Evaluating multiple emission pathways for fixed cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from global-scale socioeconomic perspectives

Exploration on the scientific rationality of low-carbon investment projects from the perspective of supply chain: a case study of CS thermal power plant

Climate warming has gradually become a major problem threatening human survival, and countries have begun to pay attention to carbon emissions. Energy conservation and emission reduction has become a central task in China's economic development since the 14th Five-Year Plan. As the main force of carbon emissions in China, thermal power industry is bound to become the focus of attention in China's low-carbon development strategy and energy conservation and emission reduction. Moreover, with the marketization of the power industry, the state has joined the market competition at the power generation sectors and the power sale sectors, and implemented the "opening the middle of the two pipes." Therefore, the coverage of influence of carbon emissions and carbon investment behavior of power generation companies is not limited to itself, but will also be extended to the supply chain level. Based on the above background, this paper evaluates the scientific rationality of low-carbon investment projects of thermal power enterprises from the perspective of low-carbon supply chain, which not only can help enterprises achieve a win-win situation of economic and environmental benefits, but also contribute to the carbon emission reduction of the entire supply chain, thereby promoting China's entire social and economic energy conservation and emission reduction work.

Pathway optimization of China's carbon emission reduction and its provincial allocation under temperature control threshold

As the largest carbon emitter in the world, China faces great pressure to fulfill the temperature control targets, i.e., 2 °C and 1.5 °C, proposed in the Paris Agreement. Thus, selecting a development path that could both meet the temperature targets and economic growth is essential and worth investigating. We propose an optimization model to analyze China's carbon dioxide emission paths from 2010 to 2050 in three scenarios, namely baseline, and 1.5 °C and 2 °C target scenarios. The marginal cost of carbon abatement in China's 30 provinces (excluding Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, and Tibet) were also calculated using the quadratic directional distance function model, and the quotas of carbon dioxide emission among provinces were allocated. Carbon dioxide emission peak will occur in 2040 under the 2 °C target scenario and in 2030 under the 1.5 °C target scenario. The marginal cost of carbon abatement to achieve the 1.5 °C goal is approximately 1.6 times more expensive than the 2 °C goal. We suggest to implement emission reduction policies in the Eastern coastal areas of China and to allocate greater carbon dioxide emission quotas in under-developed areas in the Central and Western regions. Provincial quota allocation may also help to balance regional development and achieve the mutually beneficial goal of economic growth and carbon emission reduction in China. Our findings provide practical guidance on achieving carbon dioxide emission reduction and critical enlightenments on policymaking.

The revised approaches to income inequality impact on production-based and consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions: literature review

In recent decades, many authors have investigated possibility of simultaneous reduction of income inequality and pollution related to climate change. However, none of the previous researches reviewed the empirical studies of relationship between inequality and CO₂ emissions. The authors of the selected papers, published from 2001 to 2019, found a diverse impact of income inequality on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. It could depend on different trajectories of Kuznets curves. Furthermore, the majority of authors have provided theoretical analysis (even including human behaviour) of the influence of income inequality on CO₂ emissions, considering only territorial (or production-based) emissions. However, this paper recommends to distinguish between the production-based and consumption-based emissions and suggests the revised approaches to the impact of income inequality on CO₂ emissions with regard to the production-based and consumption-based emissions. Regarding the production-based emissions, the following approaches are proposed: (i) determination of environmental policies, which also could reveal and explain the leakage phenomenon, and the channels of EKC, i.e. (ii) scale, (iii) composition, (iv) technical and (v) globalization effects. The influence of income inequality on consumption-based emissions can be explained by applying two approaches, namely (i) inequality determined changes in working time (this approach is also related to "Veblen effect") and (ii) individual economic behaviours of households. Therefore, the present study provides a new insight into the subject of the relationship between income inequality and pollution related to climate change.

Understanding the Current Energy Paradigm and Energy System Models for More Sustainable Energy System Development

This study contributes to a better understanding of where to place different energy modelling tools and support better decision-making related to the sustainable development of energy systems. It is argued that through the connection of the energy field and the field of sustainable development, the current energy paradigm—encompassing economic, environmental and social aspects—has emerged. This paper provides an analysis of different categories of existing energy system models and their ability to provide answers to questions arising from the current energy paradigm formulated within this study. The current energy paradigm and the relevant questions were defined by conducting conceptual framework analysis. The overarching question of the current paradigm asks how different energy pathways impact on the (sustainable) development of the energy system and overall (sustainable) development globally and nationally. A review of energy system models was conducted to analyse what questions of the current energy paradigm are addressed by which models. The results show that most models address aspects of the current energy paradigm but often in a simplified way. To answer some of the questions of the current energy paradigm in more depth and to get novel insights on sustainable energy system development, it might be necessary use complementary methods in addition to traditional energy modelling methodological approaches.