| Literature DB >> 36231784 |
Wanlin Yu1, Jinlong Luo1.
Abstract
China's carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) is an institutional arrangement that China intends to explore as a means of energy conservation and emission reduction. It is the core of China's goal of achieving carbon peaking and carbon neutrality. This paper regards the introduction of pilot carbon emission trading policies as a quasi-natural experiment. Propensity Score Matching (PSM), Differences-in-Differences (DID), and spatial Durbin methods were used to evaluate the policy effects of pilot carbon emission trading policies on the carbon intensity of Chinese cities. We empirically tested the impact mechanism using the panel data of 281 cities at the prefecture level and above in China from 2006 to 2019. The results show that (1) the pilot policy of carbon emission trading has significantly reduced the carbon intensity of Chinese cities and shows characteristics of heterogeneity; (2) the dynamic effect test shows that the mitigation effect of the pilot carbon emission trading policy has increased gradually with time; (3) the mediation effect shows that the pilot carbon emission trading policy alleviates urban pollution in the region by improving the level of environmental governance and jointly reduces urban carbon intensity by increasing the level of green technology innovation; (4) the Durbin test suggests that pilot carbon emissions trading policy enforcement can significantly improve the carbon intensity of the area surrounding the city. In summary, the national carbon emissions trading market appears to be a successful experiment that also can contribute to China's sustainable development. Its promise in achieving the "double carbon" target provides important policy implications.Entities:
Keywords: carbon emission trading pilot; carbon intensity; environmental governance level; green technology innovation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231784 PMCID: PMC9566359 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912483
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Theoretical background of the study.
Description of variables.
| Index | Measure |
|---|---|
| PGDP | Real GDP per capita in cities is measured in logarithms (Yuan per person) |
| IND | Ratio of the added value of secondary production to the gross city product (%) |
| PP | The logarithm of the resident population at the end of the year (million) |
| OPEN | Ratio of foreign investment to gross city product (%) |
| FS | The ratio of total social loans to gross urban product (%) |
| FD | The ratio of total social savings to gross urban product (%) |
| WODK | The proportion of the use of environmental words in the total words of the government work report. (e.g., environmental protection, green, low-carbon, energy-saving and emission reduction, etc.) (%) |
Figure 2Kernel density function before and after PSM in treatment group and control group.
Balance test of propensity score matching.
| Variable | Sample Match | The Mean | Standard Deviation (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treat | Control | Deviation | To Reduce | |||
| PGDP | Before | 10.576 | 10.432 | 20 | 99.3 | 0.000 |
| After | 10.576 | 10.575 | 0.1 | 0.982 | ||
| IND | Before | 3.818 | 3.844 | −11.2 | 99.3 | 0.026 |
| After | 3.818 | 3.836 | 7.8 | 0.203 | ||
| PP | Before | 6.084 | 5.962 | 19 | 97 | 0.000 |
| After | 6.084 | 6.088 | −0.6 | 0.926 | ||
| OPEN | Before | 0.003 | 0.003 | 23.7 | 95.6 | 0.000 |
| After | 0.003 | 0.003 | 1 | 0.877 | ||
| FS | Before | 0.725 | 0.727 | −1.2 | −550.3 | 0.824 |
| After | 0.725 | 0.706 | 7.8 | 0.182 | ||
| FD | Before | 0.820 | 0.812 | 1.8 | −236.8 | 0.694 |
| After | 0.820 | 0.794 | 5.9 | 0.323 | ||
| WODK | Before | 0.003 | 0.003 | 11.5 | 78.1 | 0.017 |
| After | 0.003 | 0.004 | -2.5 | 0.692 | ||
Descriptive statistics.
| Variable | Size | Means | Std. Dev. | Min. | Max. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARBON | 3432 | −2.876 | 0.650 | −5.113 | −0.355 |
| PGDP | 3432 | 10.453 | 0.691 | 7.926 | 13.056 |
| IND | 3432 | 3.840 | 0.242 | 2.460 | 4.450 |
| PP | 3432 | 5.980 | 0.611 | 3.959 | 8.136 |
| OPEN | 3432 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0 | 0.019 |
| FS | 3432 | 0.727 | 0.263 | 0.083 | 2.547 |
| FD | 3432 | 0.814 | 0.411 | 0.112 | 2.683 |
| WODK | 3432 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0 | 0.012 |
Dual difference regression.
| Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treated ∗ time | −0.625 *** | −0.173 *** | −0.150 *** | −0.142 *** | −0.316 *** |
| (0.264) | (0.026) | (0.024) | (0.024) | (0.027) | |
| PGDP | −0.643 *** | −0.618 *** | −0.636 *** | −0.288 *** | |
| (0.009) | (0.010) | (0.011) | (0.024) | ||
| IND | 0.178 *** | 0.155 *** | 0.248 *** | 0.116 ** | |
| (0.034) | (0.031) | (0.038) | (0.051) | ||
| PP | −0.616 *** | −0.576 *** | −0.197 *** | ||
| (0.075) | (0.083) | (0.013) | |||
| OPEN | 1.394 | 1.759 | −3.730 | ||
| (1.962) | (1.836) | (2.606) | |||
| FS | 0.127 *** | 0.501 *** | |||
| (0.037) | (0.043) | ||||
| FD | 0.010 | −0.109 *** | |||
| (0.034) | (0.027) | ||||
| WODK | 3.211 | 9.683 * | |||
| (1.96) | (5.746) | ||||
| Constant | −4.061 *** | 1.952 *** | 5.448 *** | 4.932 *** | −0.911 *** |
| (0.001) | (0.156) | (0.427) | (0.488) | (0.298) | |
| Id | YES | YES | YES | YES | NO |
| Year | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.153 | 0.894 | 0.903 | 0.905 | 0.451 |
| Sample size | 3432 | 3432 | 3432 | 3432 | 2839 |
Note: *, **, and *** represent the significance levels of 10%, 5%, and 1% respectively. The clustering standard error is shown in brackets.
Regional heterogeneity test.
| Variable | The Eastern Region | The Central Region | In the Western Region |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treated ∗ time | −0.067 * | −0.207 *** | −0.239 *** |
| (0.035) | (0.020) | (0.021) | |
| Constant | 6.132 *** | 4.524 *** | 4.777 ** |
| (1.194) | (0.694) | (1.954) | |
| Control | YES | YES | YES |
| Id | YES | YES | YES |
| Year | YES | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.909 | 0.916 | 0.900 |
| Sample size | 1324 | 1405 | 703 |
Note: *, **, and *** represent the significance levels of 10%, 5%, and 1% respectively. The clustering standard error is shown in brackets.
Quantile regression.
| Variable | M = 0.1 | M = 0.3 | M = 0.5 | M = 0.7 | M = 0.9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treated ∗ time | −0.203 *** | −0.220 *** | −0.328 *** | −0.435 *** | −0.520 *** |
| (0.055) | (0.033) | (0.021) | (0.028) | (0.045) | |
| Constant | 0.049 | 0.041 | 0.255 | 0.459 | 1.513 *** |
| (0.355) | (0.232) | (0.345) | (0.283) | (0.359) | |
| Control | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Id | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Year | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.283 | 0.286 | 0.289 | 0.283 | 0.264 |
| Sample size | 3432 | 3432 | 3432 | 3432 | 3432 |
Note: *** represent the significance levels of 1%. The clustering standard error is shown in brackets
Figure 3Quantile regression trend of carbon intensity of cities under ETS.
Figure 4Parallel trend test.
Results of replacing the matched DID.
| Variable | Mahalanobis Distance Matches | Caliper Match | Radius of a Match | Nuclear Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treated ∗ time | −0.168 *** | −0.141 *** | −0.168 *** | −0.141 *** |
| (0.026) | (0.024) | (0.026) | (0.024) | |
| Constant | 4.530 *** | 4.932 *** | 4.530 *** | 4.861 *** |
| (0.469) | (0.488) | (0.469) | (0.493) | |
| Control | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Id | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Year | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| R2 | 0.872 | 0.905 | 0.872 | 0.904 |
| Sample size | 3934 | 3432 | 3934 | 3434 |
Note: *** represent the significance levels of 1%. The clustering standard error is shown in brackets.
Figure 5Placebo test.
Results of mediating effect test.
| Variable | Green Technology Innovation | Environmental Governance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
| Inno | Carbon | Trash | Carbon | |
| Treated ∗ time | 0.931 *** | −0.055 *** | −0.119 *** | −0.079 *** |
| (0.140) | (0.008) | (0.039) | (0.008) | |
| Inno | −0.016 *** | |||
| (0.001) | ||||
| Trash | 0.013 *** | |||
| (0.003) | ||||
| Constant | −30.76 *** | 1.884 *** | 3.910 ** | 1.169 *** |
| (5.346) | (0.317) | (1.515) | (0.305) | |
| Control | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Id | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Year | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Sobel test | Z = −6.094 *** | Z = −2.333 ** | ||
| The Bootstrap test | [−0.023, −0.007] (BC) | [−0.004, −0.0003] (BC) | ||
| R2 | 0.765 | 0.979 | 0.851 | 0.985 |
| Sample size | 3432 | 3432 | 3432 | 3432 |
Note: ** and *** represent the significance levels of 5%, and 1% respectively. The clustering standard error is shown in brackets.
Results of spatial correlation test.
| Year | Moran’s I | Z Value | Year | Moran’s I | Z Value | Year | Moran’s I | Z Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 0.141 *** | 27.849 | 2011 | 0.128 *** | 25.399 | 2016 | 0.172 *** | 33.931 |
| 2007 | 0.136 *** | 26.840 | 2012 | 0.128 *** | 25.332 | 2017 | 0.173 *** | 34.062 |
| 2008 | 0.131 *** | 25.889 | 2013 | 0.133 *** | 26.313 | 2018 | 0.168 *** | 33.182 |
| 2009 | 0.130 *** | 25.670 | 2014 | 0.143 *** | 28.317 | 2019 | 0.183 *** | 36.064 |
| 2010 | 0.133 *** | 26.251 | 2015 | 0.156 *** | 30.766 |
Note: *** represent the significance levels of 1%. The clustering standard error is shown in brackets.
Regression results of spatial Durbin model.
| Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treated ∗ time | −0.141 *** | 0.168 *** | −0.141 *** |
| (0.024) | (0.026) | (0.024) | |
| W ∗ Treated ∗ time | 0.399 *** | ||
| Log-likelihood | 4258.507 | ||
| sigma2 | 0.006 *** | ||
| Control | YES | ||
| Id | YES | ||
| Year | YES | ||
| R2 | 0.316 | ||
| Sample size | 3 934 | ||
Note: *** represent the significance levels of 1%. The clustering standard error is shown in brackets.