ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Closing the Gap between Carbon Neutrality Targets and Action: Technology Solutions for China’s Key Energy-Intensive Sectors
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Free to Read
Policy Analysis

Closing the Gap between Carbon Neutrality Targets and Action: Technology Solutions for China’s Key Energy-Intensive Sectors
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

  • Jinchi Dong
    Jinchi Dong
    State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China
    More by Jinchi Dong
  • Bofeng Cai
    Bofeng Cai
    Center for Carbon Neutrality, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China
    More by Bofeng Cai
  • Shaohui Zhang*
    Shaohui Zhang
    School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
    *Shaohui Zhang Email: [email protected]. Corresponding author address: School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China.
  • Jinnan Wang*
    Jinnan Wang
    State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China
    Center for Carbon Neutrality, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China
    *Jinnan Wang Email: [email protected]. Tel.: +86 10 84910681. Fax: +86 10 84918581. Corresponding author address: Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China; School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210023, China.
    More by Jinnan Wang
  • Hui Yue
    Hui Yue
    Center for Energy, Environment & Economy Research, School of Management, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
    Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, Netherlands
    More by Hui Yue
  • Can Wang
    Can Wang
    State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
    More by Can Wang
  • Xianqiang Mao
    Xianqiang Mao
    School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
  • Jianhui Cong
    Jianhui Cong
    School of Economics and Management, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030000, China
    More by Jianhui Cong
  • Fei Guo
    Fei Guo
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
    More by Fei Guo
Open PDFSupporting Information (1)

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 11, 4396–4405
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c08171
Published March 9, 2023

Copyright © 2023 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Facing significant carbon emissions annually, China requires a clear decarbonization strategy to meet its climate targets. This study presents a MESSAGEix-CAEP model to explore Chinese decarbonization pathways and their cost-benefit under two mitigation scenarios by establishing connections between five energy-intensive sectors based on energy and material flows. The results indicated the following: 1) Interaction and feedback between sectors should not be disregarded. The electrification process of the other four sectors was projected to increase electricity production by 206%, resulting in a higher power demand than current forecasts. 2) The marginal abatement cost to achieve carbon neutrality across all five sectors was 2189 CNY/tCO2, notably higher than current Chinese carbon emission trading prices. 3) The cost-benefit analysis indicates that a more ambitious abatement strategy would decrease the marginal abatement cost and result in a higher net carbon abatement benefit. The cumulative net benefit of carbon reduction was 7.8 trillion CNY under ambitious mitigation scenario, 1.3 trillion CNY higher than that under current Chinese mitigation scenario. These findings suggest that policy-makers should focus on the interaction effects of decarbonization pathways between sectors and strengthen their decarbonization efforts to motivate early carbon reduction.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Copyright © 2023 American Chemical Society

Synopsis

Pathways to achieve Chinese carbon reduction targets remain ambiguous. This study reveals clear decarbonization strategies for industries and their cost-benefits based on the MESSAGEix-CAEP model.

1. Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Anthropogenic climate change resulting from carbon emissions has been the main driver of weather and climate extremes. (1) According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the frequency and intensity of these extremes have strengthened since the 1950s and affected every inhabited region across the globe. (1) Without additional measures to reduce carbon emissions, the global mean surface temperature is expected to increase by 3.3 to 5.7 °C by the end of the century, leading to more severe climate changes and socioeconomic losses. (1) To prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system, the international community adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, serving as the principal forum for cooperation among nations on greenhouse gas (GHG) induced climate change. Building on the Convention, the 196 parties adopted the Paris Agreement at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference and, for the first time, undertook to combat climate change by limiting the global temperature rise to well below 2 °C and striving for 1.5 °C.
As a major contributor to global CO2 emissions, accounting for approximately 30% of global emissions in 2020, China’s actions are expected to play a vital role in achieving global temperature control targets. (2) To reduce China’s carbon emissions, the Chinese government has committed to reaching peak CO2 emissions before 2030, which would result in a 60–65% reduction in emission intensity compared with its 2005 level, and to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. These are grand targets that China has just 30 years from carbon peaking to achieve carbon neutrality, a shorter time frame compared with developed countries such as the United States (43 years), the United Kingdom (59 years), and Germany (60 years).
A rapidly growing body of research has explored various decarbonization pathways for China to achieve its carbon peaking and neutrality targets. Some researchers have used socioeconomic models, such as LMDI, IPAT, and LEAP, to analyze the drivers that affect regional carbon peaking and carbon neutrality and to predict the pathways by combining them with the Kuznets curve or following the trends underlying the associated drivers. (3−8) Although these methods provide a macro forecast of time, amount of carbon peaking or carbon neutrality, they do not provide specific industries and technology development pathways to support the formulation of decarbonization policies for each industry. In addition, these driver-based models assume that industry developments follow a predefined and independent pathway and fail to establish connections between industries when analyzing multiple industries’ decarbonization pathways. (9) Given that industries are highly interconnected, this lack of interindustry feedback and transparent technology development pathways in these studies has produced widely divergent and puzzling results. (10)
Other researchers have used various integrated assessment models (IAMs), such as the GCAM, (11) IMAGE, (12) and TIMS models, (9) to explore Chinese decarbonization pathways. These studies provide valuable foundational research and insight into Chinese decarbonization pathways and technology development trends. Nevertheless, a clear decarbonization pathway for China remains uncertain. For example, Duan et al. (13) conducted a comprehensive analysis of Chinese decarbonization pathways using nine IAMs and discovered that negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. However, Zhang et al. (9) suggest early peaking pathways to prevent overreliance on carbon removal technologies and reduce the transition burden since the negative technologies have higher investment costs. van Sluisveld et al. (12) also advocate that more analysis is needed to study a broader palette of conceivable decarbonization pathways and implications to improve the optimal decarbonization policy formulation. In addition, given that the carbon trading market is regarded as a useful market method to motivate carbon reduction, determining marginal abatement costs for overall and each key energy-intensive sector is necessary to guide China’s current and future national carbon trading market. (14,15)
To bridge these research gaps, in this study, we assessed the decarbonization pathways and costs of five energy-intensive sectors in China: the power, iron and steel, cement, road traffic, and building sectors. To address the data availability difficulties regarding industry abatement technologies, we developed the China Carbon Neutrality Technology Database (CNTD), an open-access, transparent platform containing cost, operational, and abatement parameters for more than eight industries. Based on the CNTD platform, we analyzed the decarbonization pathways of the industries under two mitigation scenarios linked to SSP2 (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2) and the Chinese carbon peaking and carbon neutrality target. Instead of using a predetermined commodity demand as the model input, we utilized material flows to establish connections between different industries and predicted the product demand for upstream industries through the material flow. We used the Model for Energy Supply Systems And their General Environmental impact (MESSAGE) to model the material flow and analyze the optimal technology development pathways under the cost minimization objective function. Finally, we analyzed the marginal abatement cost of the industries by exploiting the expert-based marginal abatement cost and conducted a cost-benefit analysis under the mitigation scenarios.

2. Methods and Data

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

2.1. China Carbon Neutrality Technology Database

To achieve carbon neutrality and the 1.5 °C temperature control target, a radical transformation of human activities is imperative. (16) According to International Energy Agency, various strategies for carbon emission reduction can fall into three broad categories: nature-based solutions, measures that aim to enhance natural processes, and technology-based solutions. (17) Among these mitigation measures, technology access and adoption are regarded as the most crucial measures in achieving a decarbonized world, which is expected to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40–70% by 2050. (18) In addition, technologies that are needed to achieve deep cuts in global emissions by 2030 already exist, (19) of which costs of 100 USD/tCO2-eq or less are sufficient to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least half of the 2019 level by 2030. (18) However, there is still a lack of a database that collects carbon abatement technologies, constraining technology promotion and research on future decarbonization pathways.
To address this challenge, we developed the China Carbon Neutrality Technology Database (CNTD). It is an open-access, transparent platform (http://cntd.cityghg.com/) that aims to provide a comprehensive and transparent technology database for the improvement of “bottom-up” energy and climate integrated assessment models and serves as a platform for estimating the impact of abatement technology development on energy savings, CO2 emissions, and costs. (The data sources for the database are detailed in the Supporting Information.)
The CNTD platform has two modules: the database and abatement cost analysis modules. The database module provides a range of carbon abatement technologies (CATs) and their parameters, such as cost, operational, and abatement parameters. The CATs are further categorized into two groups: production process technologies (PPTs) and add-on technologies (AOTs). PPTs refer to the entire production process of a product, such as the Blast Furnace-Basic Oxygen Furnace (BF-BOF) technology in the iron and steel industry, whereas AOTs refer to energy-saving technologies used in a specific part of a PPT, such as waste heat recovery technology. Based on these two types of technologies, this module allows users to analyze the macro production technology changes and the specific energy savings in each industry.
The abatement cost analysis module provides an online function that allows users to analyze the abatement cost and potential for each technology, as well as the expert-based marginal abatement cost curve and the accumulative abatement cost curve.

2.2. Modeling Framework

The Model for Energy Supply Systems And their General Environmental impact (MESSAGE) was developed by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) for over 40 years. It is a process-based integrated assessment model that provides a detailed representation of the technical engineering, socioeconomic, and biophysical processes in products, energy, and land-use systems. (20) Specifically, compared with other IAMs, such as the GCAM model, MESSAGE provides a modeling framework that combines technologies and their commodities to develop energy and material flows. As a result, the MESSAGE model is a more transparent model that can be used to represent the energy and resource footprints from extraction, beneficiation, conversion, distribution, and consumption processes, allowing for the analysis of the evolution of each technology and its energy savings and carbon reduction directly. (21) Additionally, the model optimizes energy systems with a specified demand at the lowest system cost using a cost minimization objective function. (20) This function allows us to analyze the industry decarbonization pathways with the lowest abatement costs, a basic principle adopted in this study.
MESSAGEix-CAEP was developed based on the MESSAGE modeling framework. The core feature of MESSAGEix-CAEP is the material flow, which presents a high level of detail about natural resources, energy, emissions, products, and associated technologies. Five energy-intensive industries were involved and linked by energy and material flows (Figure 1). The road traffic and building sectors are classified as terminal sectors, and the demand for their products is predicted by the equations given in Section 2.3. The power, iron and steel, and cement industries, in contrast, are classified as upstream sectors, and their product demand is predicted by the terminal sectors under the material flow. This dynamic feedback between these five sectors circumvents the need to set demand assumptions for each industry that could introduce significant uncertainties. In total, this model covers 138 technologies, including 28 PPTs and 83 AOTs for carbon abatement and 27 conventional technologies (see the Supporting Information for details).

Figure 1

Figure 1. MESSAGEix-CAEP model framework.

The model period for this study was from 2005 to 2060, with time intervals of one year before 2035 and five years between 2035 and 2060. We selected 2021 as the first model year to ensure that the modeling results aligned with the current technology adoption situation. We used the constraints and status (e.g., total capacity, new capacity, and total activity in the specific year) of each technology, along with their associated technical lifetimes, to avoid abrupt changes in technology application. (21)

2.3. Projection of Future “Product” Demand for the Road Traffic and Building Sector

2.3.1. Projection of Chinese Future Vehicle Ownership

Historical evidence has shown that vehicle ownership and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita present an S-shaped curve. (22−24) Vehicle ownership increases slowly at the lowest income levels and then more rapidly as income rises (income effect) and vehicle price decreases (price effect), finally slowing down as saturation is approached. (24,25) Several different functional forms are used to describe such a process, including the Gompertz function, the logistic function, and the Richards function. Among these functions, the Gompertz function has been found to be the function that better fits the historical data and is flexible in allowing different curvatures at low-income levels (such as for China). (25,26)
Therefore, we use the Gompertz function to predict Chinese future vehicle ownership. The equation is shown as follows
Xgt=a·exp(b·exp(c·gt))
(1)
where Xgt represents the quantity of vehicle ownership per 1000 people in year t; gt is the GDP per capita in year t; and a represents the ultimate saturation level of vehicle ownership per 1000 people. b and c, determine the shape of the curve. However, as China still has not reached the inflection point and is far from saturation, the parameters of a, b, and c remain a point of contention among researchers. To address this challenge, we conduct a meta-analysis to determine the values of a, b, and c; see the Supporting Information for details.

2.3.2. Projection of Chinese Future Housing Demand

The correlation between housing area per capita and GDP per capita has been well-documented in previous studies. (27−29) To investigate this relationship, we conducted a linear regression analysis using data from 2005 to 2020, exploring the association between GDP per capita and housing area per capita. Our findings indicate that the R2 value reached 0.98/0.99 between GDP per capita and rural/urban housing per capita (see the Supporting Information for details), indicating a strong relationship between these variables. Therefore, we used GDP per capita and the resulting regression coefficient to project future rural and urban housing per capita.

2.4. Scenario Design

To assess the integrated climate change mitigation pathways and costs, scenarios need to be designed considering both the socioeconomic change scenarios and mitigation effort scenarios. The mitigation effort scenarios alone generate carbon emissions or climate projections but are not interpreted as corresponding to specific societal pathways, whereas socioeconomic change scenarios are societal futures in which no climate change impacts would occur or climate policy responses are not implemented. (30) Therefore, we used the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) as the societal pathways and carbon peaking in 2030 and carbon neutrality in 2060 as the mitigation effort targets in this study.
We developed three scenarios: baseline (BL), stable carbon neutrality (SCN), and high-ambition carbon neutrality (HCN). The BL scenario represented a future development in the absence of mitigation efforts, with no AOTs included, and the adoption level of PPTs remaining the same as in 2020. We chose SSP2 as the basis for the BL scenario since it is designed as the middle development road and is consistent with typical patterns of historical experience. (31) The SCN scenario follows the current Chinese mitigation efforts and assumes that carbon emissions will peak after 2025 and before 2030 and finally achieve neutrality in 2060. The HCN scenarios present a more ambitious decarbonization pathway that assumes carbon emissions will peak before 2025 and achieve neutrality in 2060. The purpose of the HCN scenario was to analyze whether a more ambitious emissions reduction in early stage would lead to achieving a higher or lower carbon abatement cost.
We used the Chinese data-based SSP2 data from Chen et al. (32) as the basic socioeconomic input for the MESSAGEix-CAEP model. Compared with the SSP2 data published by IIASA, the Chinese data-based SSP2 is relatively new and reflects the development situation in China more closely, taking into account the country’s new socioeconomic policies, such as the two-child policy released in 2016.

2.5. Marginal Abatement Cost

The marginal abatement cost is defined as the cost associated with the last unit (the marginal cost) to pay per additional unit of emissions reduction and is often depicted in the form of a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) under a certain amount of emission abatement. (33,34) Policymakers can use the MACC to determine the carbon trading price, which is equal to the marginal abatement cost at a given abatement target. (35) In addition, the MACC can provide insight into the total abatement costs through integration of the abatement cost curve, as well as the average abatement cost by dividing the total abatement cost by the amount of abated emissions to measure the overall cost of a long-term abatement target. (34,36) Because of its simplified representation of the complex issue of cost-effective emissions, the MACC has gained significant attention as a standard policy tool for assessing the economics of climate change mitigation options. (34,37,38)
Currently, three broadly used approaches can be taken to estimate the MACC: expert-based MACC, model-derived MACC, and supply side/production-based MACC (see Du et al. (37) for details). To accurately assess the costs and potential of various abatement technologies, we utilized expert-based marginal abatement cost curves in this study to provide a detailed understanding of the abatement information on specific technologies and industries. The expert-based MACC is an engineering bottom-up approach that is used to assess the emissions reduction potential and corresponding cost of each technology based on actual production information. It, then, ranks the technology from least to most expensive to represent the costs of achieving incremental levels of emissions reductions. (37)
Specifically, we first used the following equations to calculate the total cost of each technology
TCj,t=AICj,t+FCj,t+VCj,t
(2)
AICj,t=ICj,t×CRF
(3)
CRF=i×(i+1)t/[(i+1)t1]
(4)
where TCj,t represents the total cost of technology j at year t. FCj,t and VCj,t represent the fixed cost and variable cost, respectively. To calculate the annualized investment cost AICj,t, investment cost ICj,t in the lifetime t of the technology is multiplied by the capital recovery factor CRF. In this study, we use the discount rate i = 0.08, and TCj,t does not consider VCj t for the AOTs.
Second, we calculated the carbon abatement cost for each technology by dividing the incremental cost by the emissions avoided. (39) For the AOTs, the incremental costs and emission reductions are determined by comparing the adoption of AOTs to the absence of their adoption. The parameters of the incremental costs (AOTs’ total costs, TCj,t) and emission reductions (AOTs’ carbon abatement potential, CAPj,t) are provided by the CNTD platform. For the PPTs, the incremental costs and emission reductions for each technology are calculated by subtracting their baseline technology’s total cost and emission factor. The equation for carbon abatement cost is as follows
CACPPTj,t=ΔTCj,tCAPj,t=TCj,tTCblj,tEFblj,tEFj,t
(5)
CACAOTj,t=TCj,tCAPj,t
(6)
where CACPPTjt and CACAOTjt are the carbon abatement costs of PPTs and AOTs, respectively. EFbljt and EFj,t are the emission factors of the baseline technology and technology j. CAPj,t represents the carbon abatement potential of AOTs.
Finally, the expert-based marginal abatement cost curve is obtained by ranking technologies based on their carbon abatement costs. We further fit the expert-based MACC with a logarithmic function to obtain the MACC function (see the Supporting Information for details). Then, the total abatement cost is calculated by summing each technology’s abatement cost (the area of rectangles at the expert-based MACC) as an approximation of the integration of the MACC function.

3. Results

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1. CO2 Emissions

Figure 2a illustrates the projected CO2 emissions under different scenarios; we remain at 10% of 2020 carbon emissions in 2060 for carbon sequestration under the SCN and HCN scenarios. (40,41) Without carbon mitigation efforts (BL scenario), Chinese CO2 emissions are projected to continue to grow from 2021 to 2060. By 2060, CO2 emissions are projected to be 75.4% higher than the 2020 level. In contrast, CO2 emissions under the current mitigation efforts (SCN scenario) are projected to peak in 2029 and achieve a cumulative carbon reduction of 54.8% from 2021 to 2060 compared with the BL scenario.

Figure 2

Figure 2. CO2 emissions under the SCN scenario from 2020 to 2060. a, Proportion of each sector’s carbon reduction between the BL and SCN scenarios. b, CO2 emissions and peak time for each sector under the HCN scenario. The carbon emissions and energy consumption in 2020 are calculated by historical data. IS: iron and steel industry; TF: road traffic sector; PW: power industry; BL: building sector; CM: cement industry.

For each sector (Figure 2b), the power industry is projected to peak its emissions by 2025, making it the first industry to achieve carbon peaking. It is followed by the cement, iron and steel, and road traffic sectors, which are projected to reach carbon peaks in 2026, 2027, and 2030, respectively. Due to the highest carbon abatement cost, the building sector is expected to be the last to implement the associated reduction measures, resulting in a projected carbon peak in 2045. Furthermore, if China imposes a more ambitious decarbonization strategy (HCN scenarios), a near-linear reduction in CO2 emissions would be achieved, with a projected peak before 2025 and a cumulative reduction of 60.9% compared with the BL scenarios (Figure A4).

3.2. Energy Consumption

Reducing coal consumption will be a major contribution to reducing Chinese carbon emissions. Under the SCN scenarios, coal consumption is projected to decrease by 77.9% from 2020 to 2060 (Figure A6) and contribute 51.6% of the total carbon reduction by 2060 (Figure 3a). In addition, benefiting from the adoption of carbon capture and storage (CCS), technologies with coal consumption are not necessarily completely replaced. The consumption of coal is projected to remain at 13.3% of the total energy consumption in 2060 (Figure 3b). Furthermore, the consumption of gasoline and diesel is projected to peak in 2030 and 2029 and then decline smoothly (Figure A6). By 2060, gasoline and diesel consumption are projected to be close to zero, contributing to 7.2% and 20.2% of total carbon reductions, respectively.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Energy carbon reduction and consumption under the SCN scenario from 2020 to 2060. a, Proportion of energy carbon reduction between the BL and SCN scenarios. b, Proportion of primary energy consumption from 2020 to 2060 under the SCN scenario. The carbon emissions and energy consumption in 2020 are calculated by historical data. All energies are harmonized by converting them to standard coal (29307 kJ/kg). The consumption of renewable energies is calculated based on their power generation and converted through the theoretical power conversion coefficient (0.1229 kgce/kWh).

In contrast, under the SCN scenario, natural gas consumption is projected to exceed the consumption under the BL scenario. The share of natural gas in total energy consumption is projected to rise from 1% in 2020 to 52% in 2060, which is primarily used by the iron and steel industry for gas-based direct reduced iron (DRI) production. Under the HCN scenario, however, natural consumption is projected to decrease to zero (Figures A5, A6). This is because gas-based DRI technology has a higher carbon abatement cost, while the model prioritizes other technologies with a lower cost. The lower carbon reductions under the SCN scenario, however, would necessitate the adoption of technologies with high carbon abatement costs. Specifically, the CO2 reduction by technologies with CCS (scrap-electric furnace steelmaking with CCS and coal-based furnace steelmaking with CCS) contributes to almost 100% of the iron and steel industry total carbon reduction under the HCN scenario, while the proportion is projected to decrease to 38.2% under the SCN scenario. Therefore, the gas-based DRI technology is required to offset the additional CO2 emissions under the SCN scenario.

3.3. Industry Technology Adoptions and Interactions

To gain a deeper understanding of the connection and feedback between decarbonization strategies across various sectors, we analyzed the effects of the electrification process of four other sectors on the power industry’s electricity generation (see the Supporting Information for the interactions between the iron and steel industry and other sectors).
The results indicated that the decarbonization strategies implemented by other sectors would have a significant impact on the power industry. Specifically, power consumption is projected to be 4.7 PWh in 2060 under the SCN scenario, which is 3.06 times higher than the power consumption in 2020 (Figure 4). This significantly exceeds the current single-sector power demand forecast (42−44) (multiplied by five before comparison, see the Supporting Information for details).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Power consumption and industry contributions under the SCN scenario. The power consumption in 2020 is calculated by historical data.

The adoption of PPTs and conventional technologies are projected to contribute to 151% and 68% increases in power consumption, respectively, whereas AOTs are projected to result in a 13% reduction in power consumption. Note that the adoption of conventional technologies with CCS is projected to be one of the major drivers of this power consumption increase and projected to account for a 57% increase in power consumption. As this technology will be widely adopted in the future to meet global warming targets, the additional impacts of the CCS deployed, therefore, must be given serious consideration.
Among the industries, the road transport sector is projected to be the main driver of the increase in power consumption. Electric vehicles are projected to surpass fuel and diesel vehicles as the primary mode of transportation in 2040 and will contribute 66% of the power consumption increase in 2060. Additionally, the iron and steel industry and building sector are also expected to increase power consumption because of their electrification process. The share of electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking is projected to account for 25% of total crude steel productions by 2030 and will further contribute to 87.9% of the power consumption increase in the iron and steel industry by 2060. In 2016, the Chinese government implemented a “coal to electricity” project to reduce carbon emissions in the building sector. This process in the building sector is projected to accelerate in the future, with more than 40% of buildings projected to be fully electrified by 2060 and contributing 23% of the power consumption increase. However, the energy intensity of the building sector is projected to decline by adopting AOTs and result in a 10% reduction in power consumption by 2060.

3.4. Marginal Abatement Cost

Figure 5a shows the detailed carbon abatement potential and carbon abatement cost of each of the 111 CATs under the SCN scenarios and the marginal abatement cost curve for each industry. Thirteen CATs are discarded by the model because their abatement costs outweighed their abatement benefits or lacked cost competitiveness under the carbon abatement targets. Among these sectors, the power industry has the lowest marginal abatement cost at all carbon reduction ratios. It is followed by the cement, iron and steel, and building sectors. The marginal abatement cost for the road traffic sector is projected to be low in the initial period but increase rapidly thereafter, as the price of electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles in taxis is already lower than that of conventional fuel vehicles but only accounts for 1.4% of the road traffic sector’s total carbon reductions in 2060.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Marginal abatement cost curve. a, Marginal abatement cost curve for industries under the SCN scenario. b, Marginal abatement cost under the SCN and HCN scenarios.

In the carbon neutral period, the marginal abatement costs for the power, cement, iron and steel, building, and road traffic sectors are 159, 372, 1919, 3642, and 4062 CNY/tCO2, respectively (calculated based on the fitted curve when the reduction ratio is 0.95), and the marginal abatement cost for all five industries is 2189 CNY/tCO2 under the SCN scenario, which is almost the same as the mean value reported by Zhang et al. (9) Interestingly, a more ambitious abatement strategy is projected to result in a lower marginal abatement cost (Figure 5b). The marginal abatement cost for the HCN scenario in the carbon neutral period is 1803 CNY/tCO2, which is 18% lower than that for the SCN scenario. This is because a more ambitious carbon abatement strategy reduces the adoption of transitional technologies, which have a higher carbon abatement cost because of their lower carbon reduction efficiency (e.g., biomass power and gas-fired power). The widespread adoption of these transitional technologies in the SCN scenario, on the one hand, is projected to directly increase the marginal abatement cost. On the other hand, it can also increase the pressure to reduce emissions, as additional technologies are needed to offset the carbon emissions from transitional technologies.

3.5. Cost-Benefit Analysis

To understand the net economic effect of different carbon abatement strategies, we further conducted a cost-benefit analysis that used the social cost of carbon to reflect the abatement benefit and compared it with the carbon abatement cost (SCC). SCC is the monetized value of the damages to society caused by an incremental metric tonne of CO2, which is equivalent to the benefit of each metric tonne of CO2 avoided. It has been widely used as a central concept to assess a climate policy’s benefit. (45) In this study, we used the newest SCC assessment results reported by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG), a group established by the U.S. government to update the SCC for policy cost-benefit analysis among different agencies as the metric to measure the benefit of decarbonization. The mean value of the SCC for 2020 was $51 (in 2020 dollars under a 3% discount rate) and is projected to increase annually at an average rate of 1.6%.
The results of the cost-benefit analysis reveal that the benefits of carbon reduction far outweigh their costs, and this gap is projected to widen over time under both the SCN and HCN scenarios (Figure 6). The cumulative costs of carbon reduction from 2021 to 2060 are 21.2 trillion and 26.0 trillion CNY under SCN and HCN, respectively, whereas the cumulative benefits of carbon reduction are 27.7 trillion and 33.8 trillion CNY, respectively, which are 6.5 and 7.8 trillion CNY higher than their costs. This result suggests that reducing carbon emissions in China would benefit China and the world and have more benefits if China enforced a more ambitious decarbonization strategy.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Annual carbon abatement costs and benefits from 2021 to 2060.

4. Policy Implication

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

To augment its efforts toward carbon reduction, the Chinese government proposed a “1+N” policy framework for achieving carbon peaking and carbon neutrality in October 2021. The “1” in the framework denotes a long-term approach to combating climate change, while the “N” presents various solutions to achieving peak carbon emissions in key sectors, including energy, industry, construction, and transport. Furthermore, following 8 years of pilot programs, China established a national carbon trading market in July 2021, with the expectation of reducing carbon emissions through market-based mechanisms. To enhance the efficacy of climate policy and the carbon trading market, we derived the following lessons:
1.

When formulating decarbonization strategies for individual industries, it is essential to comprehensively consider the interaction impacts of multiple industries. This study revealed a significant connection and feedback mechanism between multiple sectors, with the electrification process of other sectors increasing the electricity demand by 206%, indicating a higher decarbonization pressure for the power industry. Therefore, we recommend integrating each sector’s solutions and considering the interaction impacts of each sector when formulating the “1+N” policy framework.

2.

Decarbonization strategies consistent with the Chinese reality should be developed. Natural gas has been regarded as the transitional energy to replace coal in meeting carbon reduction targets. However, the Chinese energy endowment is notable as “rich in coal but short of oil and gas”, and more than 40% of natural gas used by China comes from imports in recent years. The decarbonization pathways projected by this study revealed that coal-based DRI production had a lower carbon abatement cost than gas-based DRI production and can account for 45% of the iron and steel’s total carbon reduction under the HCN scenario. Therefore, China could adapt its resource endowment, taking coal as the foundation of economic development and developing coal-based technologies with CCS.

3.

China could consider using the price floor for the Chinese national emissions trading market when expanding it to include more industries. The average carbon trading price in the national carbon trading market (power industry only) was approximately 55 CNY in 2020. According to our projections, the marginal abatement cost to achieve carbon neutrality for the power industry is 159 CNY/tCO2 and 2189 CNY/tCO2 for all five sectors, significantly higher than the current trading price. Thus, a price floor for the Chinese national emission trading market may be necessary to maximize its effectiveness and achieve the carbon neutrality target.

4.

More ambitious decarbonization strategies may contribute to more benefits. Applying a more ambitious decarbonization pathway intuitively may increase the abatement cost. However, the projections suggested that a more ambitious decarbonization could result in a lower marginal abatement cost and higher net carbon abatement benefit. Therefore, China could consider strengthening its carbon reduction efforts and enforcing a more ambitious carbon mitigation strategy to achieve its carbon reduction goals.

5. Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In this study, we first established the CNTD platform to support the development of the “bottom-up” energy and climate integrated assessment models. Based on the platform, we then developed the MESSAGEix-CAEP model and analyzed the decarbonization pathways for each industry, as well as their interactions. Finally, we revealed the marginal abatement cost curve for industries and conducted a cost-benefit analysis under the SCN and HCN scenarios.
Our findings indicated that the connections and feedback between sectors should not be disregarded. The electrification process of other sectors results in a 206% increase in electricity demand, highlighting the need for integrated solutions for each sector. Additionally, we found that the marginal abatement cost to achieve carbon neutrality across all five industries was 2189 CNY/tCO2, significantly higher than the current China national carbon trading price. But it is projected to decrease when implementing a more ambitious decarbonization strategy. On the basis of these results, we suggest the Chinese government should strengthen its carbon reduction efforts and increase the trading price of the current national carbon trading market to motivate carbon reduction in the early stage.
This study also has some limitations that may inform future research needs. First, the model used in this study is based on the five Chinese energy-intensive sectors, and more sectors should be incorporated into the MESSAGE-CAEP model to provide a comprehensive understanding of Chinese decarbonization pathways and their costs and benefits. Second, although the social cost of carbon has been widely used as a standard measure to evaluate the benefit of a climate policy, it is subject to large uncertainties stemming from different model parameters and boundary designs. Therefore, a more detailed benefit analysis is needed to align with the Chinese decarbonization strategy and to provide decomposition benefits, such as those from health and biodiversity improvements. Finally, as a simplification, we assume that carbon sequestration will lead to a reduction of 10% in 2020 carbon emissions by 2060, as reported in the literature. However, given the ongoing research on natural-based and natural process-oriented solutions such as afforestation, reforestation, and land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), it is necessary to incorporate specific carbon sequestration technologies into this model to accurately assess the contributions of carbon sequestration.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c08171.

  • Details description of the CNTD platform, the database for each sector, supplemental methods for marginal abatement cost, sensitive analysis for different vehicle ownership saturation levels, and additional results regarding the decarbonization pathways, energy consumption, interaction between sectors, and marginal abatement cost under HCN scenario (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Authors
    • Shaohui Zhang - School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, ChinaInternational Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, AustriaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-2487-8574 Email: [email protected]
    • Jinnan Wang - State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, ChinaCenter for Carbon Neutrality, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Jinchi Dong - State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, ChinaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8869-8818
    • Bofeng Cai - Center for Carbon Neutrality, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing 100012, China
    • Hui Yue - Center for Energy, Environment & Economy Research, School of Management, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, ChinaCopernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, Netherlands
    • Can Wang - State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, ChinaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1136-792X
    • Xianqiang Mao - School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, ChinaOrcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5924-8180
    • Jianhui Cong - School of Economics and Management, Shanxi University, Taiyuan 030000, China
    • Fei Guo - International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
  • Author Contributions

    J.D. and B.C. contributed equally to this work.

  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This work was supported by the China Scholarship Council (202206190157), Central University Excellent Youth Team Project, the Fine Particle Research Initiative in East Asia Considering National Differences (FRIEND) Project through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT (Project No. 2020M3G1A1114622), the Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) through the Climate Change R&D Project for New Climate Regime, funded by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) (2022003560007), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71904007, 72140004, 72074154).

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 45 other publications.

