Large emission mitigation potential from sequencing fossil fuel extraction infrastructure retirement in China

iScience, vol. 29, pp. 117563

Abstract

China's fossil fuel infrastructure could lock in substantial emissions across both extraction and downstream use, making a well-defined phaseout strategy urgent for achieving carbon neutrality. We analyze the differences between the current retirement strategy and the proposed emission-oriented retirement sequencing strategy by quantifying the emission mitigation effect, employment benefit, and cost-saving advantage of strategies. We show that China's fossil fuel emissions totaled 9,850 MtCO 2 e in 2023 and are projected to reach 98.9–148.5 GtCO 2 e cumulatively during 2024–2050 under existing plans across energy-demand scenarios. Strategically sequencing retirements could avoid a cumulative 3.8–4.8 GtCO 2 e by 2050, more than annual European emissions, while simultaneously increasing employment by 4–6 million full-time equivalent-years and reducing net total system costs by 245–507 billion CNY (around 34–71 billion USD). These results highlight the climate, economic, and social benefits of sequencing-based phaseout strategies.

Authors 11

1. Yi Jin

   Jiangsu University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Industrial Economics, School of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China

2. Xiaoyang Zhong corresponding Aachen Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)

   Leiden University · International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis · Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School · Tsinghua University

   Affiliation as printed

   Energy, Climate, and Environment (ECE) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

   Institute of Environment and Ecology, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China

   Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden 2333 CC, the Netherlands

3. Arnold Tukker Aachen Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)

   Leiden University · Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden 2333 CC, the Netherlands

   Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, den Haag, the Netherlands

4. Xu Tang

   China University of Petroleum, Beijing

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China

5. Elina Brutschin

   International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

   Affiliation as printed

   Energy, Climate, and Environment (ECE) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

6. Zhida Ma

   China University of Petroleum, Beijing

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (Beijing), Beijing 102249, China

7. Yingchao Chen

   Shandong Institute of Business and Technology

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Economics, Shandong Technology and Business University, Yantai, Shandong 255000, China

8. Wenchao Li

   Jiangsu University

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Mathematical Sciences, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China

9. Lixin Tian

   Jiangsu University

   Affiliation as printed

   School of Mathematical Sciences, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, Jiangsu 212013, China

10. Bas J. van Ruijven

    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis

    Affiliation as printed

    Energy, Climate, and Environment (ECE) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

11. Paul Behrens Aachen Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML)

    Leiden University · University of Oxford

    Affiliation as printed

    Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, Leiden 2333 CC, the Netherlands

    Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK