| Literature DB >> 35954894 |
Yanran Liu1, Lei Tang2, Guangfu Liu2.
Abstract
Energy consumption and industrial activities are the primary sources of carbon emissions. As the "world's factory" and the largest carbon emitter, China has been emphasizing the core role of technological innovation in promoting industrial structure upgrades (ISU) and energy efficiency (EE) to reduce carbon emissions from industrial production and energy consumption. This study investigated the mechanism (through ISU and EE) and spillover effect of technological innovation on carbon emission reduction using the panel dataset of 30 Chinese provinces from 2008 to 2019 and spatial econometrics models. The study concluded that (1) technological innovation had a negative direct effect on provincial carbon emissions, while it also showed a spatial spillover effect on neighboring provinces; (2) technological innovation had an indirect effect on provincial carbon emissions reduction through the mediation of energy efficiency improvement, while the mediation effect of industrial structure upgrading is not yet significant; and (3) the effect of technological innovation on carbon emission reduction showed heterogeneity in the eastern, central, and western regions of China. This study provided empirical and theoretical references to decision-makers in China and other developing countries in promoting technological and carbon control policies. More specifically, direct technology investment and indirect investment in industrial structure upgrades and energy efficiency could help with regional carbon emissions reduction.Entities:
Keywords: carbon emission reduction; empirical analysis; spatial econometrics; spatial mediation model; technological innovation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954894 PMCID: PMC9368629 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159543
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Analysis framework.
Figure 2Flowchart of mediating effect test.
Eight types of fossil energy standard coal and carbon emission factors.
| Types | Unit | Standard Coal | Carbon Emission Factor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw coal | kg of standard coal/kg | 0.7143 | 0.7476 |
| Coke | kg of standard coal/kg | 0.9700 | 0.1128 |
| Crude oil | kg of standard coal/kg | 1.4300 | 0.5854 |
| Gasoline | kg of standard coal/kg | 1.4700 | 0.5532 |
| Kerosene | kg of standard coal/kg | 1.4717 | 0.3416 |
| Diesel fuel | kg of standard coal/kg | 1.4600 | 0.5913 |
| Natural gas | t standard coal/million cubic meters | 13.3000 | 0.4479 |
| Fuel oil | kg of standard coal/kg | 1.4286 | 0.6176 |
Definition and data source of the variables.
| Variable | Definition | Data Source | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | CO2 | The amount of Chinese provincial carbon emissions | China Environmental Statistical Yearbook |
| Independent variables | G | Total factor productivity | China Science and Technology Yearbook |
| Mediating variables | ISU | The ratio of the tertiary industry’s value-added to the secondary industry | China Statistical Yearbook |
| EE | The terms of energy consumption per unit of output value | China Environmental Statistical Yearbook | |
| Control variables | U | The ratio of urban population to total population at the end of the year in the region | China Statistical Yearbook |
| FDI | The actual total foreign use in the region | China Statistical Yearbook | |
| PGDP | Regional GDP per capita | China Statistical Yearbook | |
| EN | Regional total energy consumption | China Statistical Yearbook | |
| MD | Regional Marketability Index | China Marketization Index database | |
| POP | The regional mid-year population | China Statistical Yearbook | |
Descriptive statistics and pairwise zero-order correlations.
| Variables | Obs | Mean | S.D. | Min | Max | (1) | (2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) lnCO₂ | 360 | 9.086 | 0.744 | 7.036 | 10.655 | ||
| (2) G | 360 | 1.121 | 0.313 | 0.463 | 2.416 | 0.093 * | |
| (3) ISU | 360 | 1.101 | 0.635 | 0.499 | 5.169 | −0.315 *** | 0.026 |
| (4) EE | 360 | 1.431 | 0.734 | 0.401 | 3.928 | −0.049 | −0.238 *** |
| (5) lnPGDP | 360 | 10.141 | 0.476 | 8.739 | 11.354 | −0.252 *** | −0.042 |
| (6) lnFDI | 360 | 12.719 | 1.649 | 7.310 | 15.086 | 0.473 *** | 0.219 *** |
| (7) U | 360 | 55.521 | 13.186 | 29.112 | 89.632 | −0.019 | 0.237 *** |
| (8) lnEN | 360 | 9.377 | 0.672 | 7.034 | 10.625 | 0.926 *** | 0.188 *** |
| (9) MD | 360 | 6.445 | 1.926 | 2.33 | 11.4 | 0.288 *** | 0.318 *** |
| (10) LnPOP | 360 | 8.181 | 0.768 | 4.117 | 9.352 | 0.692 *** | 0.126 ** |
| Variables | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) |
| (1) lnCO₂ | |||||||
| (2) G | |||||||
| (3) ISU | |||||||
| (4) EE | −0.304 *** | ||||||
| (5) lnPGDP | −0.055 | 0.108 ** | |||||
| (6) lnFDI | 0.119 ** | −0.743 *** | −0.259 *** | ||||
| (7) U | 0.567 *** | −0.439 *** | −0.261 *** | 0.494 *** | |||
| (8) lnEN | −0.242 *** | −0.203 *** | −0.237 *** | 0.571 *** | 0.068 | ||
| (9) MD | 0.233 *** | −0.755 *** | −0.184 *** | 0.809 *** | 0.677 *** | 0.439 *** | |
| (10) LnPOP | −0.227 *** | −0.462 *** | −0.093 * | 0.595 *** | −0.141 *** | 0.80 *** | 0.419 *** |
Note: *: p < 0.1, **: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.01.
Global Moran’s index CO2 under spatial distance weight matrix.
| Year | I | Year | I | Year | I |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 315 *** | 2012 | 280 ** | 2016 | 252 ** |
| 2009 | 295 *** | 2013 | 274 ** | 2017 | 241 ** |
| 2010 | 296 *** | 2014 | 263 ** | 2018 | 243 ** |
| 2011 | 297 ** | 2015 | 266 ** | 2019 | 226 ** |
Note: *: p < 0.1, **: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.01.