  1. 1
    IPCC WGI AR6. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., Zhou, B., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp 332. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/Chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ (accessed 2023-02-25).
  2. 2
    Shan, Y.; Guan, D.; Zheng, H.; Ou, J.; Li, Y.; Meng, J.; Mi, Z.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Q. China CO2 emission accounts 1997–2015. Scientific Data 2018, 5 (1), 170201,  DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2017.201
  3. 3
    Zheng, X.; Lu, Y.; Yuan, J.; Baninla, Y.; Zhang, S.; Stenseth, N. C.; Hessen, D. O.; Tian, H.; Obersteiner, M.; Chen, D. Drivers of change in China’s energy-related CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020, 117 (1), 2936,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1908513117
  4. 4
    Guan, D.; Meng, J.; Reiner, D. M.; Zhang, N.; Shan, Y.; Mi, Z.; Shao, S.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Davis, S. J. Structural decline in China’s CO2 emissions through transitions in industry and energy systems. Nature Geoscience 2018, 11 (8), 551555,  DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0161-1
  5. 5
    Rosa, E. A.; Dietz, T. Human drivers of national greenhouse-gas emissions. Nature Climate Change 2012, 2 (8), 581586,  DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1506
  6. 6
    Cai, B.; Cao, L.; Lei, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, J.; Li, M.; Du, M.; Lv, C.; Jiang, H.; Ning, M.; Wang, J. China’s carbon emission pathway under the carbon neutrality target. China Population,Resources and Environment 2021, 31 (01), 714
  7. 7
    Li, W.; Zhang, S.; Lu, C. Research on the driving factors and carbon emission reduction pathways of China’s iron and steel industry under the vision of carbon neutrality. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 361, 132237  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132237
  8. 8
    Wang, H.; Lu, X.; Deng, Y.; Sun, Y.; Nielsen, C. P.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, G.; Bu, M.; Bi, J.; McElroy, M. B. China’s CO2 peak before 2030 implied from characteristics and growth of cities. Nature Sustainability 2019, 2 (8), 748754,  DOI: 10.1038/s41893-019-0339-6
  9. 9
    Zhang, S.; Chen, W. Assessing the energy transition in China towards carbon neutrality with a probabilistic framework. Nature. Communications 2022, 13 (1), 87,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27671-0
  10. 10
    Langevin, J.; Harris, C. B.; Reyna, J. L. Assessing the Potential to Reduce U.S. Building CO2 Emissions 80% by 2050. Joule 2019, 3 (10), 24032424,  DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.013
  11. 11
    Zhou, S.; Tong, Q.; Pan, X.; Cao, M.; Wang, H.; Gao, J.; Ou, X. Research on low-carbon energy transformation of China necessary to achieve the Paris agreement goals: A global perspective. Energy Economics 2021, 95, 105137  DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105137
  12. 12
    van Sluisveld, M. A. E.; de Boer, H. S.; Daioglou, V.; Hof, A. F.; van Vuuren, D. P. A race to zero - Assessing the position of heavy industry in a global net-zero CO2 emissions context. Energy and Climate Change 2021, 2, 100051  DOI: 10.1016/j.egycc.2021.100051
  13. 13
    Duan, H.; Zhou, S.; Jiang, K.; Bertram, C.; Harmsen, M.; Kriegler, E.; van Vuuren, D. P.; Wang, S.; Fujimori, S.; Tavoni, M.; Ming, X.; Keramidas, K.; Iyer, G.; Edmonds, J. Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit. Science 2021, 372 (6540), 378385,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aba8767
  14. 14
    Cao, J.; Dai, H.; Li, S.; Guo, C.; Ho, M.; Cai, W.; He, J.; Huang, H.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Qian, H.; Wang, C.; Wu, L.; Zhang, X. The general equilibrium impacts of carbon tax policy in China: A multi-model comparison. Energy Economics 2021, 99, 105284  DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105284
  15. 15
    Zhao, X.-g.; Jiang, G.-w.; Nie, D.; Chen, H. How to improve the market efficiency of carbon trading: A perspective of China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 59, 12291245,  DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.052
  16. 16
    McPhearson, T.; M. Raymond, C.; Gulsrud, N.; Albert, C.; Coles, N.; Fagerholm, N.; Nagatsu, M.; Olafsson, A. S.; Soininen, N.; Vierikko, K. Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability 2021, 1 (1), 5,  DOI: 10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x
  17. 17
    IEA. Going carbon negative: What are the technology options? ; 2020. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/going-carbon-negative-what-are-the-technology-options (accessed 2023-02-25).
  18. 18
    IPCC WGI AR6. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M.; Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., Malley, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ (accessed 2023-02-25).
  19. 19
    IEA. Net Zero by 2050; IEA, Paris, License: CC BY 4.0; 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 (accessed 2023-02-25).
  20. 20
    Huppmann, D.; Gidden, M.; Fricko, O.; Kolp, P.; Orthofer, C.; Pimmer, M.; Kushin, N.; Vinca, A.; Mastrucci, A.; Riahi, K.; Krey, V. The MESSAGEix Integrated Assessment Model and the ix modeling platform (ixmp): An open framework for integrated and cross-cutting analysis of energy, climate, the environment, and sustainable development. Environmental Modelling & Software 2019, 112, 143156,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.012
  21. 21
    Zhang, S.; Yi, B.; Guo, F.; Zhu, P. Exploring selected pathways to low and zero CO2 emissions in China’s iron and steel industry and their impacts on resources and energy. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 340, 130813  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130813
  22. 22
    Dargay, J.; Gately, D.; Sommer, M. Vehicle ownership and income growth, worldwide: 1960–2030. energy journal 2007, 28 (4), 143,  DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-7
  23. 23
    Medlock, K. B.; Soligo, R. Car ownership and economic development with forecasts to the year 2015. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 2002, 36 (2), 163188
  24. 24
    Wu, T.; Zhao, H.; Ou, X. Vehicle Ownership Analysis Based on GDP per Capita in China: 1963–2050. Sustainability 2014, 6 (8), 48774899,  DOI: 10.3390/su6084877
  25. 25
    Dargay, J.; Gately, D. Income’s effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide: 1960–2015. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 1999, 33 (2), 101138,  DOI: 10.1016/S0965-8564(98)00026-3
  26. 26
    Huo, H.; Wang, M. Modeling future vehicle sales and stock in China. Energy Policy 2012, 43, 1729,  DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.063
  27. 27
    Tan, M.; Li, X.; Xie, H.; Lu, C. Urban land expansion and arable land loss in China─a case study of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. Land Use Policy 2005, 22 (3), 187196,  DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.03.003
  28. 28
    Gong, T.; Zhang, W.; Liang, J.; Lin, C.; Mao, K. Forecast and Analysis of the Total Amount of Civil Buildings in China in the Future Based on Population Driven. Sustainability 2021, 13 (24), 14051,  DOI: 10.3390/su132414051
  29. 29
    Huo, T.; Xu, L.; Feng, W.; Cai, W.; Liu, B. Dynamic scenario simulations of carbon emission peak in China’s city-scale urban residential building sector through 2050. Energy Policy 2021, 159, 112612  DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112612
  30. 30
    O’Neill, B. C.; Carter, T. R.; Ebi, K.; Harrison, P. A.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Kok, K.; Kriegler, E.; Preston, B. L.; Riahi, K.; Sillmann, J.; van Ruijven, B. J.; van Vuuren, D.; Carlisle, D.; Conde, C.; Fuglestvedt, J.; Green, C.; Hasegawa, T.; Leininger, J.; Monteith, S.; Pichs-Madruga, R. Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nature Climate Change 2020, 10 (12), 10741084,  DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-00952-0
  31. 31
    O’Neill, B. C.; Kriegler, E.; Ebi, K. L.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Riahi, K.; Rothman, D. S.; van Ruijven, B. J.; van Vuuren, D. P.; Birkmann, J.; Kok, K. The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global environmental change 2017, 42, 169180,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004
  32. 32
    Chen, Y.; Guo, F.; Wang, J.; Cai, W.; Wang, C.; Wang, K. Provincial and gridded population projection for China under shared socioeconomic pathways from 2010 to 2100. Scientific Data 2020, 7 (1), 113,  DOI: 10.1038/s41597-020-0421-y
  33. 33
    McKitrick, R. A Derivation of the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1999, 37 (3), 306314,  DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1999.1065
  34. 34
    Kesicki, F.; Strachan, N. Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory and practice. Environmental Science & Policy 2011, 14 (8), 11951204,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.004
  35. 35
    DECC, D. f. E. a. C. C. Carbon Valuation in UK Policy Appraisal: A Revised Approach ; 2009.
  36. 36
    Kesicki, F. Marginal abatement cost curves for policy making–expert-based vs. model-derived curves ; 2010. https://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucft347/Kesicki_MACC.pdf (accessed 2023-02-25).
  37. 37
    Du, L.; Hanley, A.; Wei, C. Estimating the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of CO2 Emissions in China: Provincial Panel Data Analysis. Energy Economics 2015, 48, 217229,  DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.007
  38. 38
    Ma, C.; Hailu, A.; You, C. A critical review of distance function based economic research on China’s marginal abatement cost of carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Economics 2019, 84, 104533  DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104533
  39. 39
    Xiao, H.; Wei, Q.; Wang, H. Marginal abatement cost and carbon reduction potential outlook of key energy efficiency technologies in China′s building sector to 2030. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 92105,  DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.021
  40. 40
    Cai, W.; He, N.; Li, M.; Xu, L.; Wang, L.; Zhu, J.; Zeng, N.; Yan, P.; Si, G.; Zhang, X.; Cen, X.; Yu, G.; Sun, O. J. Carbon sequestration of Chinese forests from 2010 to 2060: spatiotemporal dynamics and its regulatory strategies. Science Bulletin 2022, 67 (8), 836843,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.12.012
  41. 41
    Huang, Y.; Sun, W.; Qin, Z.; Zhang, W.; Yu, Y.; Li, T.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, G.; Yu, L.; Wang, Y.; Ding, F.; Zhang, P. The role of China’s terrestrial carbon sequestration 2010–2060 in offsetting energy-related CO2 emissions. National Science Review 2022, 9 (8), nwac057  DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwac057
  42. 42
    Zhuo, Z.; Du, E.; Zhang, N.; Nielsen, C. P.; Lu, X.; Xiao, J.; Wu, J.; Kang, C. Cost increase in the electricity supply to achieve carbon neutrality in China. Nature. Communications 2022, 13 (1), 3172,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-30747-0
  43. 43
    Wu, G.; Niu, D. A study of carbon peaking and carbon neutral pathways in China’s power sector under a 1.5 °C temperature control target. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022, 29 (56), 8506285080,  DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-21594-z
  44. 44
    Luo, S.; Hu, W.; Liu, W.; Zhang, Z.; Bai, C.; Huang, Q.; Chen, Z. Study on the decarbonization in China’s power sector under the background of carbon neutrality by 2060. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2022, 166, 112618  DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112618
  45. 45
    National Academies of Sciences, E.; Medicine Valuing climate damages: updating estimation of the social cost of carbon dioxide; National Academies Press: 2017; DOI: 10.17226/24651 .

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 28 publications.

  1. Yisheng Sun, Yueqi Jiang, Jia Xing, Yang Ou, Shuxiao Wang, Daniel H. Loughlin, Sha Yu, Lu Ren, Shengyue Li, Zhaoxin Dong, Haotian Zheng, Bin Zhao, Dian Ding, Fenfen Zhang, Haowen Zhang, Qian Song, Kaiyun Liu, Zbigniew Klimont, Jung-Hun Woo, Xi Lu, Siwei Li, Jiming Hao. Air Quality, Health, and Equity Benefits of Carbon Neutrality and Clean Air Pathways in China. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (34) , 15027-15037. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c10076
  2. Hui Yue, Ernst Worrell, Wina Crijns-Graus, Fabian Wagner, Shaohui Zhang, Jing Hu. Air Quality and Health Implications of Coal Power Retirements Attributed to Industrial Electricity Savings in China. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (21) , 9187-9199. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c09517
  3. Zhe Wang, Shuixuan Chen, Heping Yuan, Zhaobin Hong, Ruina Xu, Peixue Jiang, Di He. Experimental Investigation on Salt Precipitation Behavior during Carbon Geological Sequestration: Considering the Influence of Formation Boundary Solutions. Energy & Fuels 2024, 38 (1) , 514-525. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.3c03767
  4. Xin-Yu Xu, Nan Hu, Zhu-Kang Qian, Qing Wang, Li-Wu Fan, Xin Song. Understanding of Co-boiling between Organic Contaminants and Water during Thermal Remediation: Effects of Nonequilibrium Heat and Mass Transport. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (42) , 16043-16052. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04259
  5. Rui Wang, Wenjia Cai, Ryna Yiyun Cui, Lin Huang, Weidong Ma, Binbin Qi, Jia Zhang, Jiang Bian, Haoran Li, Shihui Zhang, Jianxiang Shen, Xian Zhang, Jiutian Zhang, Wei Li, Le Yu, Ning Zhang, Can Wang. Reducing transition costs towards carbon neutrality of China’s coal power plants. Nature Communications 2025, 16 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-55332-5
  6. Wenlong Zhou, Wenrong Fan, Rujia Lan, Wenlong Su, Jing-Li Fan. Retrofitted CCS technologies enhance economy, security, and equity in achieving carbon zero in power sector. Applied Energy 2025, 378 , 124803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124803
  7. JIAZHAN GAO, GUIHONG HUA, BAOFENG HUO, ABIDALI RANDHAWA. MARKET-INCENTIVIZED ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, INDUSTRIAL AGGLOMERATION AND THE EFFECTS ON CARBON SHADOW PRICE: EVIDENCE FROM CHINA’s LOCAL PILOT POLICIES FOR CARBON MARKET CONSTRUCTION. The Singapore Economic Review 2024, , 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217590824500437
  8. Dian Fan, Shaoqing Chen. No pain, no gain? Simulation of carbon reduction potential and socioeconomic effects of voluntary carbon trading in China during 2021–2060. Applied Energy 2024, 375 , 124195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124195
  9. Feiyue Qian, Yan Zhu, Cui Da, Xinrui Zheng, Zhiming Liu, Chunchen Lu, Yuanyuan Cheng, Chuanming Yang. Deep decarbonization strategy for synergistic reduction of CO2 and air pollutant emissions in metropolises: A case study of Suzhou, China. Energy for Sustainable Development 2024, 83 , 101575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101575
  10. Kimberly Tasha Jiayi Tang, Changqing Lin, Zhe Wang, Tianshu Zhang, Lu Li, Tze Wai Wong, Cui Guo. Incentivizing emission controls toward clean air and carbon neutrality in China: Perspectives from a risk-based approach for air quality management. Science of The Total Environment 2024, 957 , 177579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177579
  11. Israa Al Khaffaf, Adil Tamimi, Vian Ahmed. Pathways to Carbon Neutrality: A Review of Strategies and Technologies Across Sectors. Energies 2024, 17 (23) , 6129. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17236129
  12. Xiurong Hu, Yao Chen, Peier Li, Huihuang Wu, Qunwei Wang, Changbo Wang, Fei Wu. Synergizing human health and climate benefits in China’s Environmental Protection Tax. Cell Reports Sustainability 2024, 1 (11) , 100260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100260
  13. Huihuang Wu, Haozhe Yang, Xiurong Hu, Yuhan Zhou, Xian Wang, Junfeng Liu, Ying Liu, Shu Tao. Provincial-level analysis of electrification feasibility and climate policy interactions. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology 2024, 22 , 100474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2024.100474
  14. Ying Liang, Qiang Xia, Jin-Ying Yang, Xiu-Jin Meng, Xin-Ming Hu, Ying-Ming Pan. Efficient in-situ conversion of low-concentration carbon dioxide in coal-fired flue gas using silver nanoparticles in amino-functionalism poly-ionic liquids. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 498 , 155305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.155305
  15. Jiaxin Dong, Siwei Li, Yisheng Sun, Weishu Gong, Ge Song, Yu Ding, Jie Yang, Mengfan Teng, Ruilin Wang, Jia Xing, Yang Ou, Wei Gong. Provincial equity and enhanced health are key drivers for China's 2060 carbon neutrality. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 473 , 143531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143531
  16. P.Y. Hu, M.S. Zhao, Y.T. Xu, L.T. Hu, J.W. Liang, J. Meng, C. Zhang. Achieving net-zero power supply in China needs better cost uncertainty quantification. Cell Reports Physical Science 2024, 5 (9) , 102173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2024.102173
  17. Haitao Chen, Yuan Bo, Xia Peng. Research on the Collaborative Transition of the Building and Power Sectors for Carbon Peaking and Neutrality Goals in China. 2024, 831-835. https://doi.org/10.1109/PSGEC62376.2024.10721014
  18. Huihuang Wu, Yuhan Zhou, Xian Wang, Xiurong Hu, Shihui Zhang, Yang Ren, Junfeng Liu, Ying Liu, Shu Tao. The climate, health, and economic outcomes across different carbon pricing policies to achieve China's climate goals. Applied Energy 2024, 368 , 123498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123498
  19. Xinyu Xiao, Honghan Wang, Xing Wang, Chao Liu, Ying Han, Shangru Zhai, Haishun Du. Innovative lignin photocatalyst system motivated by intramolecular charge dynamics for H2O2 production. Chemical Engineering Journal 2024, 494 , 153151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.153151
  20. Jiaming Wang, Ling Jia, Yiyi Wang, Peng Wang, Lei Huang. Diffusion of “dual carbon” policies among Chinese cities: A network evolution analysis. Energy 2024, 300 , 131514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131514
  21. Feiyue Qian, Cui Da, Chunchen Lu, Xinyu Gu, Junjian Yang, Chaowei Shi, Zhen Feng, Yuanyuan Cheng. Assessment of co-benefits from on-road vehicle electrification in Suzhou City, China. Urban Climate 2024, 56 , 102069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2024.102069
  22. Hao Li, Pengru Fan, Yukun Wang, Yang Lu, Feng Chen, Haotian Zhang, Bin Zhang, Bo Wang, Zhaohua Wang. Integrated assessment models for resource–environment–economy coordinated development. WIREs Energy and Environment 2024, 13 (3) https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.514
  23. Thuy T.H. Nguyen, Wahyu S. Putro, Jun-Chul Choi, Norihisa Fukaya, Satoshi Taniguchi, Takehiro Yamaki, Nobuo Hara, Sho Kataoka. Design and Evaluation of Bio-Based Industrial Symbiosis System Producing Energy and Chemicals Using Regionally Available Crop Residue. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2024, 204 , 107509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107509
  24. Jianxin Guo, Xianchun Tan, Kaiwei Zhu, Yonglong Cheng. Integrated management of abatement technology investment and resource extraction. Resources Policy 2024, 92 , 104974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104974
  25. Taomeizi Zhou, Zhiwei Li, Xiaoping Jia, Kathleen B. Aviso, Raymond R. Tan, Xuexiu Jia, Fang Wang. Integrated decision-making approach for sectoral low-carbon technology solutions. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 447 , 141442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141442
  26. Yujiao Xian, Nan Li, Ke Wang. Carbon emissions marginal abatement cost and its influencing factors from the construction and hygienic ceramics manufacturing industries in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2024, 104 , 107352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107352
  27. Yuqun Dong, Yaming Zhuang. Expansion decision making of waste-to-energy combined heat and power project: A growth option perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024, 434 , 140050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140050
  28. Jiaming Wang, Ling Jia, Yiyi Wang, Peng Wang, Lei Huang. Diffusion of "Dual Carbon" Policies Among Chinese Cities: A Network Evolution Analysis. 2024https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4681509
  29. Jinhui Ren, Qianzhi Zhang, Wenying Chen. China's Provincial Power Decarbonization Transition in a Carbon Neutral Vision. 2024https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4800584
  30. Haitao Chen, Xia Peng, Zhuopu Wang, Yuan Bo. Research on Decoupling Relationship among Energy Consumption, Carbon Emissions, and Economic Growth under Dual Carbon Goals in China. 2023, 779-784. https://doi.org/10.1109/PSGEC58411.2023.10255850

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 11, 4396–4405
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c08171
Published March 9, 2023

Copyright © 2023 American Chemical Society. This publication is available under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

6436

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. MESSAGEix-CAEP model framework.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. CO2 emissions under the SCN scenario from 2020 to 2060. a, Proportion of each sector’s carbon reduction between the BL and SCN scenarios. b, CO2 emissions and peak time for each sector under the HCN scenario. The carbon emissions and energy consumption in 2020 are calculated by historical data. IS: iron and steel industry; TF: road traffic sector; PW: power industry; BL: building sector; CM: cement industry.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Energy carbon reduction and consumption under the SCN scenario from 2020 to 2060. a, Proportion of energy carbon reduction between the BL and SCN scenarios. b, Proportion of primary energy consumption from 2020 to 2060 under the SCN scenario. The carbon emissions and energy consumption in 2020 are calculated by historical data. All energies are harmonized by converting them to standard coal (29307 kJ/kg). The consumption of renewable energies is calculated based on their power generation and converted through the theoretical power conversion coefficient (0.1229 kgce/kWh).

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Power consumption and industry contributions under the SCN scenario. The power consumption in 2020 is calculated by historical data.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Marginal abatement cost curve. a, Marginal abatement cost curve for industries under the SCN scenario. b, Marginal abatement cost under the SCN and HCN scenarios.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6. Annual carbon abatement costs and benefits from 2021 to 2060.

  • References


    This article references 45 other publications.

