Natural Hazards

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 243–254 | Cite as

Low-carbon development in the least developed region: a case study of Guangyuan, Sichuan province, southwest China

Original Paper

Abstract

The Wenchuan earthquake in 2008 has resulted in 50% of Guangyuan city facing recovery from different extents of damages. The massive reconstruction provides a good opportunity for Guangyuan city to response to the National Council’s call for tackling climate change by developing a harmonised and low-carbon economy. However, there are many arguments about the definition of ‘low carbon’ and the framework that low-carbon development should follow. Low-carbon development in an economically least developed region such as Guangyuan would provide evidence and contribute to the discussion. The paper employs CO2 emissions as an environmental indicator in scenario analysis to investigate Guangyuan’s future carbon performance in following the national call of reducing 40% of carbon intensity by 2020 and an alternative low-carbon development path. The results have demonstrated that a ‘win–win’ solution can be reached—keeping rapid economic growth while reducing CO2 emissions, however, only by addressing the ‘correct’ determining factors. Technology improvements and production structure changes have been identified as the key determining factors to affect both carbon intensity and CO2 emissions in the future. The two factors are also interdependent. Governmental policies should give appropriate guideline to address both factors but with strong emphasis on production structure decarbonisation in order to avoid the mistake of ‘polluting first and deal with the pollution later’ during the emission-intensive industrialisation processes that many western countries and China’s coastal regions have followed.

Keywords

Low-carbon development Carbon intensity CO2 emission China 

References

  1. Cao G (2000) The future population of China: prospects to 2045 by place of residence and by level of education. Interim report, Laxenburg, Austria, International Institute of Applied System Research, IR-00-026Google Scholar
  2. Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) (1986) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Duchin F (1998) Structural economics: measuring change in technology, lifestyles, and the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  4. Duchin F, Lange G-M (1994) The future of the environment: ecological economics and technological change. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Garbaccio RF, Ho MS, Jorgenson DW (1999) Why has the energy-output ratio fallen in China? Energy J 20(3):63–91Google Scholar
  6. Guan D, Hubacek K, Weber CL, Peters GP, Reiner D (2008) The drivers of Chinese CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2030. Glob Environ Change Hum Policy Dimens 18(4):626–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guan D, Peters GP, Weber CL, Hubacek K (2009) Journey to world top emitter—an analysis of the driving forces of China’s recent emissions surge. Geophys Res Lett 36:L04709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guangyuan Agriculture Bureau (2009) Guangyuan’s future agriculture development. Guangyuan Agriculture Bureau, GuangyuanGoogle Scholar
  9. Guangyuan Development and Reform Commission (2009a) Guangyuan’s energy: current situation and future outlook. Guangyuan Development and Reform Commission, GuangyuanGoogle Scholar
  10. Guangyuan Development and Reform Commission (2009b) Report on economic planning and project investment in 2010. Guangyuan Development and Reform Commission, GuangyuanGoogle Scholar
  11. Guangyuan Statistics Bureau (2009) Guangyuan statistics yearbook 2008. Guangyuan Statistics Press, GuangyuanGoogle Scholar
  12. Hubacek K, Sun L (1999) Land-use change in China: a scenario analysis based on input-output modeling. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, LaxenburgGoogle Scholar
  13. Hubacek K, Sun L (2001) A scenario analysis of China’s land use change: incorporating biophysical information into input-output modeling. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 12(4):367–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hubacek K, Sun L (2005) Economic and societal changes in China and their effects on water use: a scenario analysis. J Ind Ecol 9(1–2):187–200Google Scholar
  15. Hubacek K, Guan D, Barua A (2007) Changing lifestyles and consumption patterns in developing countries: a scenario analysis for China and India. Futures 39(9):1084–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hubacek K, Guan D, Barrett J, Wiedmann T (2009) Environmental implications of urbanization and lifestyle change in China: ecological and water footprints. J Clean Prod 17(14):1241–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, JapanGoogle Scholar
  18. Leontief W (1970) Environmental repercussions and the economic system. Rev Econ Stat 52:262–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li F (2010) Charting the less-carbon growth model. China Daily, Beijing. 15 Sept 2010Google Scholar
  20. Miller RE, Blair PD (1985) Input–output analysis: foundations and extensions. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulugetta Y, Urban F (2010) Deliberating on low carbon development. Energy Policy 38(12):7546–7549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Bureau of Statistics (2008) China energy statistical yearbook 2007. China Statistics Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters GP (2008) From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecol Econ 65(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peters G, Webber C, Guan D, Hubacek K (2007) China’s growing CO2 emissions: a race between lifestyle changes and efficiency gains. Environ Sci Technol 41(17):5939–5944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prieler S, Lesko AP, Anderberg S (1998) Three scenarios for land-use change: a case study in central Europe. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, LaxenburgGoogle Scholar
  26. Qiu J (2009) China’s climate target: is it achievable? Nature 462:550–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sichuan Statistics Bureau (2007) Sichuan input–output table. Sichuan Statistics Press, ChengduGoogle Scholar
  28. Stone R (1970) Demographic input–output: an extension of social accounting. In: Carter AP, Bródy A (eds) Contributions to input–output analysis, vol 1. North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, pp 293–319Google Scholar
  29. Toth FL, Hizsnyik E, Clark WC (1989) Scenarios of socioeconomic development for studies of global environmental change: a critical review. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, LaxenburgGoogle Scholar
  30. Victor PA (1972) Pollution: economy and the environment. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  31. Wiedmann T, Minx J, Barrett J, Wackernagel M (2006) Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input–output analysis. Ecol Econ 56(1):28–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu L, Kaneko S, Matsuoka S (2005) Driving forces behind the stagnancy of China’s energy-related CO2 emissions from 1996 to 1999: the relative importance of structural change, intensity change and scale change. Energy Policy 33:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of SciencesShenyangChina
  2. 2.School of Earth and EnvironmentUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.St Edmund’s College University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Department of Land Economy, Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation ResearchUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations