level of taxes in 2050 affects investment decisions in earlier years.
The reference year for the emissions cuts is not clear. We use here 2005. An alternative would be 1990. Using the BaU as a reference would imply emissions levels not coherent with the 2°C target.
If the −80% target is valid for Annex I countries, Non-Annex I countries must reduce emissions by 22%. If the −80% target is valid only for G8 countries, Non Annex I countries must reduce emissions more.
Conference of parties
Energy information administration
The 27 member countries of the European union
The group of eight
Gross domestic product
Integrated assessment model
International energy agency
Marginal abatement cost curves
Major economies forum
Organization for economic cooperation and development
Total primary energy supply
Ackerman, F., DeCanio, S. J., Howarth, R. B., & Sheeran, K. (2010). Limitations of integrated assessment models of climate change. Climatic Change, 95(3–4), 297–315.
Aldy, J., & Stavins, R. N. (Eds.). (2007). Architectures for agreement: Addressing global climate change in the post-kyoto world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Blanford, G. J., Richels, R. G., & Rutherford, T. F. (2009). Feasible climate targets: The roles of economic growth, coalition development and expectations. International, U.S. and E.U. climate change control scenarios: Results from EMF 22 Energy Economics, 31(S2), S82–S93.
Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., Galeotti, M., Massetti, E., & Tavoni, M. (2006). WITCH: A world induced technical change hybrid model. The Energy Journal, special issue. Hybrid modelling of energy-environment policies: Reconciling bottom-up and top-down, pp. 13–38.
Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., & Tavoni, M. (2009a). Climate change mitigation strategies in fast-growing countries: The benefits of early action. Energy Economics, 31(Suppl 2), International, U.S. and E.U. Climate Change Control Scenarios: Results from EMF 22, S144–S151.
Bosetti, V., Carraro, C., & Tavoni, M. (2009b). A chinese commitment to commit: Can it break the negotiation stall? Climatic Change Letters, 97(1–2), 297–303.
Bosetti, V., De Cian, E., Sgobbi, A., & Tavoni, M. (2009c). The 2008 WITCH model: New model features and baseline. FEEM Nota di Lavoro no. 085.2009.
Bosetti, V., & Frankel, J. (2009). Global climate policy architecture and political feasibility: Specific formulas and emission targets to attain 460 PPM CO 2 concentrations. NBER working paper no. 15516.
Bosetti, V., Massetti, E., & Tavoni, M. (2007). The WITCH model, structure, baseline, solutions. FEEM Nota di Lavoro no. 010.2007.
Carraro, C., & Massetti, E. (2011). Energy and climate change in China. FEEM Nota di Lavoro no. 016.2011, March 2011.
Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Krey, V., Richels, R., Rose, S., & Tavoni, M. (2009). Energy Economics, 31(Suppl 2), International, U.S. and E.U. Climate Change Control Scenarios: Results from EMF 22, S64–S81.
Criqui, P., Mima, S., & Viguier, L. (1999). Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emission reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: An assessment using the POLES model. Energy Policy, 27(10), 585–601.
Den Elzen, M. G. J., Berk, M., Lucas, P., Criqui, P., & Kitous, A. (2006). Multi-stage: A rule-based evolution of future commitments under the climate change convention. International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics, 6(1), 1–28.
Dowlatabadi, H. (1995). Integrated assessments of mitigation, impacts and adaptation to climate change. Energy Policy, 23(4–5), 289–296.
Fisher-Vanden, K. A., Shukla, P. R., Edmonds, J. A., Kim, S. H., & Pitcher, H. M. (1997). Carbon taxes and India. Energy Economics, 19(3), 289–325.
Garnaut, R., Howes, S., Jotzo, F., & Sheehan, P. (2008). Emissions in the platinum age: The implications of rapid development for climate-change mitigation. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(2), 377–401.
Heggelund, G. M., & Buan, F. (2009). China in the Asia–Pacific partnership: Consequences for UN climate change mitigation efforts? International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics, 9(3), 301–317.
IEA. (2007). World energy outlook. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Jiang, K., Hu, X., Zhuang, X., Liu, Q., & Zhu, S. (2008). China’s energy demand and greenhouse gas emission scenarios in 2050. Advances in Climate Change Research, 5.
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., & van Asselt, H. (2009). Introduction: Exploring and explaining the Asia–Pacific partnership on clean development and climate. International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics, 9(3), 195–211.
Kasa, S., Gullberg, A. T., & Heggelund, G. (2008). The Group of 77 in the international climate negotiations: Recent developments and future directions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics, 8(2), 113–127.
Keppo, I., & Rao, S. (2007). International climate regimes: Effects of delayed participation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(7), 962–979.
Krey, V., & Riahi, K. (2009). Implications of delayed participation and technology failure for the feasibility, costs, and likelihood of staying below temperature targets. Energy Economics, 31(Suppl 2), International, U.S. and E.U. Climate Change Control Scenarios: Results from EMF 22, S94–S106.
Kroeze, C., Vlasblom, J., Gupta, J., Boudri, C., & Blok, K. (2004). The power sector in China and India: Greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential and scenarios for 1990–2020. Energy Policy, 32(1), 55–76.
Larson, E. D., Zongxin, W., DeLaquil, P., Wenying, C., & Pengfei, G. (2003). Future implications of China's energy-technology choices. Energy Policy, 31(12), 1189–1204.
Levine, M., & Aden, N. (2008). Global carbon emissions in the coming decades: The case of china. Annual Review of Environmental and Resources, 33, California: Palo Alto.
Levine, M. D., Zhou, N., & Price, L. (2009). The greening of the middle kingdom: The story of energy efficiency in China. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Working paper no. LBNL-2413E, May 2009.
Li, M. (2008). Peak energy and the limits to China’s economic growth: Prospect of energy supply and economic growth from now to 2050. Political economy research group working paper 189, Dec 2008.
Ma, H., Oxley, L., & Gibson, J. (2009). China’s energy situation and its implications in the new millennium. Motu working paper 09–04, May 2009.
Mathy, S., & Guivarch, C. (2010). Climate policies in a second-best world—A case study on India. Energy Policy, 38(3), 1519–1528.
McKibbin, W. J., Wilcoxen, P. J., & Woo, W. T. (2008). Preventing the tragedy of the CO2 commons: Exploring China’s growth and the international climate framework. CAMA Working Paper 14.2008, Jun 2008.
Morris, J., Paltsev, S., & Reilly, J. (2008). “Marginal abatement costs and marginal welfare costs for greenhouse gas emissions reductions: Results from the EPPA mModel. “ Joint Program Report Series, Report 164, Nov 2008. (marginal abatement cost curves for China lower than for India).
Rajesh, N., Shukla, P. R., Kapshe, M., Garg, A., & Rana, A. (2003). Analysis of long-term energy and carbon emission scenarios for India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 8(1), 53–69.
Shalizi, Z. (2007). Energy and emissions: Local and global effects of the rise of China and India. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4209.
Shukla, P. R. (1996). The modelling of policy options for greenhouse gas mitigation in India. Ambio, 25(4), 240–248.
Shukla, P. R. (2006). India’s GHG emission scenarios: Aligning development and stabilization paths. Current Science, 90(3).
Shukla, P. R., & Dhar S. (2011). Climate agreements and India: Aligning options and opportunities on a new track. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-011-9158-6.
Vöhringer, F., Haurie, A., Guan, D., Labriet, M., Loulou, R., Bosetti, V., Shukla, P. R., & Thalmann, P. (2010). Reinforcing the EU dialogue with developing countries on climate change mitigation. FEEM Note di Lavoro 2010.043, Apr 2010.
Wang, J., Yan, G., Jiang, K., Liu, L., Yang, J., & Ge, C. (2009). The study on China’s carbon tax policy to mitigate climate change. China Environmental Science, 29(1), 101–105.
Wetzelaer, B. J. H. W., van der Linden, N. H., Groenenberg, H., & de Coninck, H. C. (2007). GHG Marginal abatement cost curves for the non-annex I region ECN-E–06-060 February 2007.
Weyant, J. P. (2010). A perspective on integrated assessment. An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 95, 317–323.
World Bank. (2009). The world development indicators 2006 (WDI) database. Washington DC: The World bank.
Zhang, Z. (2011). In what format and under what timeframe would China take on climate commitments? A roadmap to 2050. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-011-9159-5.
Zhou, N., Levine, M. D., & Price, L. (2010). Overview of current energy efficiency policies in China. Energy Policy, 38(11), 6439–6452.
This paper is part of the research work being carried out by the Sustainable Development Programme at the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei and by the Climate Impacts and Policy Division of the Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change. Financial support under the Climate Policy Outreach project, from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 244766 - PASHMINA (PAradigm SHifts Modelling and INnovative Approaches) and the EC2 Europe-China Clean Energy Centre is gratefully acknowledged. A previous version of this paper was published as FEEM Working Paper No. 24.2011 in March 2011, with the title ‘A Tale of Two Countries: Emissions Scenarios for China and India’.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Massetti, E. Carbon tax scenarios for China and India: exploring politically feasible mitigation goals. Int Environ Agreements 11, 209–227 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-011-9157-7
- Climate change mitigation
- Energy efficiency
- Energy and development