    1. 1
      IPCC WGI AR6. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., Zhou, B., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp 332. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/Chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ (accessed 2023-02-25).
    2. 2
      Shan, Y.; Guan, D.; Zheng, H.; Ou, J.; Li, Y.; Meng, J.; Mi, Z.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Q. China CO2 emission accounts 1997–2015. Scientific Data 2018, 5 (1), 170201,  DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2017.201
    3. 3
      Zheng, X.; Lu, Y.; Yuan, J.; Baninla, Y.; Zhang, S.; Stenseth, N. C.; Hessen, D. O.; Tian, H.; Obersteiner, M.; Chen, D. Drivers of change in China’s energy-related CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020, 117 (1), 2936,  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1908513117
    4. 4
      Guan, D.; Meng, J.; Reiner, D. M.; Zhang, N.; Shan, Y.; Mi, Z.; Shao, S.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Davis, S. J. Structural decline in China’s CO2 emissions through transitions in industry and energy systems. Nature Geoscience 2018, 11 (8), 551555,  DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0161-1
    5. 5
      Rosa, E. A.; Dietz, T. Human drivers of national greenhouse-gas emissions. Nature Climate Change 2012, 2 (8), 581586,  DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1506
    6. 6
      Cai, B.; Cao, L.; Lei, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, J.; Li, M.; Du, M.; Lv, C.; Jiang, H.; Ning, M.; Wang, J. China’s carbon emission pathway under the carbon neutrality target. China Population,Resources and Environment 2021, 31 (01), 714
    7. 7
      Li, W.; Zhang, S.; Lu, C. Research on the driving factors and carbon emission reduction pathways of China’s iron and steel industry under the vision of carbon neutrality. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 361, 132237  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132237
    8. 8
      Wang, H.; Lu, X.; Deng, Y.; Sun, Y.; Nielsen, C. P.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, G.; Bu, M.; Bi, J.; McElroy, M. B. China’s CO2 peak before 2030 implied from characteristics and growth of cities. Nature Sustainability 2019, 2 (8), 748754,  DOI: 10.1038/s41893-019-0339-6
    9. 9
      Zhang, S.; Chen, W. Assessing the energy transition in China towards carbon neutrality with a probabilistic framework. Nature. Communications 2022, 13 (1), 87,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27671-0
    10. 10
      Langevin, J.; Harris, C. B.; Reyna, J. L. Assessing the Potential to Reduce U.S. Building CO2 Emissions 80% by 2050. Joule 2019, 3 (10), 24032424,  DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.013
    11. 11
      Zhou, S.; Tong, Q.; Pan, X.; Cao, M.; Wang, H.; Gao, J.; Ou, X. Research on low-carbon energy transformation of China necessary to achieve the Paris agreement goals: A global perspective. Energy Economics 2021, 95, 105137  DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105137
    12. 12
      van Sluisveld, M. A. E.; de Boer, H. S.; Daioglou, V.; Hof, A. F.; van Vuuren, D. P. A race to zero - Assessing the position of heavy industry in a global net-zero CO2 emissions context. Energy and Climate Change 2021, 2, 100051  DOI: 10.1016/j.egycc.2021.100051
    13. 13
      Duan, H.; Zhou, S.; Jiang, K.; Bertram, C.; Harmsen, M.; Kriegler, E.; van Vuuren, D. P.; Wang, S.; Fujimori, S.; Tavoni, M.; Ming, X.; Keramidas, K.; Iyer, G.; Edmonds, J. Assessing China’s efforts to pursue the 1.5°C warming limit. Science 2021, 372 (6540), 378385,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aba8767
    14. 14
      Cao, J.; Dai, H.; Li, S.; Guo, C.; Ho, M.; Cai, W.; He, J.; Huang, H.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Qian, H.; Wang, C.; Wu, L.; Zhang, X. The general equilibrium impacts of carbon tax policy in China: A multi-model comparison. Energy Economics 2021, 99, 105284  DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105284
    15. 15
      Zhao, X.-g.; Jiang, G.-w.; Nie, D.; Chen, H. How to improve the market efficiency of carbon trading: A perspective of China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 59, 12291245,  DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.052
    16. 16
      McPhearson, T.; M. Raymond, C.; Gulsrud, N.; Albert, C.; Coles, N.; Fagerholm, N.; Nagatsu, M.; Olafsson, A. S.; Soininen, N.; Vierikko, K. Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability 2021, 1 (1), 5,  DOI: 10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x
    17. 17
      IEA. Going carbon negative: What are the technology options? ; 2020. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/going-carbon-negative-what-are-the-technology-options (accessed 2023-02-25).
    18. 18
      IPCC WGI AR6. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M.; Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., Malley, J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ (accessed 2023-02-25).
    19. 19
      IEA. Net Zero by 2050; IEA, Paris, License: CC BY 4.0; 2021. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 (accessed 2023-02-25).
    20. 20
      Huppmann, D.; Gidden, M.; Fricko, O.; Kolp, P.; Orthofer, C.; Pimmer, M.; Kushin, N.; Vinca, A.; Mastrucci, A.; Riahi, K.; Krey, V. The MESSAGEix Integrated Assessment Model and the ix modeling platform (ixmp): An open framework for integrated and cross-cutting analysis of energy, climate, the environment, and sustainable development. Environmental Modelling & Software 2019, 112, 143156,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.012
    21. 21
      Zhang, S.; Yi, B.; Guo, F.; Zhu, P. Exploring selected pathways to low and zero CO2 emissions in China’s iron and steel industry and their impacts on resources and energy. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 340, 130813  DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130813
    22. 22
      Dargay, J.; Gately, D.; Sommer, M. Vehicle ownership and income growth, worldwide: 1960–2030. energy journal 2007, 28 (4), 143,  DOI: 10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No4-7
    23. 23
      Medlock, K. B.; Soligo, R. Car ownership and economic development with forecasts to the year 2015. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 2002, 36 (2), 163188
    24. 24
      Wu, T.; Zhao, H.; Ou, X. Vehicle Ownership Analysis Based on GDP per Capita in China: 1963–2050. Sustainability 2014, 6 (8), 48774899,  DOI: 10.3390/su6084877
    25. 25
      Dargay, J.; Gately, D. Income’s effect on car and vehicle ownership, worldwide: 1960–2015. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 1999, 33 (2), 101138,  DOI: 10.1016/S0965-8564(98)00026-3
    26. 26
      Huo, H.; Wang, M. Modeling future vehicle sales and stock in China. Energy Policy 2012, 43, 1729,  DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.063
    27. 27
      Tan, M.; Li, X.; Xie, H.; Lu, C. Urban land expansion and arable land loss in China─a case study of Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region. Land Use Policy 2005, 22 (3), 187196,  DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.03.003
    28. 28
      Gong, T.; Zhang, W.; Liang, J.; Lin, C.; Mao, K. Forecast and Analysis of the Total Amount of Civil Buildings in China in the Future Based on Population Driven. Sustainability 2021, 13 (24), 14051,  DOI: 10.3390/su132414051
    29. 29
      Huo, T.; Xu, L.; Feng, W.; Cai, W.; Liu, B. Dynamic scenario simulations of carbon emission peak in China’s city-scale urban residential building sector through 2050. Energy Policy 2021, 159, 112612  DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112612
    30. 30
      O’Neill, B. C.; Carter, T. R.; Ebi, K.; Harrison, P. A.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Kok, K.; Kriegler, E.; Preston, B. L.; Riahi, K.; Sillmann, J.; van Ruijven, B. J.; van Vuuren, D.; Carlisle, D.; Conde, C.; Fuglestvedt, J.; Green, C.; Hasegawa, T.; Leininger, J.; Monteith, S.; Pichs-Madruga, R. Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nature Climate Change 2020, 10 (12), 10741084,  DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-00952-0
    31. 31
      O’Neill, B. C.; Kriegler, E.; Ebi, K. L.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Riahi, K.; Rothman, D. S.; van Ruijven, B. J.; van Vuuren, D. P.; Birkmann, J.; Kok, K. The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global environmental change 2017, 42, 169180,  DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004
    32. 32
      Chen, Y.; Guo, F.; Wang, J.; Cai, W.; Wang, C.; Wang, K. Provincial and gridded population projection for China under shared socioeconomic pathways from 2010 to 2100. Scientific Data 2020, 7 (1), 113,  DOI: 10.1038/s41597-020-0421-y
    33. 33
      McKitrick, R. A Derivation of the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1999, 37 (3), 306314,  DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1999.1065
    34. 34
      Kesicki, F.; Strachan, N. Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory and practice. Environmental Science & Policy 2011, 14 (8), 11951204,  DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.004
    35. 35
      DECC, D. f. E. a. C. C. Carbon Valuation in UK Policy Appraisal: A Revised Approach ; 2009.
    36. 36
      Kesicki, F. Marginal abatement cost curves for policy making–expert-based vs. model-derived curves ; 2010. https://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucft347/Kesicki_MACC.pdf (accessed 2023-02-25).
    37. 37
      Du, L.; Hanley, A.; Wei, C. Estimating the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve of CO2 Emissions in China: Provincial Panel Data Analysis. Energy Economics 2015, 48, 217229,  DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.01.007
    38. 38
      Ma, C.; Hailu, A.; You, C. A critical review of distance function based economic research on China’s marginal abatement cost of carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Economics 2019, 84, 104533  DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104533
    39. 39
      Xiao, H.; Wei, Q.; Wang, H. Marginal abatement cost and carbon reduction potential outlook of key energy efficiency technologies in China′s building sector to 2030. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 92105,  DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.021
    40. 40
      Cai, W.; He, N.; Li, M.; Xu, L.; Wang, L.; Zhu, J.; Zeng, N.; Yan, P.; Si, G.; Zhang, X.; Cen, X.; Yu, G.; Sun, O. J. Carbon sequestration of Chinese forests from 2010 to 2060: spatiotemporal dynamics and its regulatory strategies. Science Bulletin 2022, 67 (8), 836843,  DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.12.012
    41. 41
      Huang, Y.; Sun, W.; Qin, Z.; Zhang, W.; Yu, Y.; Li, T.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, G.; Yu, L.; Wang, Y.; Ding, F.; Zhang, P. The role of China’s terrestrial carbon sequestration 2010–2060 in offsetting energy-related CO2 emissions. National Science Review 2022, 9 (8), nwac057  DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwac057
    42. 42
      Zhuo, Z.; Du, E.; Zhang, N.; Nielsen, C. P.; Lu, X.; Xiao, J.; Wu, J.; Kang, C. Cost increase in the electricity supply to achieve carbon neutrality in China. Nature. Communications 2022, 13 (1), 3172,  DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-30747-0
    43. 43
      Wu, G.; Niu, D. A study of carbon peaking and carbon neutral pathways in China’s power sector under a 1.5 °C temperature control target. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022, 29 (56), 8506285080,  DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-21594-z
    44. 44
      Luo, S.; Hu, W.; Liu, W.; Zhang, Z.; Bai, C.; Huang, Q.; Chen, Z. Study on the decarbonization in China’s power sector under the background of carbon neutrality by 2060. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2022, 166, 112618  DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112618
    45. 45
      National Academies of Sciences, E.; Medicine Valuing climate damages: updating estimation of the social cost of carbon dioxide; National Academies Press: 2017; DOI: 10.17226/24651 .
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c08171.

    • Details description of the CNTD platform, the database for each sector, supplemental methods for marginal abatement cost, sensitive analysis for different vehicle ownership saturation levels, and additional results regarding the decarbonization pathways, energy consumption, interaction between sectors, and marginal abatement cost under HCN scenario (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.