The 24th AIM International Workshop, NIES, Nov. 5th, 2018

Identifying trade-offs and co-benefits ofclimate policies in China to align policies
with SDGs and achieve the 2 °C goal
Jing-Yu Liua, Shinichiro Fujimorib, Kiyoshi Takahashia,
Tomoko Hasegawaa, Wenchao Wua & Toshihiko Masuia
a National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japanb Kyoto University, Japan1

Outlines• Introduction• Methodology• Results• Conclusions

2

Introduction• Paris Agreement and UN 17 SDGs in 2015
• Climate policies have side-effects on SDGs related indicators.
– Energy, air quality, food, land and so on• Country-level
level analysis: China• Scope:– SDG 7 energy security– SDG 3.9 health throughair quality– SDG 2 hunger– SDG 15.2 forest management3Research questions• What are the trade-offs and co-benefits
associated with climate change mitigation
policies with respect to the SDGs spaces ?
• Are there possible ways to implement asustainable climate policy instruments thatwill not cause trade-off relationship but in linewith the 2 °C goal?

4Outlines• Introduction• Methodology• Results• Conclusions

5

Investigated indicatorsSDGs

Energy security
Energy security
Air quality
Air quality
Air quality
Food security
Food security
Food security
Forest management

Indicator Calculation
Primary energy diversity
indicator, Shannon index
Primary energy imports
SO2 emissions per year
NOx emissions per year
BC emissions per year
Non-Energy Crops andLivestock aggregated price
People at risk of hunger
Import per consumption
Forest area

Standardization

Negative value:
co-benefits
Positive value:
trade-offs

6Model: AIM/CGE

Scenario
categories
baseline
Simplepolicyscenarios

Comprehensive
policy scenarios
Sensitivityscenarios

Figure Emissions trajectories

Scenario name
GDP_High
GDP_Low
POP_High
POP_Low
Trs_High
Trs_Low
Yield_High
Yield_Low
NoCCS
NoBECCS

Scenarios and descriptions
No carbon prices
2Deg(INDC): reflects the tendency of current policy
in China before 2030 but meets 2 °s at the end of
this century
2Deg(EarlyAct): follow least cost mitigation
scenario.
2Deg(EarlyAct)+Combine: 300% forest subsidy and
67% food subsidy was assumed on the basis of
2Deg(EarlyAct) scenario.
See below

Sensitivity scenarios
Description
SSP1 assumption. Higher GDP.
SSP3 assumption. Lower GDP.
SSP3 assumption. Higher population.
SSP1 assumption. Lower population.
SSP3 assumption. Higher transportation demand.
SSP1 assumption. Lower transportation demand.
SSP1 assumption. Higher yield.
SSP3 assumption. Lower yield.
CCS not available.
BECCS not available.
7Outlines• Introduction• Methodology• Results• Conclusions

8

Scenarios

Figure Emissions trajectories for simple climate
policy scenarios

9Positive and negative side effects ofclimate policy
Figure risk of sustainability in reference to Baseline➢ Energy security and air quality
have co-benefits, which wouldback climate policies.
➢ Deforestation risk changes themost from BaU therefore would
be the major source of
criticisms and concerns forclimate policies. 2Deg(EarlyAct)
is with less deforestation than2Deg(INDC) in 2050.
➢ Food security raise someconcerns too.

10

Scenarios
Scenario

Scenarios and descriptions

categories
No carbon prices

Baseline
Simplepolicy 2Deg(INDC): reflects the tendency of current policy

scenarios

in China before 2030 but meets 2 °s at the end of
this century

Comprehensive2Deg(EarlyAct)+Combine: 300% forest subsidy andpolicy scenarios

67% food subsidy was assumed on the basis of2Deg(EarlyAct) scenario.

11

Necessity of complementary policy
packageRisk ++➢ All of the indicators are achieved
zero-trade-off in 2050 comparing
with Baseline in2Deg(EarlyAct)+Combine.
• Early climate action• Forest protection policy• Food subsidy policy

12Sensitivity Scenarios
Scenario name
GDP_High
GDP_Low
POP_High
POP_Low
Trs_High
Trs_Low
Yield_High
Yield_Low
NoCCS
NoBECCS

Description
SSP1 assumption. Higher GDP.
SSP3 assumption. Lower GDP.
SSP3 assumption. Higher population.
SSP1 assumption. Lower population.
SSP3 assumption. Higher transportation demand.
SSP1 assumption. Lower transportation demand.
SSP1 assumption. Higher yield.
SSP3 assumption. Lower yield.
CCS not available.
BECCS not available.

13

Sensitivity analysis➢ The sustainable pathway 2Deg(EarlyAct)+Combine is robust regarding energy
security, deforestation and air quality.
➢ Food security indicators are largely affected by social economic condition rather
than the climate policies.
➢ CCS technology needs special attention.
14

Outlines• Introduction• Methodology• Results• Conclusions

15

Conclusions• Energy security and air pollution can have a great benefit from theclimate mitigation measure while food security and land can have anegative side effects.
• To resolve this trade-off relationship, early climate action ispreferable.
• Subsidy mechanism in food goods and land rent successfully
diminished the negative side effects keeping other area’s cobenefit aligning with climate targets.
• Subsidy mechanism is just an illustrative example of acomplementary policy package.

16

Thank you!

17

Backup slides18

1920

21

22

23

Table SI.1 Additional scenario designs
Scenario categories
Research purposes Scenarios
anddescriptions
Singlecomplementary Assess the negative 2Deg(EarlyAct)+Forest:
policy scenarios
side-effects
on only 300% forest subsidy
SDGs of policy was assumed on the basis
scenarios
where of 2Deg(EarlyAct)
singlescenario.
complementary2Deg(EarlyAct)+Food:policy is added.
only 10% food subsidy
was assumed on the basisof 2Deg(EarlyAct)
scenario.

24

25

26