Cost, market, and policy constraints on mitigating climate change through afforestation in China

被引:1
|
作者
Zhang, Xianghua [1 ,2 ]
Fleskens, Luuk [2 ]
Huang, Yingli [1 ]
Huang, Yanan [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Northeast Forestry Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Harbin 150040, Peoples R China
[2] Wageningen Univ & Res, Soil Phys & Land Management Grp, NL-6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands
[3] Beijing Normal Univ Zhuhai, Technol Res Ctr Water Sci, Zhuhai 519087, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Afforestation; Constraints; Climate change mitigation; Carbon dioxide removal; CARBON-DIOXIDE REMOVAL; LAND-BASED MITIGATION; PROPOSALS; TARGETS; TIME;
D O I
10.1016/j.envint.2024.108652
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Afforestation is a promising nature-based climate solution for mitigating climate change, but it is subject to a complex web of biophysical, cost-benefit, market, and policy processes. Although its biophysical feasibility has been established, the cost, market, and policy constraints that affect climate change mitigation through afforestation are still unclear. Here, we estimate such cost, market, and policy constraints on the basis of biophysical feasibility. Our findings reveal that implementation costs are a more relevant constraint than opportunity costs on mitigating climate change through afforestation. The China Certified Emission Reduction market currently provides only a 0.308 % incentive for climate change mitigation through afforestation, due to market access constraints. The current market prices of China Certified Emission Reduction, China Carbon Emissions Trading Exchange, and Nature Based Carbon Offset in Voluntary Carbon Market constrain 88.15 %, 87.95 %, and 85.75 % of CO2 removal actions through afforestation, compared to the carbon price scenario (US$62.97 tCO & Zcaron;) of the EU Emissions Trading System. Moreover, land policy under the scenarios of prohibiting conversion of cultivated land to forest and forest restoration in degraded areas exhibit 8.87-29.59 % and 65.16-74.10 % constraints, respectively, on mitigating climate change through afforestation compared to land-use freedom conversion scenarios from 2020 to 2060. Thus, enhancing the incentive price of CO2 removal, addressing the market access barrier, strengthening cooperation between global carbon markets, and exploring carbon-neutral and food multioriented land policies can be valuable sources of mitigation efforts over the next 40 years.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Mitigating climate change through afforestation: New cost estimates for the United States
    Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg
    Plantinga, Andrew J.
    Alig, Ralph J.
    RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2014, 36 (01) : 83 - 98
  • [2] Cost of mitigating climate change through reforestation in China
    Zhang, Xianghua
    Busch, Jonah
    Huang, Yingli
    Fleskens, Luuk
    Qin, Huiyan
    Qiao, Zhenhua
    FRONTIERS IN FORESTS AND GLOBAL CHANGE, 2023, 6
  • [3] The role of China in mitigating climate change
    Paltsev, Sergey
    Morris, Jennifer
    Cai, Yongxia
    Karplus, Valerie
    Jacoby, Henry
    ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2012, 34 : S444 - S450
  • [4] Climate change policy and policy change in China
    Wiener, Jonathan B.
    UCLA LAW REVIEW, 2008, 55 (06) : 1805 - 1826
  • [6] Mapping the future afforestation distribution of China constrained by a national afforestation plan and climate change
    Song, Shuaifeng
    Zhang, Xuezhen
    Yan, Xiaodong
    BIOGEOSCIENCES, 2024, 21 (11) : 2839 - 2858
  • [7] China: A Responsible Country in Mitigating Climate Change
    Pan, Xubin
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2010, 44 (21) : 7981 - 7981
  • [8] China's capacities for mitigating climate change
    Richerzhagen, Carmen
    Scholz, Imme
    WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 2008, 36 (02) : 308 - 324
  • [9] Mitigating climate change through carbon pricing: An emerging policy debate in South Africa
    Vorster, Shaun
    Winkler, Harald
    Jooste, Meagan
    CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT, 2011, 3 (03) : 242 - 258
  • [10] United States policy for mitigating global climate change
    Bergman, P
    Kane, R
    Kildow, J
    WASTE MANAGEMENT, 1997, 17 (5-6) : 309 - 314