| Literature DB >> 36011870 |
Xin Xu1, Yuming Shen1, Hanchu Liu2.
Abstract
China has been reported as the world's largest carbon emitter, facing a tough challenge to meet its carbon peaking goal by 2030. Reducing the carbon intensity of energy-intensive industries (EIICI) is a significant starting point for China to achieve its emission reduction targets. To decompose the overall target into regions, understanding the spatiotemporal differences and drivers of carbon intensity is a solid basis for the scientific formulation of differentiated regional emission reduction policies. In this study, the spatiotemporal differences of EIICI are described using the panel data of 30 provinces in China from 2000 to 2019, and a spatial econometric model is further adopted to analyze its drivers. As indicated by the results: (1) from 2000 to 2019, China's EIICI tended to be reduced continuously, and the spatial differences at the provincial and regional levels expanded continuously, thus revealing the coexistence of "high in the west and low in the east" and "high in the north and low in the south" spatial patterns. (2) There is a significant spatial autocorrelation in the EIICI, characterized by high and high agglomeration and low and low agglomeration types. Moreover, the spatial spillover effects are denoted by a 1% change in the local EIICI, and the adjacent areas will change by 0.484% in the same direction. (3) Technological innovation, energy structure, and industrial agglomeration have direct and indirect effects, thus affecting the local EIICI and the adjacent areas through spatial spillover effects. Economic levels and firm sizes only negatively affect the local EIICI. Environmental regulation merely has a positive effect on adjacent areas. However, the effect of urbanization level on EIICI has not been verified, and the effect of urbanization level on the EIICI has not been verified. The results presented in this study show a scientific insight into the reduction of EIICI in China. Furthermore, policymakers should formulate differentiated abatement policies based on dominant drivers, spatial effects, and regional differences, instead of implementing similar policies in all provinces.Entities:
Keywords: carbon intensity; driver; energy-intensive industries; spatial econometric model; spatial spillover; spatiotemporal differences
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011870 PMCID: PMC9407705 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610235
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Description of the variables.
| Variable | Symbol | Unit | Min | Mean | Max | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon intensity of energy-intensive industries | EIICI | Tons/104 yuan | 0.410 | 5.100 | 23.83 | 4.010 |
| Economic level | ECON | Yuan | 2759 | 34,702 | 160,000 | 27,385 |
| Urbanization | URB | % | 20.35 | 51.06 | 89.60 | 15.02 |
| Technological innovation | INN | Yuan/person | 10.53 | 686.5 | 11,256 | 1187 |
| Energy structure | ES | % | 1.210 | 47.19 | 92.64 | 17.84 |
| Environmental regulation | ER | 104 yuan/tons | 0.020 | 1.700 | 52.09 | 5.310 |
| Industrial agglomeration | AGG | % | 18.06 | 39.09 | 75.77 | 13.10 |
| Firm size | FZ | 104 yuan | 797.5 | 8071 | 31,533 | 6466 |
Distribution of the three major regions in China.
| Regions | Provinces |
|---|---|
| Eastern region | Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Liaoning, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, Shandong, Guangdong, Hainan |
| Central region | Shanxi, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Henan, Hubei, Hunan |
| Western region | Inner Mongolia, Guangxi, Chongqing, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan, Shannxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Ningxia, Xinjiang |
Figure 1Variation coefficient of EIICI across the country and regions from 2000 to 2019.
Figure 2Spatiotemporal differences of China’s EIICI from 2000 to 2019.
Global Moran’s I index and Z statistics of China’s EIICI from 2000 to 2019.
| Year | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moran’I | 0.282 | 0.304 | 0.389 | 0.213 | 0.270 | 0.345 | 0.294 | 0.303 | 0.355 | 0.312 |
| Z statistics | 2.772 | 2.964 | 3.746 | 2.185 | 2.728 | 3.355 | 2.955 | 3.022 | 3.482 | 3.066 |
| 0.006 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.029 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Moran’I | 0.363 | 0.275 | 0.323 | 0.312 | 0.345 | 0.332 | 0.366 | 0.338 | 0.366 | 0.377 |
| Z statistics | 3.505 | 2.842 | 3.169 | 3.059 | 3.369 | 3.265 | 3.581 | 3.306 | 3.562 | 3.649 |
| 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
LM test results of four forms under the common panel model.
