• Energy Research

With growing health risks from climate change and a trend of increasing carbon emissions from coal, it is time for China to take action. The rising frequency and severity of extreme weather events in China, such as record-high temperatures, low rainfall, severe droughts, and floods in many regions (along with the compound and ripple effects of these events on human health) have underlined the urgent need for health-centred climate action. The rebound in the country's coal consumption observed in 2022 reflected the great challenge faced by China in terms of its coal phase-down, over-riding the country's gains in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Timely and adequate responses will not only reduce or avoid the impacts of climate-related health hazards but can also protect essential infrastructures from disruptions caused by extreme weather. Health and climate change are inextricably linked, necessitating a high prioritisation of health in adaptation and mitigation efforts. The 2023 China report of the Lancet Countdown continues to track progress on health and climate change in China, while now also attributing the health risks of climate change to human activities and providing examples of feasible and effective climate solutions. This fourth iteration of the China report was spearheaded by the Lancet Countdown regional centre in Asia, based at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. Progress is monitored across 28 indicators in five domains: from climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability (section 1); to the different elements of action, including adaption (section 2) and mitigation, and their health implications (section 3); to economics and finance (section 4); and public and political engagement (section 5). This report was compiled with the contribution of 76 experts from 26 institutions both within and outside of China. The impending global stocktake at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28), the UN initiative on early warning systems (which ...

Despite the emerging carbon neutrality pledges from different countries, it is still unclear how much these pledges would cost and how the costs would compare with the economic benefits. Comparisons at the country level are important for tightening country-specific emissions trajectories to keep the temperature limit targets outlined in the Paris Agreement within reach. We aimed to systematically estimate avoided heat-related labour productivity losses against the costs of climate change mitigation at country and regional levels.In this modelling study, to address the above-mentioned research gaps, we first selected two representative climate change scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0 [RCP6.0] scenario, a higher warming scenario representing limited mitigation pledges before the Paris Agreement with around 3°C warming by the end of this century; and RCP2.6 scenario, a lower warming scenario assuming global temperature rise is limited to 2°C) and estimated heat-related labour productivity loss using the exposure-response function at country and regional levels. By representing the direct heat-related labour productivity losses in a multiregional global computable general equilibrium model, we then did a benefit-cost analysis to quantify the economic benefits of avoided heat-related labour productivity losses as well as the estimated reduction in gross domestic product (GDP) related to carbon reduction.By 2100, the overall economic losses due to heat-related labour productivity loss could range from about 1·5% of global GDP under the RCP6.0 scenario to about 0·1% of global GDP under the RCP2.6 scenario. The productivity losses will be highly concentrated in low-latitude regions, especially in southeast Asia, India, and the Middle East, implying the necessity of additional adaptation measures. By 2100, about 51·8% of global climate change mitigation costs could be offset by economic benefits from reduced labour productivity losses. Cumulatively, about 17·0% of climate change mitigation costs could be offset by the economic benefits between 2020 and 2100, when using a 2% social discounting rate. The costs and benefits of climate change mitigation will be distributed highly unevenly across regions due to their varying climate zones and economic structures. Regions with benefits from reduced productivity losses higher than mitigation costs are mainly low-latitude and tropical regions with lower income and lower emissions, such as southeast Asia, Brazil, and Mexico. More than half the climate change mitigation costs could be offset by the economic benefits by 2100 for the world's largest emitters, including the USA, China, the EU, and India. Low benefit-cost ratios are expected in economies that rely on fossil fuels, such as Canada, Russia, and the Middle East.Although pledging carbon neutrality implies radical changes to most economies, substantial health and economic gains can be achieved by reduced heat-related labour productivity loss, even without accounting for other benefits. The benefit-cost analysis in this study shows the potential for choosing more stringent climate change mitigation pathways in some regions. Regions with low benefit-cost ratios need to restructure their economies to reduce mitigation costs as well as losses from declined fossil fuel exports.National Natural Science Foundation of China, Tsinghua-Toyota Joint Research Fund, the Wellcome Trust, Tsinghua University-China Three Gorges Corporation Joint Research Center for Climate Governance Mechanism and Green Low-carbon Transformation Strategy, the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore (Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise [CREATE] programme), and the Global Energy Interconnection Development and Coorperation Organization.

Climate change is considered to increase economic costs by worsening heat-related labor productivity loss. While extensive global and national research has been conducted on this topic, few studies have analyzed subnational and individual economic impacts, potentially weakening local governments' motivation to tackle climate change. Figuring out the most affected regions and labors could help climate policymakers to identify priority regions and sectors to allocate adaptation resources efficiently, and enhance stakeholder engagement. This study adopted a provincial Computable General Equilibrium model by distinguishing different labors and regions in modelling work to address the aforementioned gap. The study estimated economic costs at different level under three climate change scenarios (lower (SSP126), middle (SSP245), and higher (SSP585) warming scenario). Low-income regions located in southwest part of China (such as Guangxi and Guizhou), would experience the largest economic loss, 3.4-7.1 times higher than high-income in China by 2100 under SSP245 scenario. Additionally, wages for labors highly sensitive to heat in these regions are expected to rise, for example, by an 8.3% rise in Guangxi, driven by the rising demand for these labors. Conversely, others would experience a significant wage decrease, especially those with less sensitivity (e.g., managers). Therefore, we recommended that national financial supports be allocated more to these most affected regions and that government encourage managers provide assistance to workers vulnerable to heat.