Frontiers in Energy

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 362–375 | Cite as

Effects of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on the carbon emission space and cost of China and India

  • Hancheng Dai
  • Yang XieEmail author
  • Haibin Zhang
  • Zhongjue Yu
  • Wentao Wang
Research Article


Climate mitigation has become a global issue and most countries have promised their greenhouse gas reduction target. However, after Trump took office as president of the United States (US), the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement. As the biggest economy, this would have impacts on the emission space of other countries. This paper, by using the integrated model of energy, environment and economy/computable general equilibrium (IMED/CGE) model, assesses the impacts of the US withdrawal from Paris Agreement on China, India in terms of carbon emission space and mitigation cost under Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and 2°C scenarios due to changed emission pathway of the US. The results show that, under the condition of constant global cumulative carbon emissions and fixed burden sharing scheme among the countries, the failure of the US to honor its NDC commitment will increase its carbon emission space and decrease its mitigation cost. However, the carbon emission space of other regions, including China and India, will be reduced and their mitigation costs will be raised. In 2030, under the 2°C target, the carbon price will increase by US$14.3 to US$45.3/t in China and by US $10.7 to US$33.9/t in India. In addition, China and India will incur additional GDP loss. Under the 2°C target, the GDP loss of China would increase by US$23.3 to US$72.6 billion (equivalent to US$17.4 to US$54.2/capita), and that of India would rise by US$14.2 to US$43.1 billion (equivalent to US$9.3 to US$28.2/capita).


Paris Agreement China and India the US withdrawal carbon emission space mitigation cost 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71704005), “The Impacts of the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Global Climate Governance and China’s Response” (Grant No. 71741011) of the 2017 National Natural Science Foundation Project, and the special fund of State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (Grant No. 18K01ESPCP).


