| Literature DB >> 35409653 |
Yu Cai1,2, Haiyan Duan1, Zhiqiang Luo3, Zhiyuan Duan1, Xian'en Wang1.
Abstract
How will the dual structural effects, represented by industrial structure and energy structure, affect the future correlation between economic growth and CO2 emissions? Taking Jilin Province as an example, this study explores the dynamic driving mechanism of dual structural effects on the correlation between economic growth and CO2 emissions by innovatively building an integrated simulation model from 1995 to 2015 and setting different scenarios from 2016 to 2050. Correspondingly, the concept of marginal utility and the method of variance decomposition analysis are introduced to reveal the mechanism. The results show that the energy structure is different while the industrial structure tends to be similar when CO2 emissions reach the peak under different scenarios. The slower the dual structure adjustment, the more significant the upward trend appears before the peak. The contribution of the dual structural effects to CO2 emissions caused by unit GDP growth is basically the same in peak year. With the transformation of socio-economy, the positive driving effect of the industrial structure will gradually weaken, while the negative driving effect of the energy structure will gradually increase. The methods and results presented can provide insights into sensible trade-offs of CO2 emissions and economic growth in different countries/regions during structural transitions.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 emissions; driving mechanism; dual structural effects; economic growth; marginal utility; transformation region
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35409653 PMCID: PMC8997654 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19073970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Integrated simulation modelling framework. (The numbers in the figure are consistent with the corresponding equations in the main context. Arrows without letters represent quantitative relationships; arrows with “S” represent representational relationships; arrows with “O” represent coverage relationships.)
Figure 2Marginal utility and total utility.
The descriptive statistics of the variables.
| Variable | Observation | Standard Error | Max | Mean | Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | 50.36 | 222.10 | 144.76 | 86.78 | |
| 21 | 456 | 1406 | 564 | 114 | |
| 21 | 20.13 | 85.54 | 38.60 | 14.04 | |
| 21 | 5.61 | 53.41 | 45.04 | 37.14 | |
| 21 | 8.18 | 34.77 | 15.69 | 5.71 | |
| 21 | 9.92 | 78.70 | 68.55 | 53.00 | |
| 21 | 1.13 | 3.70 | 1.94 | 0.50 | |
| 21 | 1.04 | 6.48 | 5.06 | 3.23 |
Descriptions of the scenarios.
| Scenario | Characteristic | Variables | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| S1 | Continuation of the historical development trajectory | Continuation of the historical annual change rate of −0.6% | Continuation of the historical annual change rate of 4.3% | Continuation of the historical annual change rate of 6.9% from 2016 to 2020 | Annual change rate of 4.8% from 2016 to 2050, reaching 18% in 2050 |
| S2 | Reaching an ideal development state as in the future planning. | A certain degree of adjustment at an annual change rate of −1% | A certain degree of adjustment at an annual change rate of 4.8% | Annual change rate of 6.5% from 2016 to 2020 | |
| S3 | Basically in sync with the average level of China | In-depth adjustment with an annual change rate of −1.4% | In-depth adjustment with an annual change rate of 5.2% | Annual change rate of 6.2% from 2016 to 2020 | |
| S4 | Basically reaching the level of the developed countries | More in-depth adjustment with an annual change rate of −1.8%, lower than 30% in 2050 | More in-depth adjustment with an annual change rate of 5.6%, more than 40% in 2050 | Annual change rate of 6.0% from 2016 to 2020 | |
Settings for variables in four scenarios during 2016–2050.
| Variable | Scenario | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2035 | 2040 | 2045 | 2050 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 48.34 | 46.91 | 45.52 | 44.17 | 42.86 | 41.59 | 40.36 | |
| S2 | 47.38 | 45.06 | 42.85 | 40.75 | 38.75 | 36.85 | 35.05 | |
| S3 | 46.43 | 43.27 | 40.32 | 37.58 | 35.02 | 32.64 | 30.42 | |
| S4 | 45.49 | 41.54 | 37.94 | 34.64 | 31.64 | 28.89 | 26.38 | |
| S1 | 8.50 | 11.37 | 15.14 | 19.79 | 23.62 | 26.46 | 27.95 | |
| S2 | 8.91 | 12.79 | 17.93 | 23.77 | 28.10 | 31.48 | 33.58 | |
| S3 | 9.29 | 13.84 | 20.05 | 26.21 | 31.58 | 36.08 | 38.87 | |
| S4 | 9.73 | 15.25 | 22.40 | 29.98 | 36.47 | 41.26 | 44.45 | |
| S1 | 1963 | 2677 | 3566 | 4638 | 5892 | 7203 | 8679 | |
| S2 | 1927 | 2578 | 3370 | 4301 | 5360 | 6521 | 7745 | |
| S3 | 1900 | 2518 | 3260 | 4122 | 5087 | 6130 | 7211 | |
| S4 | 1882 | 2495 | 3184 | 3970 | 4828 | 5734 | 6647 | |
| S1–S4 | 4.42 | 5.59 | 7.07 | 8.94 | 11.30 | 14.29 | 18.06 | |
| S1 | 11.84 | 9.76 | 8.05 | 6.63 | 5.47 | 4.51 | 3.71 | |
| S2 | 11.45 | 9.13 | 7.28 | 5.81 | 4.63 | 3.69 | 2.94 | |
| S3 | 11.11 | 8.60 | 6.65 | 5.15 | 3.98 | 3.08 | 2.38 | |
| S4 | 10.78 | 8.09 | 6.07 | 4.56 | 3.42 | 2.57 | 1.93 |
Parameter estimation results for Equations (4)–(6).
| Parameter | Coefficient | T-statistics | Probability | Adjusted R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.9121 *** | 3.7908 | 0.0016 | 0.9625 |
|
| 0.3387 *** | 1.2684 | 0.0000 | |
|
| 0.8670 *** | 3.5843 | 0.0026 | |
|
| −0.1494 *** | −2.9451 | 0.0044 | |
|
| −6.5402 *** | −22.8653 | 0.0000 | |
|
| −0.9302 *** | −12.9450 | 0.0000 | 0.9998 |
|
| 1.2181 *** | 271.8653 | 0.0000 | |
|
| −0.3525 *** | −4.4893 | 0.0002 | 0.9356 |
|
| 4.9235 *** | 19.5926 | 0.0000 |
Note: *** indicates significance at the 1% level.
Parameter estimation results for Equation (1).
| Variable | Scenario | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | |
| ln | 3.56 *** | 4.00 *** | 4.40 *** | 4.79 *** |
| ln | −0.16 *** | −0.19 *** | −0.21 *** | −0.24 *** |
|
| −9.47 *** | −11.16 *** | −12.70 *** | −14.24 *** |
| Adjusted R2 | 0.9968 | 0.9808 | 0.9803 | 0.9943 |
Note: *** indicates significance at the 1% level.
Figure 3The correlation between GDP and CO2 emissions during 2016–2050 in four scenarios.
Values of the variables at the turning point in four scenarios.
| Variable | Scenario | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | |
| 4.51 | 5.81 | 6.65 | 8.09 | |
| 14.29 | 8.94 | 7.07 | 5.59 | |
| 22.98 | 16.60 | 13.90 | 11.21 | |
| 41.59 | 40.75 | 40.32 | 41.54 | |
| 45.73 | 51.25 | 54.53 | 58.80 | |
| 1.84 | 2.48 | 2.93 | 3.58 | |
Figure 4CO2 emissions trend and emissions peak in different scenarios from 2016 to 2050.
Contributions of structural effects (CES and CIS) to CUG (%).
| Year | CIS | CES | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | |
| 2016–2020 | 38.44 | 37.43 | 36.67 | 35.64 | −5.56 | −6.48 | −7.69 | −8.56 |
| 2021–2025 | 37.21 | 35.85 | 34.37 | 33.01 | −6.11 | −6.99 | −8.25 | −9.38 |
| 2026–2030 | 36.28 | 34.21 | 31.98 | 31.18 | −6.44 | −7.74 | −8.87 | −10.24 |
| 2031–2035 | 35.13 | 32.97 | 30.92 | 28.77 | −7.07 | −8.16 | −9.73 | −11.24 |
| 2036–2040 | 33.24 | 31.33 | 29.03 | 27.01 | −7.86 | −9.48 | −10.57 | −12.49 |
| 2041–2045 | 32.45 | 30.15 | 28.01 | 26.12 | −8.66 | −10.06 | −11.96 | −13.45 |
| 2046–2050 | 30.46 | 29.03 | 27.31 | 25.38 | −9.34 | −11.01 | −12.93 | −14.32 |
| Average | 32.45 | 32.97 | 31.98 | 33.01 | −8.66 | −8.16 | −8.87 | −9.38 |
As the stability and co-integration of the time series variables have been verified, the VAR model was constructed directly and a stationarity test was performed for the model. The inverse roots of the AR characteristic polynomial in the four scenarios were all less than 1, indicating that the VAR model is a stationary system and the VDA could be conducted on this basis.