| Literature DB >> 32046165 |
Dongri Han1, Tuochen Li1, Shaosong Feng1, Ziyi Shi1.
Abstract
Facing the pressures of international carbon emission reduction, the transformation into a low-carbon economy has become a common issue of all countries. The core of developing a low-carbon economy is to increase carbon productivity, which can be measured as the economic benefits of unit carbon emissions. Therefore, using province-level panel data in China from 2009 to 2017, we analyze the carbon productivity level of each region, and empirically investigate the threshold effect of clean energy development on carbon productivity under different technological innovation levels. The results show that the carbon productivity is rising, and China's economic development pattern has been shifting towards low-carbon and sustainable development. Furthermore, the driving force of clean energy development on carbon productivity is not monotonously increasing (decreasing) but is a "double threshold effect" of technological innovation capability. Finally, based on the research conclusions and realistic requirements of China's low-carbon economic transformation, this paper proposes improving carbon productivity from the aspects of innovation capability improvement and institutional guarantee.Entities:
Keywords: carbon productivity; clean energy development; technological innovation capability; threshold model
Year: 2020 PMID: 32046165 PMCID: PMC7037615 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17031060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Descriptive statistics of variables.
| Variable | Mean | SD | Variance | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.557 | 2.196 | 0.242 | 0.058 | 4.570 |
|
| 6.750 | 0.704 | 1.289 | 3.149 | 9.431 |
|
| 11.592 | 1.541 | 2.375 | 7.424 | 15.054 |
|
| 0.460 | 0.101 | 0.007 | 0.190 | 0.590 |
|
| 9.075 | 1.735 | 1.056 | 6.764 | 13.525 |
|
| 0.553 | 0.649 | 0.017 | 0.299 | 0.896 |
|
| 0.103 | 1.772 | 0.032 | 0.008 | 1.102 |
|
| 1.045 | 0.594 | 0.352 | 0.50 | 4.237 |
Figure 1The carbon productivity data of China’s eastern, central, and western regions for 2009 to 2017.
Test results of threshold significance.
| Threshold | Critical Value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 5% | 10% | |||
| Single threshold | 38.78 ** | 0.0400 | 93.7684 | 35.0672 | 29.3558 |
| Double threshold | 30.76 * | 0.0800 | 55.3421 | 33.9254 | 26.5353 |
| Triple threshold | 12.71 | 0.6700 | 72.8003 | 57.1308 | 49.5696 |
**, * denote significant levels at 5%, and 10%, respectively.
Threshold values and confidence intervals.
| Model | Threshold Estimators | 95% Confidence Intervals |
|---|---|---|
| Single threshold | 12.4019 | [12.3856, 12.4241] |
| Double threshold | 13.6268 | [13.5615, 13.6844] |
Figure 2Estimation and confidence interval for the first threshold (a) and the second threshold (b) of energy misallocation.
Estimation results of model parameters.
|
| Coef. | Std. Err | t | 95% Conf. Interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 6.726 | 0.632 | 10.64 | 0.000 | 5.480 | 7.971 |
|
| 0.061 | 0.029 | 2.13 | 0.034 | 0.004 | 0.117 |
|
| 0.506 | 0.515 | 0.98 | 0.326 | −0.508 | 1.521 |
|
| 0.404 | 0.155 | 2.60 | 0.010 | 0.098 | 0.709 |
|
| 1.414 | 0.119 | 11.91 | 0.000 | 1.180 | 1.648 |
|
| −0.010 | 0.018 | −0.55 | 0.583 | −0.046 | 0.026 |
|
| 0.017 | 0.018 | 0.92 | 0.360 | −0.019 | 0.053 |
|
| 0.058 | 0.019 | 3.03 | 0.003 | 0.020 | 0.096 |
| cons | −4.907 | 0.474 | −10.34 | 0.000 | −5.842 | −3.973 |
Distribution of relative thresholds of technology innovation levels in 30 provinces of China from 2009 to 2017.
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | Number | Region | Number | |
| 2009 | Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong | 3 | 0 | |
| 2010 | Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong | 3 | 0 | |
| 2011 | Zhejiang, Shandong, Guangdong | 3 | Jiangsu | 1 |
| 2012 | Beijing, Shanghai, Zhejiang, Shandong | 4 | Jiangsu, Guangdong | 2 |
| 2013 | Beijing, Shanghai, Anhui, Shandong, Sichuan | 5 | Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong | 3 |
| 2014 | Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Anhui, Fujian, Shandong, Henan, Hubei, Sichuan, Shanxi | 10 | Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong | 3 |
| 2015 | Beijing, Tianjin, Liaoning, Shanghai, Anhui, Fujian, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Chongqing, Sichuan, Shanxi | 12 | Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shandong, Guangdong | 4 |
| 2016 | Tianjin, Liaoning, Shanghai, Anhui, Fujian, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Chongqing, Sichuan, Shanxi | 11 | Beijing, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shandong, Guangdong | 5 |
| 2017 | Tianjin, Hebei, Liaoning, Shanghai, Anhui, Fujian, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Chongqing, Sichuan, Shanxi | 12 | Beijing, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shandong, Guangdong | 5 |
Figure 3Technological innovation threshold level time trend.
Results of the robustness test.
|
| Coef. | Std. Err | t | 95% Conf. Interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −0.100 | 0.186 | −0.53 | 0.593 | −0.466 | 0.267 |
|
| 0.024 | 0.008 | 2.78 | 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
|
| 0.242 | 0.146 | 1.66 | 0.098 | −0.045 | 0.530 |
|
| 0.164 | 0.045 | 3.65 | 0.000 | 0.076 | 0.253 |
|
| −0.082 | 0.035 | −2.33 | 0.021 | −0.151 | −0.013 |
|
| −0.004 | 0.005 | −0.78 | 0.436 | −0.015 | 0.006 |
|
| 0.011 | 0.005 | 2.07 | 0.139 | 0.001 | 0.022 |
|
| 0.027 | 0.006 | 4.73 | 0.000 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| cons | 0.300 | 0.139 | 2.15 | 0.032 | 0.026 | 0.575 |