Figure 3Moran’s I scatter plot of carbon emission.
Model selection.
| Indicator | Statistic | Indicator | Statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LM-Spatial_Lag | 29.052 | 0.000 | Wald-Spatial_Lag | 92.16 | 0.000 |
| Robust-LM-Spatial_Lag | 38.240 | 0.000 | LR-Spatial_Lag | 81.71 | 0.000 |
| LM-Spatial_Erro | 0.002 | 0.969 | Wald-Spatial_Erro | 75.53 | 0.000 |
| Robust-LM-Spatial Erro | 9.190 | 0.002 | LR-Spatial_Erro | 76.57 | 0.000 |
Benchmark regression results.
| CO₂ | Coef. | Std. Err. | Z | P > z | Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main | ||||||
| G | −0.083 | 0.021 | −3.960 | 0.000 | −0.123 | −0.042 |
| lnPGDP | 0.005 | 0.009 | 0.530 | 0.594 | −0.012 | 0.022 |
| U | 0.006 | 0.002 | 2.590 | 0.010 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| lnFDI | −0.005 | 0.009 | −0.580 | 0.563 | −0.022 | 0.012 |
| lnEN | 1.159 | 0.059 | 19.540 | 0.000 | 1.043 | 1.275 |
| MD | 0.025 | 0.009 | 2.900 | 0.004 | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| lnPOP | 0.004 | 0.015 | 0.31 | 0.758 | −0.024 | 0.033 |
| W× | ||||||
| G | −0.374 | 0.056 | −6.620 | 0.000 | −0.484 | −0.263 |
| lnPGDP | 0.019 | 0.018 | 1.120 | 0.261 | −0.015 | 0.054 |
| U | −0.006 | 0.004 | −1.290 | 0.197 | −0.014 | 0.003 |
| lnFDI | 0.069 | 0.013 | 5.190 | 0.000 | 0.043 | 0.096 |
| lnEN | −0.202 | 0.138 | −1.460 | 0.143 | −0.473 | 0.068 |
| MD | −0.040 | 0.016 | −2.540 | 0.011 | −0.071 | −0.009 |
| lnPOP | 0.012 | 0.030 | 0.410 | 0.682 | −0.047 | 0.072 |
| Spatial | ||||||
| rho | 0.177 | 0.084 | 2.100 | 0.036 | 0.012 | 0.341 |
| Sigma2_e | 0.004 | 0.001 | 13.38 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
Direct effect, indirect effect, and the total effect of SDM.
| Variables | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | Std. Err. | Coef. | Std. Err. | Coef. | Std. Err. | |
| G | −0.095 *** | 0.022 | −0.463 *** | 0.078 | −0.558 *** | 0.084 |
| lnPGDP | 0.005 | 0.009 | 0.024 | 0.020 | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| U | 0.005 *** | 0.002 | −0.005 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| lnFDI | −0.002 | 0.008 | 0.082 *** | 0.016 | 0.080 *** | 0.017 |
| lnEN | 1.161 *** | 0.056 | −0.007 | 0.110 | 1.154 *** | 0.095 |
| MD | 0.024 *** | 0.008 | −0.044 ** | 0.018 | −0.020 | 0.018 |
| lnPOP | 0.005 | 0.015 | 0.017 | 0.037 | 0.022 | 0.044 |
Note: *: p < 0.1, **: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.01.
Results of robustness tests.
| Effect | Weight Substitution | Measurement Substitution | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coef. | Std. Err. | Coef. | Std. Err. | |
| Direct effect | −0.067 *** | 0.022 | −0.031 * | 0.018 |
| Indirect effect | −0.402 *** | 0.072 | −0.211 *** | 0.064 |
| Total effect | −0.469 *** | 0.078 | −0.243 *** | 0.071 |
Note: *: p < 0.1, **: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.01.
Results of the spatial mediation model.
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnCO2 | ISU | lnCO2 | EE | lnCO2 | |
| G | −0.083 *** | −0.014 | −0.086 *** | −0.187 *** | −0.064 *** |
| ISU | −0.072 *** | ||||
| EE | 0.090 *** | ||||
| lnPGDP | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.004 | 0.024 | 0.003 |
| U | 0.006 *** | −0.031 *** | 0.003 | −0.018 *** | 0.007 *** |
| lnFDI | −0.005 | 0.039 * | −0.002 | −0.035 ** | −0.002 |
| lnEN | 1.159 *** | −0.345 ** | 1.132 *** | 1.059 *** | 1.068 *** |
| MD | 0.025 *** | −0.038 * | 0.023 *** | −0.047 *** | 0.028 *** |
| lnPOP | 0.004 | −0.079 ** | −0.001 | −0.017 | 0.005 |
| Fixed effect | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| obs | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 | 360 |
| R2 | 0.8307 | 0.6712 | 0.8366 | 0.7187 | 0.8355 |
Note: *: p < 0.1, **: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.01.
Figure 4The impact of technology innovation on carbon emissions. Note: *: p < 0.1, **: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.01.
Heterogeneity results of the eastern, central, and western regions.
| Regions | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Total Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern Region | −0.029 | −0.154 ** | −0.184 ** |
| Central Region | −0.027 | −0.092 *** | −0.118 ** |
| Western Region | −0.141 *** | −0.146 | −0.287 |
Note: *: p < 0.1, **: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.01.
Figure 5The effect of technological innovation on carbon emissions in eastern, central, and western regions. Note: *: p < 0.1, **: p < 0.05, ***: p < 0.01. z-values in parentheses.