  1. 1.
    Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Hoehne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 2016, 534: 631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rockstroem J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber H J. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 2017, 355: 1269–1271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pan X, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Teng F, Wang L. Exploring fair and ambitious mitigation contributions under the Paris Agreement goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 74: 49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Soest H L, de Boer H S, Roelfsema M, et al. Early action on Paris Agreement allows for more time to change energy systems. Climatic Change, 2017, 144: 165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roelfsema M, den Elzen M, Höhne N, et al. Are major economies on track to achieve their pledges for 2020? An assessment of domestic climate and energy policies. Energy Policy, 2014, 67: 781–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Ruijven B J, Weitzel M, den Elzen M G J, et al. Emission allowances and mitigation costs of China and India resulting from different effort-sharing approaches. Energy Policy, 2012, 46: 116–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chandran Govindaraju V G R, Tang C F. The dynamic links between CO2 emissions, economic growth and coal consumption in China and India. Applied Energy, 2013, 104: 310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alam M M, Murad M W, Noman A H M, et al. Relationships among carbon emissions, economic growth, energy consumption and population growth: testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Brazil, China, India and Indonesia. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 70: 466–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hof A F, den Elzen M G J, Admiraal A, et al. Global and regional abatement costs of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and of enhanced action to levels well below 2°C and 1.5°C. Environmental Science & Policy, 2017, 71: 30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mi Z, Wei Y M, Wang B, et al. Socioeconomic impact assessment of China’s CO2 emissions peak prior to 2030. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 142: 2227–2236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang C, Wang Q, Shi D, et al. Scenario-based potential effects of carbon trading in China: an integrated approach. Applied Energy, 2016, 182: 177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cui L B, Fan Y, Zhu L, Bi Q H. How will the emissions trading scheme save cost for achieving China’s 2020 carbon intensity reduction target? Applied Energy, 2014, 136: 1043–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu J, Fan Y, Xia Y. How can China achieve its nationally determined contribution targets combining emissions trading scheme and renewable energy policies? Energies, 2017, 10: 1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sun X, Zhang B, Tang X, McLellan B, Höök M. Sustainable energy transitions in China: renewable options and impacts on the electricity system. Energies, 2016, 9(12): 980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xunzhang P, Wenying C, Clarke L E, Lining W, Guannan L. China’s energy system transformation towards the 2°C goal: implications of different effort-sharing principles. Energy Policy, 2017, 103: 116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang W, Ma D, Chen W. Connecting water and energy: assessing the impacts of carbon and water constraints on China’s power sector. Applied Energy, 2017, 185: 1497–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wan L, Wang C, Cai W. Impacts on water consumption of power sector in major emitting economies under INDC and longer-term mitigation scenarios: an input-output based hybrid approach. Applied Energy, 2016, 184: 26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang X, Teng F, Wang X, Zhang Q. System optimization and cobenefit analysis of China’s deep de-carbonization effort towards its INDC target. Energy Procedia, 2017, 105: 3314–3319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Byravan S, AliMS, AnanthakumarMR, et al. Quality of life for all: a sustainable development framework for India’s climate policy reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2017, 39: 48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Busby J W, Shidore S. When decarbonization meets development: the sectoral feasibility of greenhouse gas mitigation in India. Energy Research & Social Science, 2017, 23: 60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sundriyal R, Dhyani P. Significance of India’s INDC and climate justice: an appraisal. Current Science, 2015, 109: 2186–2187Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang Y X, Chao Q C, Zheng Q H, Huang L. The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance. Advances in Climate Change Research, 2017, 8 (4): 213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deese B. Paris isn’t burning why the climate agreement will survive Trump. Foreign Affairs, 2017, 96: 83–92Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peters J C, Hertel T W. Achieving the clean power plan 2030 CO2 target with the new normal in natural gas prices. Energy Journal, 2017, 38: 39–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kemp L. Better out than in. Nature Climate Change, 2017, 7: 458–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Grubler A, et al. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), a Special Report ofWorking Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. London: Cambridge University Press, 2000Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    van Vuuren D P, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Vuuren D P, Stehfest E, den Elzen M G J, et al. RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thomson A M, Calvin K V, Smith S J, et al. RCP4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Masui T, Matsumoto K, Hijioka Y, et al. An emission pathway for stabilization at 6 Wm–2 radiative forcing. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dellink R, Chateau J, Lanzi E, et al. Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 200–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Leimbach M, Kriegler E, Roming N, et al. Future growth patterns of world regions—a GDP scenario approach. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Riahi K, van Vuuren D P, Kriegler E, et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Vuuren D P, Riahi K, Calvin K, et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways: trajectories for human development and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dong H, Dai H, Dong L, et al. Pursuing air pollutant co-benefits of CO2 mitigation in China: a provincial leveled analysis. Applied Energy, 2015, 144: 165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dai H, Mischke P, Xie X, et al. Closing the gap? Top-down versus bottom-up projections of China’s regional energy use and CO2 emissions. Applied Energy, 2016, 162: 1355–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xie Y, Dai H, Dong H, et al. Economic impacts from PM2.5 pollution-related health effects in China: a provincial-level analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50: 4836–4843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dai H, Masui T, Matsuoka Y, Fujimori S. Assessment of China’s climate commitment and non-fossil energy plan towards 2020 using hybrid AIM/CGE model. Energy Policy, 2011, 39: 2875–2887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dai H, Masui T, Matsuoka Y, et al. The impacts of China’s household consumption expenditure patterns on energy demand and carbon emissions towards 2050. Energy Policy, 2012, 50: 736–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dai H, Xie X, Xie Y, et al. Green growth: the economic impacts of large-scale renewable energy development in China. Applied Energy, 2016, 162: 435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cheng B, Dai H, Wang P, et al. Impacts of carbon trading scheme on air pollutant emissions in Guangdong province of China. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 27: 174–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cheng B, Dai H,Wang P, et al. Impacts of low-carbon power policy on carbon mitigation in Guangdong province, China. Energy Policy, 2016, 88: 515–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dai H. Integrated assessment of China’s provincial low carbon economy development towards 2030: Jiangxi province as an example. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Tokyo: Institute of Technology, 2012Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wu R, Dai H, Geng Y, et al. Achieving China’s INDC through carbon cap-and-trade: insights from Shanghai. Applied Energy, 2016, 184: 1114–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tian X, Geng Y, Dai H, et al. The effects of household consumption pattern on regional development: a case study of Shanghai. Energy, 2016, 103: 49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tian X, Dai H, Geng Y. Effect of household consumption changes on regional low-carbon development: a case study of Shanghai. China Population Resources and Environment, 2016, 26: 55–63Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang P, Dai H, Ren S, Zhao D, Masui T. Achieving Copenhagen target through carbon emission trading: economic impacts assessment in Guangdong province of China. Energy, 2015, 79: 212–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rutherford T F. Applied general equilibrium modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS subsystem: an overview of the modeling framework and syntax. Computational Economics, 1999, 14: 1–46CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). 2015, (accessed February 1, 2017)
  50. 50.
    O’Neill B C, Kriegler E, Riahi K, et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Climatic Change, 2014, 122: 387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) Database Version 0.9.3. 2015,
  52. 52.
    van Vuuren D P, Stehfest E, Gernaat D E H J, et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2017, 42: 237–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. The new climate economy report: better growth, better climate. 2018–03,

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hancheng Dai
    • 1
  • Yang Xie
    • 2
    Email author
  • Haibin Zhang
    • 3
  • Zhongjue Yu
    • 4
  • Wentao Wang
    • 5
  1. 1.College of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of Economics and ManagementBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of International StudiesPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  4. 4.School of Environmental Science and EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  5. 5.The Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21Ministry of Science and TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations