This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Dr. Yu Liu
Division of Sustainable Development Strategy, Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 100190, Beijing, China

Basic Info


Research Keywords & Expertise

0 Climate Change Impacts
0 Economic Forecasting
0 International Trade
0 Climate change adaptation and mitigation
0 energy and environmental economics

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

The user biography is not available.
Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Review article
Published: 28 May 2021 in Earth System Science Data
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), including that of their trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of estimates for all anthropogenic and natural sources and sinks of CO2 for the European Union and UK (EU27 + UK), derived from a combination of state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources and models. Given the wide scope of the work and the variety of datasets involved, this study focuses on identifying essential questions which need to be answered to properly understand the differences between various datasets, in particular with regards to the less-well-characterized fluxes from managed ecosystems. The work integrates recent emission inventory data, process-based ecosystem model results, data-driven sector model results and inverse modeling estimates over the period 1990–2018. BU and TD products are compared with European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) reported under the UNFCCC in 2019, aiming to assess and understand the differences between approaches. For the uncertainties in NGHGIs, we used the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the member states following the IPCC Guidelines. Variation in estimates produced with other methods, like atmospheric inversion models (TD) or spatially disaggregated inventory datasets (BU), arises from diverse sources including within-model uncertainty related to parameterization as well as structural differences between models. In comparing NGHGIs with other approaches, a key source of uncertainty is that related to different system boundaries and emission categories (CO2 fossil) and the use of different land use definitions for reporting emissions from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities (CO2 land). At the EU27 + UK level, the NGHGI (2019) fossil CO2 emissions (including cement production) account for 2624 Tg CO2 in 2014 while all the other seven bottom-up sources are consistent with the NGHGIs and report a mean of 2588 (± 463 Tg CO2). The inversion reports 2700 Tg CO2 (± 480 Tg CO2), which is well in line with the national inventories. Over 2011–2015, the CO2 land sources and sinks from NGHGI estimates report −90 Tg C yr−1 ± 30 Tg C yr−1 while all other BU approaches report a mean sink of −98 Tg C yr−1 (± 362 Tg of C from dynamic global vegetation models only). For the TD model ensemble results, we observe a much larger spread for regional inversions (i.e., mean of 253 Tg C yr−1 ± 400 Tg C yr−1). This concludes that (a) current independent approaches are consistent with NGHGIs and (b) their uncertainty is too large to allow a verification because of model differences and probably also because of the definition of “CO2 flux” obtained from different approaches. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4626578 (Petrescu et al., 2020a).

ACS Style

Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu; Matthew J. McGrath; Robbie M. Andrew; Philippe Peylin; Glen P. Peters; Philippe Ciais; Gregoire Broquet; Francesco N. Tubiello; Christoph Gerbig; Julia Pongratz; Greet Janssens-Maenhout; Giacomo Grassi; Gert-Jan Nabuurs; Pierre Regnier; Ronny Lauerwald; Matthias Kuhnert; Juraj Balkovič; Mart-Jan Schelhaas; Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon; Efisio Solazzo; Chunjing Qiu; Roberto Pilli; Igor B. Konovalov; Richard A. Houghton; Dirk Günther; Lucia Perugini; Monica Crippa; Raphael Ganzenmüller; Ingrid T. Luijkx; Pete Smith; Saqr Munassar; Rona L. Thompson; Giulia Conchedda; Guillaume Monteil; Marko Scholze; Ute Karstens; Patrick Brockmann; Albertus Johannes Dolman. The consolidated European synthesis of CO2 emissions and removals for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2018. Earth System Science Data 2021, 13, 2363 -2406.

AMA Style

Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu, Matthew J. McGrath, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Peylin, Glen P. Peters, Philippe Ciais, Gregoire Broquet, Francesco N. Tubiello, Christoph Gerbig, Julia Pongratz, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Giacomo Grassi, Gert-Jan Nabuurs, Pierre Regnier, Ronny Lauerwald, Matthias Kuhnert, Juraj Balkovič, Mart-Jan Schelhaas, Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon, Efisio Solazzo, Chunjing Qiu, Roberto Pilli, Igor B. Konovalov, Richard A. Houghton, Dirk Günther, Lucia Perugini, Monica Crippa, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Pete Smith, Saqr Munassar, Rona L. Thompson, Giulia Conchedda, Guillaume Monteil, Marko Scholze, Ute Karstens, Patrick Brockmann, Albertus Johannes Dolman. The consolidated European synthesis of CO2 emissions and removals for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2018. Earth System Science Data. 2021; 13 (5):2363-2406.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu; Matthew J. McGrath; Robbie M. Andrew; Philippe Peylin; Glen P. Peters; Philippe Ciais; Gregoire Broquet; Francesco N. Tubiello; Christoph Gerbig; Julia Pongratz; Greet Janssens-Maenhout; Giacomo Grassi; Gert-Jan Nabuurs; Pierre Regnier; Ronny Lauerwald; Matthias Kuhnert; Juraj Balkovič; Mart-Jan Schelhaas; Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon; Efisio Solazzo; Chunjing Qiu; Roberto Pilli; Igor B. Konovalov; Richard A. Houghton; Dirk Günther; Lucia Perugini; Monica Crippa; Raphael Ganzenmüller; Ingrid T. Luijkx; Pete Smith; Saqr Munassar; Rona L. Thompson; Giulia Conchedda; Guillaume Monteil; Marko Scholze; Ute Karstens; Patrick Brockmann; Albertus Johannes Dolman. 2021. "The consolidated European synthesis of CO2 emissions and removals for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2018." Earth System Science Data 13, no. 5: 2363-2406.

Data description paper
Published: 30 April 2021 in Earth System Science Data
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Because of the alkaline nature and high calcium content of cements in general, they serve as a CO2-absorbing agent through carbonation processes, resembling silicate weathering in nature. This carbon uptake capacity of cements could abate some of the CO2 emitted during their production. Given the scale of cement production worldwide (4.10 Gt in 2019), a life-cycle assessment is necessary to determine the actual net carbon impacts of this industry. We adopted a comprehensive analytical model to estimate the amount of CO2 that had been absorbed from 1930 to 2019 in four types of cement materials, including concrete, mortar, construction waste, and cement kiln dust (CKD). In addition, the process CO2 emission during the same period based on the same datasets was also estimated. The results show that 21.02 Gt CO2 (95 % confidence interval, CI: 18.01–24.41 Gt CO2) had been absorbed in the cements produced from 1930 to 2019, with the 2019 annual figure mounting up to 0.89 Gt CO2 yr−1 (95 % CI: 0.76–1.06 Gt CO2). The cumulative uptake is equivalent to approximately 55 % of the process emission based on our estimation. In particular, China's dominant position in cement production or consumption in recent decades also gives rise to its uptake being the greatest, with a cumulative sink of 6.21 Gt CO2 (95 % CI: 4.59–8.32 Gt CO2) since 1930. Among the four types of cement materials, mortar is estimated to be the greatest contributor (approximately 59 %) to the total uptake. Potentially, our cement emission and uptake estimation system can be updated annually and modified when necessary for future low-carbon transitions in the cement industry. All the data described in this study, including the Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis results, are accessible at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4459729 (Wang et al., 2021).

ACS Style

Rui Guo; Jiaoyue Wang; Longfei Bing; Dan Tong; Philippe Ciais; Steven J. Davis; Robbie M. Andrew; Fengming Xi; Zhu Liu. Global CO2 uptake by cement from 1930 to 2019. Earth System Science Data 2021, 13, 1791 -1805.

AMA Style

Rui Guo, Jiaoyue Wang, Longfei Bing, Dan Tong, Philippe Ciais, Steven J. Davis, Robbie M. Andrew, Fengming Xi, Zhu Liu. Global CO2 uptake by cement from 1930 to 2019. Earth System Science Data. 2021; 13 (4):1791-1805.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rui Guo; Jiaoyue Wang; Longfei Bing; Dan Tong; Philippe Ciais; Steven J. Davis; Robbie M. Andrew; Fengming Xi; Zhu Liu. 2021. "Global CO2 uptake by cement from 1930 to 2019." Earth System Science Data 13, no. 4: 1791-1805.

Preprint content
Published: 16 March 2021
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Substantially enhancing carbon mitigation ambition is a crucial step towards achieving the Paris climate goal. Yet this attempt is hampered by poor knowledge on the net economic effect of mitigation for each emitter, by taking into account potential cost and benefit. Here we use a global economic model with regional and sectoral disaggregation details to assess the mitigation costs for 27 major emitting countries and regions, and further contrast the costs against the potential benefits of mitigation valued as avoided social cost of carbon. We find substantial variabilities across these emitters in both cost and benefit of mitigating each ton of carbon dioxide and, more importantly, a strong negative spatial correlation between cost and benefit. The relative suitability of carbon mitigation, defined as the ratio of normalized benefit to normalized cost, shows great spatial mismatch with the mitigation ambition of emitters indicated in their first intended nationally determined contributions. China is relatively suitable for domestic carbon mitigation and could largely enhance their mitigation ambition. The European Union, which is economically less suitable to reduce domestic emissions, could work with many developing countries which are more suitable but less capable to reduce emissions. Our work provides important information to improve concerted climate action and formulate more efficient mitigation strategy.

ACS Style

Mingxi Du; Yu Liu; Qi Cui; Jintai Lin; Yawen Liu; Qiuyu Liu; Dan Tong; Kuishuang Feng; Klaus Hubacek. Contrasting Suitability and Ambition in Regional Carbon Mitigation. 2021, 1 .

AMA Style

Mingxi Du, Yu Liu, Qi Cui, Jintai Lin, Yawen Liu, Qiuyu Liu, Dan Tong, Kuishuang Feng, Klaus Hubacek. Contrasting Suitability and Ambition in Regional Carbon Mitigation. . 2021; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mingxi Du; Yu Liu; Qi Cui; Jintai Lin; Yawen Liu; Qiuyu Liu; Dan Tong; Kuishuang Feng; Klaus Hubacek. 2021. "Contrasting Suitability and Ambition in Regional Carbon Mitigation." , no. : 1.

Brief communication
Published: 03 March 2021 in Nature Climate Change
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Five years after the adoption of the Paris Climate Agreement, growth in global CO2 emissions has begun to falter. The pervasive disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic have radically altered the trajectory of global CO2 emissions. Contradictory effects of the post-COVID-19 investments in fossil fuel-based infrastructure and the recent strengthening of climate targets must be addressed with new policy choices to sustain a decline in global emissions in the post-COVID-19 era. Growth in CO2 emissions has slowed since the Paris Agreement 5 years ago. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a drop in emissions of about 7% in 2020 relative to 2019, but strong policy is needed to address underlying drivers and to sustain a decline in global emissions beyond the current crisis.

ACS Style

Corinne Le Quéré; Glen P. Peters; Pierre Friedlingstein; Robbie M. Andrew; Josep G. Canadell; Steven J. Davis; Robert B. Jackson; Matthew W. Jones. Fossil CO2 emissions in the post-COVID-19 era. Nature Climate Change 2021, 11, 197 -199.

AMA Style

Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Pierre Friedlingstein, Robbie M. Andrew, Josep G. Canadell, Steven J. Davis, Robert B. Jackson, Matthew W. Jones. Fossil CO2 emissions in the post-COVID-19 era. Nature Climate Change. 2021; 11 (3):197-199.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Corinne Le Quéré; Glen P. Peters; Pierre Friedlingstein; Robbie M. Andrew; Josep G. Canadell; Steven J. Davis; Robert B. Jackson; Matthew W. Jones. 2021. "Fossil CO2 emissions in the post-COVID-19 era." Nature Climate Change 11, no. 3: 197-199.

Journal article
Published: 01 February 2021 in Transport Policy
Reads 0
Downloads 0

As one of the most vulnerable sectors exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic, transport sectors have been severely affected. However, the shocks and impact mechanisms of infectious diseases on transport sectors are not fully understood. This paper employs a multi-sectoral computable general equilibrium model of China, CHINAGEM, with highly disaggregated transport sectors to examine the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on China's transport sectors and reveal the impact mechanisms of the pandemic shocks with the decomposition analysis approach. This study suggests that, first, multiple shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic to transport sectors are specified, including the supply-side shocks that raised the protective cost and reduced the production efficiency of transport sectors, and the demand-side shocks that reduced the demand of households and production sectors for transportation. Second, the outputs of all transport sectors in China have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and passenger transport sectors have larger output decreases than freight transport sectors. While the outputs of freight transport sectors are expected to decline by 1.03–2.85%, the outputs of passenger transport sectors would decline by 3.08–11.44%. Third, with the decomposition analysis, the impacts of various exogenous shocks are quite different, while the changes in the output of different transport sectors are dominated by different exogenous shocks. Lastly, while the supply-side shocks of the pandemic would drive output decline in railway, waterway, and aviation transport sectors, the demand-side shocks would drive so in the road, pipeline, and other transport sectors. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has negative impacts on the output of most non-transport sectors and the macro-economy in China. Three policy implications are recommended to mitigate the damages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to the transport sectors.

ACS Style

Qi Cui; Ling He; Yu Liu; Yanting Zheng; Wei Wei; Bo Yang; Meifang Zhou. The impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on China’s transport sectors based on the CGE model coupled with a decomposition analysis approach. Transport Policy 2021, 103, 103 -115.

AMA Style

Qi Cui, Ling He, Yu Liu, Yanting Zheng, Wei Wei, Bo Yang, Meifang Zhou. The impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on China’s transport sectors based on the CGE model coupled with a decomposition analysis approach. Transport Policy. 2021; 103 ():103-115.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qi Cui; Ling He; Yu Liu; Yanting Zheng; Wei Wei; Bo Yang; Meifang Zhou. 2021. "The impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on China’s transport sectors based on the CGE model coupled with a decomposition analysis approach." Transport Policy 103, no. : 103-115.

Research article
Published: 28 January 2021 in Climatic Change
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Countries’ historical contributions to climate change have been on the agenda for more than two decades and will most likely continue to be an element in future international discussions and negotiations on climate. Previous studies have quantified the historical contributions to climate change across a range of choices and assumptions. In contrast, we quantify how historical contributions to changes in global mean surface temperature (GMST) may change in the future for a broad set of choices using the quantification of the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs). We calculate the contributions for five coarse geographical regions used in the SSPs. Historical emissions of long-lived gases remain important for future contributions to warming, due to their accumulation and the inertia of climate system, and historical emissions are even more important for strong mitigation scenarios. When only accounting for future emissions, from 2015 to 2100, there is surprisingly little variation in the regional contributions to GMST change between the different SSPs and different mitigation targets. The largest variability in the regional future contributions is found across the different integrated assessment models (IAMs). This suggests the characteristics of the IAMs are more important for calculated future historical contributions than variations across SSP or forcing target.

ACS Style

Ragnhild B. Skeie; Glen P. Peters; Jan Fuglestvedt; Robbie Andrew. A future perspective of historical contributions to climate change. Climatic Change 2021, 164, 1 -13.

AMA Style

Ragnhild B. Skeie, Glen P. Peters, Jan Fuglestvedt, Robbie Andrew. A future perspective of historical contributions to climate change. Climatic Change. 2021; 164 (1):1-13.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ragnhild B. Skeie; Glen P. Peters; Jan Fuglestvedt; Robbie Andrew. 2021. "A future perspective of historical contributions to climate change." Climatic Change 164, no. 1: 1-13.

Data descriptor
Published: 07 January 2021 in Scientific Data
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Quantification of CO2 fluxes at the Earth’s surface is required to evaluate the causes and drivers of observed increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Atmospheric inversion models disaggregate observed variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration to variability in CO2 emissions and sinks. They require prior constraints fossil CO2 emissions. Here we describe GCP-GridFED (version 2019.1), a gridded fossil emissions dataset that is consistent with the national CO2 emissions reported by the Global Carbon Project (GCP). GCP-GridFEDv2019.1 provides monthly fossil CO2 emissions estimates for the period 1959–2018 at a spatial resolution of 0.1°. Estimates are provided separately for oil, coal and natural gas, for mixed international bunker fuels, and for the calcination of limestone during cement production. GCP-GridFED also includes gridded estimates of O2 uptake based on oxidative ratios for oil, coal and natural gas. It will be updated annually and made available for atmospheric inversions contributing to GCP global carbon budget assessments, thus aligning the prior constraints on top-down fossil CO2 emissions with the bottom-up estimates compiled by the GCP.

ACS Style

Matthew W. Jones; Robbie M. Andrew; Glen P. Peters; Greet Janssens-Maenhout; Anthony J. De-Gol; Philippe Ciais; Prabir K. Patra; Frederic Chevallier; Corinne Le Quéré. Gridded fossil CO2 emissions and related O2 combustion consistent with national inventories 1959–2018. Scientific Data 2021, 8, 1 -23.

AMA Style

Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Glen P. Peters, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Anthony J. De-Gol, Philippe Ciais, Prabir K. Patra, Frederic Chevallier, Corinne Le Quéré. Gridded fossil CO2 emissions and related O2 combustion consistent with national inventories 1959–2018. Scientific Data. 2021; 8 (1):1-23.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matthew W. Jones; Robbie M. Andrew; Glen P. Peters; Greet Janssens-Maenhout; Anthony J. De-Gol; Philippe Ciais; Prabir K. Patra; Frederic Chevallier; Corinne Le Quéré. 2021. "Gridded fossil CO2 emissions and related O2 combustion consistent with national inventories 1959–2018." Scientific Data 8, no. 1: 1-23.

Preprint content
Published: 18 December 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), including that of their trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of estimates for all anthropogenic and natural sources and sinks of CO2 for the European Union and UK (EU27 + UK), derived from a combination of state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources and models. Given the wide scope of the work and the variety of datasets involved, this study focuses on identifying essential questions which need to be answered to properly understand the differences between various datasets, in particular with regards to the less-well characterized fluxes from managed ecosystems. The work integrates recent emission inventory data, process-based ecosystem model results, data-driven sector model results, and inverse modelling estimates, over the period 1990–2018. BU and TD products are compared with European national GHG inventories (NGHGI) reported under the UNFCCC in 2019, aiming to assess and understand the differences between approaches. For the uncertainties in NGHGI, we used the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the Member States following the IPCC guidelines. Variation in estimates produced with other methods, like atmospheric inversion models (TD) or spatially disaggregated inventory datasets (BU), arise from diverse sources including within-model uncertainty related to parameterization as well as structural differences between models. In comparing NGHGI with other approaches, a key source of uncertainty is that related to different system boundaries and emission categories (CO2 fossil) and the use of different land use definitions for reporting emissions from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) activities (CO2 land). At the EU27 + UK level, the NGHGI (2019) fossil CO2 emissions (including cement production) account for 2624 Tg CO2 in 2014 while all the other seven bottom-up sources are consistent with the NGHGI and report a mean of 2588 (± 463 Tg CO2). The inversion reports 2700 Tg CO2 (± 480 Tg CO2), well in line with the national inventories. Over 2011–2015, the CO2 land sources/sinks from NGHGI estimates report −90 Tg C yr−1 ± 30 Tg C while all other BU approaches report a mean sink of −98 Tg yr−1 (± 362 Tg C from DGVMs only). For the TD model ensemble results, we observe a much larger spread for regional inversions (i.e., mean of 253 Tg C yr−1 ± 400 T g C yr−1). This concludes that a) current independent approaches are consistent with NGHGI b) their uncertainty is too large to allow a verification because of model differences and probably also because of the definition of CO2 flux obtained from different approaches. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4288883 (Petrescu et al., 2020).

ACS Style

Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu; Matthew J. McGrath; Robbie M. Andrew; Philippe Peylin; Glen P. Peters; Philippe Ciais; Gregoire Broquet; Francesco N. Tubiello; Christoph Gerbig; Julia Pongratz; Greet Janssens-Maenhout; Giacomo Grassi; Gert-Jan Nabuurs; Pierre Regnier; Ronny Lauerwald; Matthias Kuhnert; Juraj Balcovič; Mart-Jan Schelhaas; Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon; Efisio Solazzo; Chunjing Qiu; Roberto Pilli; Igor B. Konovalov; Richard Houghton; Dirk Günther; Lucia Perugini; Monica Crippa; Raphael Ganzenmüller; Ingrid T. Luijkx; Pete Smith; Saqr Munassar; Rona L. Thompson; Giulia Conchedda; Guillaume Monteil; Marko Scholze; Ute Karstens; Patrick Brokmann; Han Dolman. The consolidated European synthesis of CO2 emissions and removals for EU27 and UK: 1990–2018. 2020, 2020, 1 -73.

AMA Style

Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu, Matthew J. McGrath, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Peylin, Glen P. Peters, Philippe Ciais, Gregoire Broquet, Francesco N. Tubiello, Christoph Gerbig, Julia Pongratz, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Giacomo Grassi, Gert-Jan Nabuurs, Pierre Regnier, Ronny Lauerwald, Matthias Kuhnert, Juraj Balcovič, Mart-Jan Schelhaas, Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon, Efisio Solazzo, Chunjing Qiu, Roberto Pilli, Igor B. Konovalov, Richard Houghton, Dirk Günther, Lucia Perugini, Monica Crippa, Raphael Ganzenmüller, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Pete Smith, Saqr Munassar, Rona L. Thompson, Giulia Conchedda, Guillaume Monteil, Marko Scholze, Ute Karstens, Patrick Brokmann, Han Dolman. The consolidated European synthesis of CO2 emissions and removals for EU27 and UK: 1990–2018. . 2020; 2020 ():1-73.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu; Matthew J. McGrath; Robbie M. Andrew; Philippe Peylin; Glen P. Peters; Philippe Ciais; Gregoire Broquet; Francesco N. Tubiello; Christoph Gerbig; Julia Pongratz; Greet Janssens-Maenhout; Giacomo Grassi; Gert-Jan Nabuurs; Pierre Regnier; Ronny Lauerwald; Matthias Kuhnert; Juraj Balcovič; Mart-Jan Schelhaas; Hugo A. C. Denier van der Gon; Efisio Solazzo; Chunjing Qiu; Roberto Pilli; Igor B. Konovalov; Richard Houghton; Dirk Günther; Lucia Perugini; Monica Crippa; Raphael Ganzenmüller; Ingrid T. Luijkx; Pete Smith; Saqr Munassar; Rona L. Thompson; Giulia Conchedda; Guillaume Monteil; Marko Scholze; Ute Karstens; Patrick Brokmann; Han Dolman. 2020. "The consolidated European synthesis of CO2 emissions and removals for EU27 and UK: 1990–2018." 2020, no. : 1-73.

Data description paper
Published: 11 December 2020 in Earth System Science Data
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quéré et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).

ACS Style

Pierre Friedlingstein; Michael O'Sullivan; Matthew W. Jones; Robbie M. Andrew; Judith Hauck; Are Olsen; Glen P. Peters; Wouter Peters; Julia Pongratz; Stephen Sitch; Corinne Le Quéré; Josep G. Canadell; Philippe Ciais; Robert B. Jackson; Simone Alin; Luiz E. O. C. Aragão; Almut Arneth; Vivek Arora; Nicholas R. Bates; Meike Becker; Alice Benoit-Cattin; Henry C. Bittig; Laurent Bopp; Selma Bultan; Naveen Chandra; Frédéric Chevallier; Louise P. Chini; Wiley Evans; Liesbeth Florentie; Piers M. Forster; Thomas Gasser; Marion Gehlen; Dennis Gilfillan; Thanos Gkritzalis; Luke Gregor; Nicolas Gruber; Ian Harris; Kerstin Hartung; Vanessa Haverd; Richard A. Houghton; Tatiana Ilyina; Atul K. Jain; Emilie Joetzjer; Koji Kadono; Etsushi Kato; Vassilis Kitidis; Jan Ivar Korsbakken; Peter Landschützer; Nathalie Lefèvre; Andrew Lenton; Sebastian Lienert; Zhu Liu; Danica Lombardozzi; Gregg Marland; Nicolas Metzl; David R. Munro; Julia E. M. S. Nabel; Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka; Yosuke Niwa; Kevin O'Brien; Tsuneo Ono; Paul I. Palmer; Denis Pierrot; Benjamin Poulter; Laure Resplandy; Eddy Robertson; Christian Rödenbeck; Jörg Schwinger; Roland Séférian; Ingunn Skjelvan; Adam J. P. Smith; Adrienne J. Sutton; Toste Tanhua; Pieter P. Tans; Hanqin Tian; Bronte Tilbrook; Guido van der Werf; Nicolas Vuichard; Anthony P. Walker; Rik Wanninkhof; Andrew J. Watson; David Willis; Andrew J. Wiltshire; Wenping Yuan; Xu Yue; Sönke Zaehle. Global Carbon Budget 2020. Earth System Science Data 2020, 12, 3269 -3340.

AMA Style

Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle. Global Carbon Budget 2020. Earth System Science Data. 2020; 12 (4):3269-3340.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pierre Friedlingstein; Michael O'Sullivan; Matthew W. Jones; Robbie M. Andrew; Judith Hauck; Are Olsen; Glen P. Peters; Wouter Peters; Julia Pongratz; Stephen Sitch; Corinne Le Quéré; Josep G. Canadell; Philippe Ciais; Robert B. Jackson; Simone Alin; Luiz E. O. C. Aragão; Almut Arneth; Vivek Arora; Nicholas R. Bates; Meike Becker; Alice Benoit-Cattin; Henry C. Bittig; Laurent Bopp; Selma Bultan; Naveen Chandra; Frédéric Chevallier; Louise P. Chini; Wiley Evans; Liesbeth Florentie; Piers M. Forster; Thomas Gasser; Marion Gehlen; Dennis Gilfillan; Thanos Gkritzalis; Luke Gregor; Nicolas Gruber; Ian Harris; Kerstin Hartung; Vanessa Haverd; Richard A. Houghton; Tatiana Ilyina; Atul K. Jain; Emilie Joetzjer; Koji Kadono; Etsushi Kato; Vassilis Kitidis; Jan Ivar Korsbakken; Peter Landschützer; Nathalie Lefèvre; Andrew Lenton; Sebastian Lienert; Zhu Liu; Danica Lombardozzi; Gregg Marland; Nicolas Metzl; David R. Munro; Julia E. M. S. Nabel; Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka; Yosuke Niwa; Kevin O'Brien; Tsuneo Ono; Paul I. Palmer; Denis Pierrot; Benjamin Poulter; Laure Resplandy; Eddy Robertson; Christian Rödenbeck; Jörg Schwinger; Roland Séférian; Ingunn Skjelvan; Adam J. P. Smith; Adrienne J. Sutton; Toste Tanhua; Pieter P. Tans; Hanqin Tian; Bronte Tilbrook; Guido van der Werf; Nicolas Vuichard; Anthony P. Walker; Rik Wanninkhof; Andrew J. Watson; David Willis; Andrew J. Wiltshire; Wenping Yuan; Xu Yue; Sönke Zaehle. 2020. "Global Carbon Budget 2020." Earth System Science Data 12, no. 4: 3269-3340.

Journal article
Published: 12 November 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Jiandong Chen; Ming Gao; Shulei Cheng; Wenxuan Hou; Malin Song; Xin Liu; Yu Liu; Yuli Shan. County-level CO2 emissions and sequestration in China during 1997-2017. 2020, 7, 391 .

AMA Style

Jiandong Chen, Ming Gao, Shulei Cheng, Wenxuan Hou, Malin Song, Xin Liu, Yu Liu, Yuli Shan. County-level CO2 emissions and sequestration in China during 1997-2017. . 2020; 7 (1):391.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiandong Chen; Ming Gao; Shulei Cheng; Wenxuan Hou; Malin Song; Xin Liu; Yu Liu; Yuli Shan. 2020. "County-level CO2 emissions and sequestration in China during 1997-2017." 7, no. 1: 391.

Journal article
Published: 16 October 2020 in Journal of Cleaner Production
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Climate change threatens food security and will therefore further challenge sustainable development goals. Bangladesh, China, India, and Myanmar (BCIM), primary rice producers and consumers, have been experiencing the impacts of climate change for decades. This study examines climate-induced changes in BCIM’s rice yield from a meta-analysis based on a 1.5 °C climate change scenario and then presents a Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to simulate the consequent international impacts on rice production, price, trade, and self-sufficiency. Results show that a 1.5 °C scenario will cause a substantial rice yield loss of 5.39%, 12.44%, and 3.87% in China, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, respectively, but will lead to an increase of 8.62% in rice yield in India. Further, global trade responds to climate change, resulting in decreases in paddy and processed rice production for most countries and larger domestic price fluctuations only for BCIM. Rice production loss under a 1.5°C scenario is dampened through trade to adapt to climate change, especially for China, as its paddy rice production loss (0.30%) is far less than the yield loss (5.39%). BCIM countries will adjust their import and export structure with little change in rice self-sufficiency. This study concludes with policy recommendations to adapt to climate change guiding more open rice trade regimes and developing rice varieties.

ACS Style

Feng Wu; Yihan Wang; Yu Liu; Yawen Liu; Yali Zhang. Simulated responses of global rice trade to variations in yield under climate change: Evidence from main rice-producing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 281, 124690 .

AMA Style

Feng Wu, Yihan Wang, Yu Liu, Yawen Liu, Yali Zhang. Simulated responses of global rice trade to variations in yield under climate change: Evidence from main rice-producing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 281 ():124690.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Feng Wu; Yihan Wang; Yu Liu; Yawen Liu; Yali Zhang. 2020. "Simulated responses of global rice trade to variations in yield under climate change: Evidence from main rice-producing countries." Journal of Cleaner Production 281, no. : 124690.

Data description paper
Published: 08 October 2020 in Earth System Science Data
Reads 0
Downloads 0

India is the world's third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide and is developing rapidly. While India has pledged an emissions-intensity reduction as its contribution to the Paris Agreement, the country does not regularly report emissions statistics, making tracking progress difficult. Moreover, all estimates of India's emissions in global datasets represent its financial year, which is not aligned to the calendar year used by almost all other countries. Here I compile monthly energy and industrial activity data allowing for the estimation of India's CO2 emissions by month and calendar year with a short lag. Emissions show clear seasonal patterns, and the series allows for the investigation of short-lived but highly significant events, such as the near-record monsoon in 2019 and the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. Data are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3894394 (Andrew, 2020a).

ACS Style

Robbie M. Andrew. Timely estimates of India's annual and monthly fossil CO2 emissions. Earth System Science Data 2020, 12, 2411 -2421.

AMA Style

Robbie M. Andrew. Timely estimates of India's annual and monthly fossil CO2 emissions. Earth System Science Data. 2020; 12 (4):2411-2421.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Robbie M. Andrew. 2020. "Timely estimates of India's annual and monthly fossil CO2 emissions." Earth System Science Data 12, no. 4: 2411-2421.

Preprint content
Published: 06 October 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Because of the alkaline nature and high calcium content of cements in general, they serve as a CO2 absorbing agent through carbonation processes, resembling silicate weathering in nature. This carbon uptake capacity of cements could abate some of the CO2 emitted during their production. Given the scale of cement production worldwide (4.10 Gt in 2019), a life-cycle assessment is necessary in determining the actual net carbon impacts of this industry. We adopted a comprehensive analytical model to estimate the amount of CO2 that had been absorbed from 1930 to 2019 in four types of cement materials including concrete, mortar, construction waste and cement kiln dust (CKD). Besides, the process CO2 emission during the same period based on the same datasets was also estimated. The results show that 21.12 Gt CO2 (18.12–24.54 Gt CO2, 95 % CI) had been absorbed in the cements produced from 1930 to 2019, with the 2019 annual figure mounting up to 0.90 Gt CO2 yr−1 (0.76–1.07 Gt CO2, 95 % CI). The cumulative uptake is equivalent to approx. 52 % of the process emission, based on our estimation. In particular, China's dominant position in cement production/consumption in recent decades also gives rise to its uptake being the greatest with a cumulative sink of 6.21 Gt CO2 (4.59–8.32 Gt CO2, 95 % CI) since 1930. Among the four types of cement materials, mortar is estimated to be the greatest contributor (approx. 58 %) to the total uptake. Potentially, our cement emission and uptake estimation system can be updated annually and modified when necessary for future low-carbon transitions in the cement industry. All the data described in this study, including the Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis results, are accessible at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4064803.

ACS Style

Rui Guo; Jiaoyue Wang; Longfei Bing; Dan Tong; Philippe Ciais; Steven J. Davis; Robbie M. Andrew; Fengming Xi; Zhu Liu. Global CO2 uptake of cement in 1930–2019. 2020, 2020, 1 -28.

AMA Style

Rui Guo, Jiaoyue Wang, Longfei Bing, Dan Tong, Philippe Ciais, Steven J. Davis, Robbie M. Andrew, Fengming Xi, Zhu Liu. Global CO2 uptake of cement in 1930–2019. . 2020; 2020 ():1-28.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rui Guo; Jiaoyue Wang; Longfei Bing; Dan Tong; Philippe Ciais; Steven J. Davis; Robbie M. Andrew; Fengming Xi; Zhu Liu. 2020. "Global CO2 uptake of cement in 1930–2019." 2020, no. : 1-28.

Preprint content
Published: 02 October 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Pierre Friedlingstein; Michael O'Sullivan; Matthew W. Jones; Robbie M. Andrew; Judith Hauck; Are Olsen; Glen P. Peters; Wouter Peters; Julia Pongratz; Stephen Sitch; Corinne Le Quéré; Josep G. Canadell; Philippe Ciais; Robert B. Jackson; Simone Alin; Luiz E. O. C. Aragão; Almut Arneth; Vivek Arora; Nicholas R. Bates; Meike Becker; Alice Benoit-Cattin; Henry C. Bittig; Laurent Bopp; Selma Bultan; Naveen Chandra; Frédéric Chevallier; Louise P. Chini; Wiley Evans; Liesbeth Florentie; Piers M. Forster; Thomas Gasser; Marion Gehlen; Dennis Gilfillan; Thanos Gkritzalis; Luke Gregor; Nicolas Gruber; Ian Harris; Kerstin Hartung; Vanessa Haverd; Richard A. Houghton; Tatiana Ilyina; Atul K. Jain; Emilie Joetzjer; Koji Kadono; Etsushi Kato; Vassilis Kitidis; Jan Ivar Korsbakken; Peter Landschützer; Nathalie Lefèvre; Andrew Lenton; Sebastien Lienert; Zhu Liu; Danica Lombardozzi; Gregg Marland; Nicolas Metzl; David R Munro; Julia E. M. S. Nabel; Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka; Yosuke Niwa; Kevin O'Brien; Tsuneo Ono; Paul I. Palmer; Denis Pierrot; Benjamin Poulter; Laure Resplandy; Eddy Robertson; Christian Rödenbeck; Jörg Schwinger; Roland Séférian; Ingunn Skjelvan; Adam J. P. Smith; Adrienne J. Sutton; Toste Tanhua; Pieter P. Tans; Hanqin Tian; Bronte Tilbrook; Guido van der Werf; Nicolas Vuichard; Anthony P. Walker; Rik Wanninkhof; Andrew J. Watson; David Willis; Andrew J. Wiltshire; Wenping Yuan; Xu Yue; Sönke Zaehle. Global Carbon Budget 2020. 2020, 1 .

AMA Style

Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastien Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle. Global Carbon Budget 2020. . 2020; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pierre Friedlingstein; Michael O'Sullivan; Matthew W. Jones; Robbie M. Andrew; Judith Hauck; Are Olsen; Glen P. Peters; Wouter Peters; Julia Pongratz; Stephen Sitch; Corinne Le Quéré; Josep G. Canadell; Philippe Ciais; Robert B. Jackson; Simone Alin; Luiz E. O. C. Aragão; Almut Arneth; Vivek Arora; Nicholas R. Bates; Meike Becker; Alice Benoit-Cattin; Henry C. Bittig; Laurent Bopp; Selma Bultan; Naveen Chandra; Frédéric Chevallier; Louise P. Chini; Wiley Evans; Liesbeth Florentie; Piers M. Forster; Thomas Gasser; Marion Gehlen; Dennis Gilfillan; Thanos Gkritzalis; Luke Gregor; Nicolas Gruber; Ian Harris; Kerstin Hartung; Vanessa Haverd; Richard A. Houghton; Tatiana Ilyina; Atul K. Jain; Emilie Joetzjer; Koji Kadono; Etsushi Kato; Vassilis Kitidis; Jan Ivar Korsbakken; Peter Landschützer; Nathalie Lefèvre; Andrew Lenton; Sebastien Lienert; Zhu Liu; Danica Lombardozzi; Gregg Marland; Nicolas Metzl; David R Munro; Julia E. M. S. Nabel; Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka; Yosuke Niwa; Kevin O'Brien; Tsuneo Ono; Paul I. Palmer; Denis Pierrot; Benjamin Poulter; Laure Resplandy; Eddy Robertson; Christian Rödenbeck; Jörg Schwinger; Roland Séférian; Ingunn Skjelvan; Adam J. P. Smith; Adrienne J. Sutton; Toste Tanhua; Pieter P. Tans; Hanqin Tian; Bronte Tilbrook; Guido van der Werf; Nicolas Vuichard; Anthony P. Walker; Rik Wanninkhof; Andrew J. Watson; David Willis; Andrew J. Wiltshire; Wenping Yuan; Xu Yue; Sönke Zaehle. 2020. "Global Carbon Budget 2020." , no. : 1.

Journal article
Published: 09 September 2020 in Journal of Cleaner Production
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Although the “resource curse” hypothesis has been supported by many empirical studies focusing on the transnational and regional levels, there has always been a point of contention about the proper method of estimating and selecting natural resource indicators in literature. This paper proposes a mixed estimation method for panel data of 10 typical oil and gas resource-based cities in China from 1998 to 2015. The results show that resource industry agglomeration can mirror the distribution and dependence on the resource industry by location rather than by merely measuring the influence of the relative scale of resource extraction on economic growth. Using resource industry agglomeration as the main explanatory variable for regional economic growth verifies the resource curse hypothesis and shows the nonlinear characteristics of the negative correlation between resources and economic growth. Despite mostly similar indicator parameter estimates, marked differences exist in measured effects for material capital investments and technological innovation investments. The result of using resource industry agglomeration as the main explanatory variable is basically consistent with the economic theory and is more in line with observed reality than the alternative indicator. The research conclusions can provide evidence and data for index selection in the studies on the mediating effect of resource curse transmission and international comparison.

ACS Style

Yawei Xue; Xuanting Ye; Wei Zhang; Jian Zhang; Yu Liu; Chuanbao Wu; Qi Li. Reverification of the “resource curse” hypothesis based on industrial agglomeration: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 275, 124075 .

AMA Style

Yawei Xue, Xuanting Ye, Wei Zhang, Jian Zhang, Yu Liu, Chuanbao Wu, Qi Li. Reverification of the “resource curse” hypothesis based on industrial agglomeration: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 275 ():124075.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yawei Xue; Xuanting Ye; Wei Zhang; Jian Zhang; Yu Liu; Chuanbao Wu; Qi Li. 2020. "Reverification of the “resource curse” hypothesis based on industrial agglomeration: Evidence from China." Journal of Cleaner Production 275, no. : 124075.

Preprint content
Published: 24 August 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Robbie Andrew. Response to referee 3. 2020, 1 .

AMA Style

Robbie Andrew. Response to referee 3. . 2020; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Robbie Andrew. 2020. "Response to referee 3." , no. : 1.

Preprint content
Published: 24 August 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Robbie Andrew. Response to referee 2. 2020, 1 .

AMA Style

Robbie Andrew. Response to referee 2. . 2020; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Robbie Andrew. 2020. "Response to referee 2." , no. : 1.

Preprint content
Published: 24 August 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Robbie Andrew. Response to referee 1. 2020, 1 .

AMA Style

Robbie Andrew. Response to referee 1. . 2020; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Robbie Andrew. 2020. "Response to referee 1." , no. : 1.

Journal article
Published: 05 August 2020 in Energy Economics
Reads 0
Downloads 0

To mitigate climate change impacts and achieve low-carbon transformation, China has accelerated the development of renewable energy, which is severely challenged by the curtailment of renewable electricity. This study uses a dynamic multi-sectoral CGE model with alternative nesting structures and substitution elasticities for electricity with different power sources to capture the economic and environmental feasibility of reducing renewable electricity curtailment across all economic sectors in China. The reduction of renewable electricity curtailment is simulated during 2021–2030 from the curtailment rates of 2015–2017. We found that the reduction of renewable electricity curtailment would lead to a significant expansion in the output of renewable electricity and a moderate decrease in non-renewable electricity production. Among the renewable electricity, wind power has the most significant output gain (over 9%), with solar power and hydropower outputs rising by over 5% and 1.5%, respectively. However, without the cost-neutrality assumption, the impacts of reducing electricity curtailment would be largely over-estimated with CGE models simulated by improved technology. The disparity between results from the models with alternative nesting constant elasticity of substitution (CES) functions for electricity sectors is highly dependent on the difference between their substitution elasticities. Accompanying the changes in electricity generation, the reduction of renewable electricity curtailment would bring multiple green co-benefits like significantly reducing CO2 and air pollutants emitted from electricity sectors, and improvements in real GDP and employment.

ACS Style

Qi Cui; Yu Liu; Tariq Ali; Ji Gao; Hao Chen. Economic and climate impacts of reducing China's renewable electricity curtailment: A comparison between CGE models with alternative nesting structures of electricity. Energy Economics 2020, 91, 104892 .

AMA Style

Qi Cui, Yu Liu, Tariq Ali, Ji Gao, Hao Chen. Economic and climate impacts of reducing China's renewable electricity curtailment: A comparison between CGE models with alternative nesting structures of electricity. Energy Economics. 2020; 91 ():104892.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qi Cui; Yu Liu; Tariq Ali; Ji Gao; Hao Chen. 2020. "Economic and climate impacts of reducing China's renewable electricity curtailment: A comparison between CGE models with alternative nesting structures of electricity." Energy Economics 91, no. : 104892.

Preprint content
Published: 29 June 2020
Reads 0
Downloads 0
ACS Style

Robbie M. Andrew. Supplementary material to "Timely estimates of India's annual and monthly fossil CO2 emissions". 2020, 1 .

AMA Style

Robbie M. Andrew. Supplementary material to "Timely estimates of India's annual and monthly fossil CO2 emissions". . 2020; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Robbie M. Andrew. 2020. "Supplementary material to "Timely estimates of India's annual and monthly fossil CO2 emissions"." , no. : 1.