| Statistics | Mixed Effects | Spatial Fixed Effects | Time-Period Fixed Effects | Two-Way Fixed Effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | 0.747 | 0.825 | 0.767 | 0.863 |
| Log-L | −201.402 | −191.128 | −44.622 | −20.799 |
| LM-lag | 107.829 (0.000) *** | 201.835 (0.000) *** | 51.732 (0.000) *** | 51.866 (0.000) *** |
| Robust LM-lag | 1.358(0.561) | 3.513 (0.086) * | 2.741 (0.107) | 4.948 (0.015) ** |
| LM-error | 608.595 (0.000) *** | 644.876 (0.000) *** | 326.733 (0.000) *** | 353.689 (0.000) *** |
| Robust LM-error | 501.123 (0.000) *** | 445.782 (0.000) *** | 275.515 (0.000) *** | 304.771 (0.000) *** |
Note: *, **, and ***, respectively, denote significance at different levels (10%, 5% and 1%).
Estimation results of SDM model under three spatial matrix conditions.
| W1 | W2 | W3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LnECON | −0.390 *** (−5.41) | −0.397 *** (−5.98) | −0.443 *** (−5.63) |
| LnURB | −0.120 (−1.07) | −0.0383 (−0.37) | −0.355 ** (−2.75) |
| LnINN | −0.0839 ** (−2.97) | −0.0947 *** (−3.51) | −0.132 *** (−4.41) |
| LnES | 0.375 *** (11.53) | 0.363 *** (11.44) | 0.310 *** (7.90) |
| LnER | 0.0164 (0.96) | 0.0195 (1.25) | 0.0278 (1.54) |
| LnAGG | −0.117 (−1.96) | −0.172 *** (−3.31) | 0.0129 (0.20) |
| LnFZ | −0.191 *** (−5.48) | −0.125 *** (−3.98) | −0.122 ** (−3.15) |
|
| 0.249 *** (4.35) | 0.484 *** (10.80) | 0.285 *** (5.32) |
| W*LnECON | 0.373 ** (2.82) | 0.0972 (0.64) | 0.419 (1.57) |
| W*LnURB | −0.389 (−1.85) | 0.140 (0.56) | 0.787 * (2.13) |
| W*LnINN | −0.318 *** (−5.12) | −0.546 *** (−8.28) | 0.0407(0.46) |
| W*LnES | −0.0922 (−1.32) | −0.105 (−1.13) | −0.0627 (−0.69) |
| W*LnER | 0.0411 * (2.54) | 0.0479 *** (3.29) | 0.0278 (1.61) |
| W*LnAGG | 0.506 ** (3.05) | 0.479 * (2.12) | 1.307 *** (7.06) |
| W*LnFZ | −0.198 (−1.92) | −0.0595 (−0.61) | −0.291 ** (−3.22) |
|
| 0.0204 *** (17.17) | 0.0169 *** (17.56) | 0.0229 *** (17.31) |
| Adj. R2 | 0.894 | 0.917 | 0.858 |
| Log Likelihood | 312.595 | 361.723 | 281.396 |
| N | 600 | 600 | 600 |
Note: *, **, and ***, respectively, denote significance at different levels (10%, 5% and 1%); t statistics in parentheses.
Results of direct effects, indirect effects and total effects for SDM.
| LR_Direct | LR_Indirect | LR_Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LnECON | −0.397 *** (−5.83) | 0.0952 (0.61) | −0.301 (−1.71) |
| LnURB | −0.0443 (−0.43) | 0.159 (0.66) | 0.115 (0.45) |
| LnINN | −0.0915 *** (−3.56) | −0.508 *** (−7.91) | −0.599 *** (−9.11) |
| LnES | 0.320 *** (10.87) | 0.0897 ** (2.72) | 0.410 *** (3.69) |
| LnER | 0.0187 (1.20) | 0.0334 ** (2.53) | 0.0521 (1.73) |
| LnAGG | −0.176 *** (−3.34) | 0.0804 * (2.35) | −0.0951 (−0.66) |
| LnFZ | −0.126 *** (−3.90) | −0.053 (−0.54) | −0.179 (−1.75) |
Note: *, **, and ***, respectively, denote significance at different levels (10%, 5% and 1%); t statistics in parentheses.