Open Access Journal Article

Probability of Achieving NDC and Implications for Climate Policy: CO-STIRPAT Approach

by Ick Jin a,* orcid
a
Director General, Economic Analysis Department of the National Assembly Budget Office, Seoul, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
JEA  2023 2(4):38; https://doi.org/10.58567/jea02040005
Received: 31 May 2023 / Accepted: 17 June 2023 / Published Online: 21 June 2023
View Full-Text
Download PDF

Abstract

This paper presents an analytical framework to assess the probability of achieving nationally determined contributions (NDC). The prediction model based on the Kaya identity is used to simulate the pathway of carbon emission until the target year. Applying the modified STIRPAT framework (named CO-STIRPAT) to data observed in South Korea shows that the probability that the predicted pathway with existing climate technology will stay above the NDC target pathway is significantly high. The result suggests that it is necessary to design a climate policy to improve energy intensity and carbon intensity by accelerating the advance in climate technology.

Keywords: Climate policy; climate technology; climate finance; NDC; probability of achieving the NDC target; IPAT; ImPACT; STIRPAT; CO-STIRPAT; carbon emission; energy efficiency; carbon intensity; Kaya identity;
Copyright: © 2023 by Jin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Show Figures

Share and Cite

ACS Style
Jin, I. Probability of Achieving NDC and Implications for Climate Policy: CO-STIRPAT Approach. Journal of Economic Analysis, 2023, 2, 38. https://doi.org/10.58567/jea02040005
AMA Style
Jin I. Probability of Achieving NDC and Implications for Climate Policy: CO-STIRPAT Approach. Journal of Economic Analysis; 2023, 2(4):38. https://doi.org/10.58567/jea02040005
Chicago/Turabian Style
Jin, Ick 2023. "Probability of Achieving NDC and Implications for Climate Policy: CO-STIRPAT Approach" Journal of Economic Analysis 2, no.4:38. https://doi.org/10.58567/jea02040005
APA style
Jin, I. (2023). Probability of Achieving NDC and Implications for Climate Policy: CO-STIRPAT Approach. Journal of Economic Analysis, 2(4), 38. https://doi.org/10.58567/jea02040005

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

References

  1. Ang, B. W. (2006). Monitoring Changes in Economy-Wide Energy Efficiency: From Energy-GDP Ratio to Composite Efficiency Index. Energy Policy 34 (5): 574–82.
  2. Ang, B. W., and F. Q. Zhang. (2000). A Survey of Index Decomposition Analysis in Energy and Environmental Studies. Energy 25 (12): 1149–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(00)00039-6.
  3. Aziz, Ghazala, and Mohd Saeed Khan. (2022). Empirical Relationship Between Creativity and Carbon Intensity: A Case of Saudi Arabia. Frontiers in Environmental Science 10 (March). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.856736.
  4. Bauer, Nico, Katherine Calvin, Johannes Emmerling, Oliver Fricko, Shinichiro Fujimori, Jérôme Hilaire, Jiyong Eom, et al. (2017). Shared Socio-Economic Pathways of the Energy Sector – Quantifying the Narratives. Global Environmental Change 42 (January): 316–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.006.
  5. Bosetti, Valentina, Carlo Carraro, and Marzio Galeotti. (2006). The Dynamics of Carbon and Energy Intensity in a Model of Endogenous Technical Change. The Energy Journal 27: 191–205.
  6. Chontanawat, Jaruwan. (2020). Relationship between Energy Consumption, CO2 Emission and Economic Growth in ASEAN: Cointegration and Causality Model. Energy Reports, The 6th International Conference on Energy and Environment Research - Energy and environment: challenges towards circular economy, 6 (February): 660–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.09.046.
  7. Commoner, Barry. (1971). The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. First Edition. New York: Random House Inc.
  8. Dietz, Thomas, and Eugene A. Rosa. (1994). Rethinking the Environmental Impacts of Population, Affluence and Technology. Human Ecology Review 1 (2): 277–300.
  9. Dong, Cong, Xiucheng Dong, Qingzhe Jiang, Kangyin Dong, and Guixian Liu. (2018). What Is the Probability of Achieving the Carbon Dioxide Emission Targets of the Paris Agreement? Evidence from the Top Ten Emitters. Science of The Total Environment 622–623 (May): 1294–1303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.093.
  10. Ehrlich, Paul R., and John P. Holdren. (1972). A Bulletin Dialogue on the ‘Closing Circle’: Critique: One-Dimensional Ecology. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 28 (5): 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1972.11457930.
  11. Elzen, Michel den, Takeshi Kuramochi, Niklas Höhne, Jasmin Cantzler, Kendall Esmeijer, Hanna Fekete, Taryn Fransen, et al. (2019). Are the G20 Economies Making Enough Progress to Meet Their NDC Targets? Energy Policy 126 (March): 238–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.027.
  12. Friedlingstein, Pierre, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O’Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, et al. (2022). Global Carbon Budget 2021. Earth System Science Data 14 (4): 1917–2005. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022.
  13. Grubler, Arnulf, Charlie Wilson, Nuno Bento, Benigna Boza-Kiss, Volker Krey, David L. McCollum, Narasimha D. Rao, et al. (2018). A Low Energy Demand Scenario for Meeting the 1.5 °C Target and Sustainable Development Goals without Negative Emission Technologies. Nature Energy 3 (6): 515–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6.
  14. Höhne, Niklas, Hanna Fekete, Michel G.J. den Elzen, Andries F. Hof, and Takeshi Kuramochi. (2018). Assessing the Ambition of Post-2020 Climate Targets: A Comprehensive Framework. Climate Policy 18 (4): 425–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1294046.
  15. Huang, Junbing, Qiang Liu, Xiaochen Cai, Yu Hao, and Hongyan Lei. (2018). The Effect of Technological Factors on China’s Carbon Intensity: New Evidence from a Panel Threshold Model. Energy Policy 115 (April): 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.008.
  16. Hwang, YoungSeok, Jung-Sup Um, JunHwa Hwang, and Stephan Schlüter. (2020). Evaluating the Causal Relations between the Kaya Identity Index and ODIAC-Based Fossil Fuel CO2 Flux. Energies 13 (22): 6009. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13226009.
  17. Jin, Ick. (2018). “Is ESG a Systematic Risk Factor for US Equity Mutual Funds?” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 8 (1): 72–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2017.1395251.
  18. Jin, Ick. (2022a). “Systematic ESG Risk and Passive ESG Investing.” The Journal of Portfolio Management 48 (5). https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2022.1.344.
  19. Jin, Ick. (2022b). “ESG-Screening and Factor-Risk-Adjusted Performance: The Concentration Level of Screening Does Matter.” Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 12 (4): 1125–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1837501.
  20. Jin, Ick. (2022c). “Systematic ESG Risk and Decision Criteria for Optimal Portfolio Selection.” The Journal of Portfolio Management 48 (10): 206–25. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.2022.1.418.
  21. Jin, Ick, and Yunhee Kim. (2017). Analysis of the Impact of Achieving NDC on Public Climate Finance. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 7 (4): 309–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2016.1275934.
  22. Kaya, Yoichi, and Keiichi Yokobori, eds. (1997). Environment, Energy, and Economy: Strategies for Sustainable. Tokyo ; New York: United Nations Univ.
