Should low-carbon capital investment be allocated earlier to achieve carbon emission reduction?

Abatement effort can bring about different consequences towards emissions, which is mainly due to the mechanism within the abatement investments. In this paper, the study aims to study in more depth how differentiated evanescent and inertia abatement investments should be allocated to achieve carbon reduction, and also to show that the abatement path and costs differ sensibly between these two allocations. Inertia performance is the critical determinant to this distinction, however which can be influenced deeply by the overestimation of the economic growth. The work confirms the results in theory that the abatement trends differentiated between the evanescent and the inertia case, in which the former is more likely to be an early-move action and however the latter tends to suffer from the converted burden with the underassessment of the growth. Turning to the numerical method, the work gauges the magnitude of the differentiated abatement efforts as well as the burden shifting between them. These qualitative results also confirm our ratiocination, which further help to analyze some intricate disturbances beyond the power of theory. Also we can find that the total cost is increasing due to the introduction of the operating cost, and the accumulated capital of the inertia abatement is more smooth and weighs less. The peak of the accumulated capital is dropping by 38%. Moreover, the evanescent abatement effort is more attractive than the basic case, which is risen universally by 22%. The study derives some policy implications for the ranking to the implementation of the abatement efforts and for incentive instruments to be set up at the industrial level.