Abstract:Making a deal on global mitigation scheme has become the pivotal issue in handling with climate change, but it' s still far from being settled up. With policy modeling based on the LRICES MRICES (LRICES) model, this paper assesses the climatic effectiveness and economic efficiency of several global mitigation schemes in two kinds. One is the scheme based on emission permits allocation, such as "Danish Text" and Egalitarianism Scheme, while the other is the target emission reduction scheme, such as UNDP Scheme. Meanwhile, the feasibility of taking 2005 as the reference year for both kinds of mitigation schemes is also analyzed. Results show that the "Danish Text" is rather unfair for developing countries, in which the emission permits for developing countries are taken by developed countries resulting EU even can emit more than its current level. When take 2005 as the reference year for global emission permits allocation, though the permits gap between developed and developing countries could be narrowed under this scheme, China will loses emission permits relative to other schemes taking 1860, 1900, 1980, 1990 and 2013 as the reference year. The UNDP scheme makes developing countries afford more than developed countries relatively indicating the unfairness of it. Generally speaking, the fault of the UNDP scheme lays in the uniform adoption of 1990 as the reference year for emission cut in both developing and developed countries, because the emission levels in developing countries are lower than developed countries substantially in 1990 which make developing countries have to cut more than they can undertake. While taking 2005 as the reference year for target emission reduction scheme, controlling temperature increase below 2 degree celsius is possible if developed countries can take the obligation of cutting 80% emission from 2005 level. Finally, as the achievement of Copenhagen Climate Conference, the national mitigation actions listed in Copenhagen Accord are assessed. It is found that when implement the actions from Copenhagen Accord, the global temperature increase will be a 1.23 degree Celsius by 2020, and 2.8 degree Celsius by 2100. Hence, more intensive mitigation actions must be taken in worldwide after 2020 to control the temperature increase below 2 degree Celsius by 2100.

EXPLORING FAIR AND AMBITIOUS MITIGATION CONTRIBUTIONS OF ASIAN ECONOMIES FOR THE GLOBAL WARMING LIMIT UNDER THE PARIS AGREEMENT

Exploring Fair and Ambitious Mitigation Contributions under the Paris Agreement Goals

What mitigation can asia contribute to the paris agreement goals?

Climate Warming Mitigation from Nationally Determined Contributions

Efforts-sharing to Achieve the Paris Goals: Ratcheting-up of NDCs and Taking Full Advantage of International Carbon Market

Regional Emission Pathways, Energy Transition Paths and Cost Analysis under Various Effort-Sharing Approaches for Meeting Paris Agreement Goals

Comparison and analysis of mitigation ambitions of Parties' updated Nationally Determined Contributions

Dynamic Equity Carbon Permit Allocation Scheme to Limit Global Warming to Two Degrees

Analysis on Mitigation Schemes Combating Climate Change

Erratum To: Implication of Paris Agreement in the Context of Long-Term Climate Mitigation Goals

Assessment of China'S Mitigation Targets in an Effort-Sharing Framework

Implications of Near-Term Mitigation on China's Long-Term Energy Transitions for Aligning with the Paris Goals

Impact of 2℃ and 1.5℃ Target to INDC and Long-Term Emissions Pathway of China

Economic Impact and Energy Transformation of Different Effort-Sharing Schemes to Pursue 2 ℃ Warming Limit in China

Self-Preservation Strategy For Approaching Global Warming Targets In The Post-Paris Agreement Era

Economic impact and energy transformation of different effort-sharing schemes to pursue 2 °C warming limit in China

Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways

Regional Allocation of CO2 Emissions Allowance over Provinces in China by 2020

Socioeconomic factors and future challenges of the goal of limiting the increase in global average temperature to 1.5 °C

Assessing the Fairness and Ambition of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions of US, EU, China and India

Pathway Optimization of China's Carbon Emission Reduction and Its Provincial Allocation under Temperature Control Threshold.