  23. Kim, Jootae, Sungjin Son, and Ick Jin. 2022. “The Effects of Shareholding of the National Pension Fund on Environmental, Social, Governance, and Financial Performance: Evidence from the Korean Manufacturing Industry.” Sustainability 14 (18): 11788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811788.
  24. Le Quéré, Corinne, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Charlie Wilson, Jale Tosun, Robbie Andrew, Robert J. Andres, Josep G. Canadell, Andrew Jordan, Glen P. Peters, and Detlef P. van Vuuren. (2019). Drivers of Declining CO2 Emissions in 18 Developed Economies. Nature Climate Change 9 (3): 213–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0419-7.
  25. Li, Yunyan, Jian Dai, Shuo Zhang, and Hua Cui. (2023). Dynamic Prediction and Driving Factors of Carbon Emission in Beijing, China, under Carbon Neutrality Targets. Atmosphere 14 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14050798.
  26. Liobikienė, Genovaitė, and Mindaugas Butkus. (2017). The European Union Possibilities to Achieve Targets of Europe 2020 and Paris Agreement Climate Policy. Renewable Energy 106 (June): 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.01.036.
  27. Liu, Peiran R., and Adrian E. Raftery. (2021). Country-Based Rate of Emissions Reductions Should Increase by 80% beyond Nationally Determined Contributions to Meet the 2 °C Target. Communications Earth & Environment 2 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00097-8.
  28. Perino, Grischa, Johannes Jarke-Neuert, Felix Schenuit, Martin Wickel, and Cathrin Zengerling. (2022). Closing the Implementation Gap: Obstacles in Reaching Net-Zero Pledges in the EU and Germany. Politics and Governance 10 (3): 213–25. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i3.5326.
  29. Peters, Glen P., Robbie M. Andrew, Josep G. Canadell, Sabine Fuss, Robert B. Jackson, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Corinne Le Quéré, and Nebojsa Nakicenovic. (2017). Key Indicators to Track Current Progress and Future Ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change 7 (2): 118–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3202.
  30. Raftery, Adrian E., Alec Zimmer, Dargan M. W. Frierson, Richard Startz, and Peiran Liu. (2017). Less than 2 °C Warming by 2100 Unlikely. Nature Climate Change 7 (9): 637–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3352.
  31. Roberts, J. Timmons, and Peter E Grimes. (1997). Carbon Intensity and Economic Development 1962–1991: A Brief Exploration of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development 25 (2): 191–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(96)00104-0.
  32. Roelfsema, Mark, Heleen L. van Soest, Mathijs Harmsen, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Christoph Bertram, Michel den Elzen, Niklas Höhne, et al. (2020). Taking Stock of National Climate Policies to Evaluate Implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nature Communications 11 (1): 2096. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15414-6.
  33. Rogelj, Joeri, Michel den Elzen, Niklas Höhne, Taryn Fransen, Hanna Fekete, Harald Winkler, Roberto Schaeffer, Fu Sha, Keywan Riahi, and Malte Meinshausen. (2016). Paris Agreement Climate Proposals Need a Boost to Keep Warming Well below 2 °C. Nature 534 (7609): 631–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307.
  34. Rogelj, Joeri, Oliver Fricko, Malte Meinshausen, Volker Krey, Johanna J. J. Zilliacus, and Keywan Riahi. (2017). Understanding the Origin of Paris Agreement Emission Uncertainties. Nature Communications 8 (1): 15748. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15748.
  35. Rosa, Eugene A., and Thomas Dietz. (1998). Climate Change and Society: Speculation, Construction and Scientific Investigation. International Sociology 13 (4): 421–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858098013004002.
  36. Štreimikienė, Dalia, and Tomas Balezentis. (2016). Kaya Identity for Analysis of the Main Drivers of GHG Emissions and Feasibility to Implement EU ‘20–20–20’ Targets in the Baltic States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 58 (May): 1108–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.311.
  37. Waggoner, P. E., and J. H. Ausubel. (2002). A Framework for Sustainability Science: A Renovated IPAT Identity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99 (12): 7860–65.
  38. Wang, Mansi, Arshed Noman, Munir Mubbasher, Samma Faiz Rasool, and Weiwen Lin. (2021). Investigation of the STIRPAT Model of Environmental Quality: A Case of Nonlinear Quantile Panel Data Analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability 23 (8): 12217–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01165-3.
  39. Wu, Yanrui. (2012). Energy Intensity and Its Determinants in China’s Regional Economies. Energy Policy, Modeling Transport (Energy) Demand and Policies, 41 (February): 703–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.034.
  40. York, Richard, Eugene A Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. (2003). STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: Analytic Tools for Unpacking the Driving Forces of Environmental Impacts. Ecological Economics 46 (3): 351–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(03)00188-5.
  41. Zhang, Xing-Ping, and Xiao-Mei Cheng. (2009). Energy Consumption, Carbon Emissions, and Economic Growth in China. Ecological Economics 68 (10): 2706–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.011.
  42. Zhao, Yuhong, Ruirui Liu, Zhansheng Liu, Liang Liu, Jingjing Wang, and Wenxiang Liu. (2023). A Review of Macroscopic Carbon Emission Prediction Model Based on Machine Learning. Sustainability 15 (8): 6876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086876.