| Literature DB >> 36231801 |
Yawen Kong1, Chunyu Liu2, Shuguang Liu1,3, Shan Feng3, Hongwei Zhou1.
Abstract
Precise decoupling of CO2 emission and economic development holds promise for the sustainability of China in a post-industrialization era. This paper measures the energy-related CO2 emissions of 57 cities in the Yellow River Basin (YRB) during 2006-2019 and analyzes their decoupling states and dynamic evolution paths based on the derived general analytical framework of two-dimensional decoupling states to decompose their decoupling index using the LMDI method. The results show that (1) from 2006 to 2019, the economic growth and CO2 emissions of cities along the YRB are dominated by weak decoupling at an average contribution of 53.2%. Their dynamic evolution paths show fluctuations of "decoupling-recoupling" states, while the evolution trend is relatively ideal. (2) The factors of economic output, energy intensity and population scale inhibit the decoupling in most cities, which contribute 39.44%, 19.34%, and 2.75%, respectively, while the factors of industrial structure, carbon emission coefficient, and energy structure promote the decoupling in most cities in the YRB, with average contributions of -12.63%, -8.36%, and -0.67%, respectively. (3) The significant increase in the contribution of energy intensity is the main reason for the "Worse" path of cities, while the industrial structure and energy structure factors promote to the "Better" path of cities. This work satisfies the urgent need for the ecological protection of the YRB and opens new avenues for its high-quality development.Entities:
Keywords: LMDI method; Yellow River Basin; energy-related carbon dioxide emissions; general two-dimensional decoupling model
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231801 PMCID: PMC9565123 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912503
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
The relationship between coefficient values and EKC curves.
| Primary Term | Secondary Term | Tertiary Term | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| U-shaped |
|
|
|
| Inverted U-shaped |
|
|
|
| N-shaped |
|
|
|
| Inverted N-shaped |
Figure 1Classification of decoupling states.
A general two-dimensional decoupling analysis framework.
| Curve Types |
| Per Capita GDP | Two-Dimensional Decoupling Analysis Framework |
|---|---|---|---|
| U-shaped | 0 |
| |
| 1.2 |
| ||
| Inverted U-shaped | 0 |
| |
| 1.2 |
| ||
| N-shaped | 0 |
| |
| 1.2 |
| ||
| Inverted N-shaped | 0 |
| |
| 1.2 |
|
Notes. We assign appropriate values to the nine decoupling states. (a) When , SD-HE is the most ideal state for decoupling, let SD-HE be 4, and let SD-ME and SD-LE be 3 and 2, respectively. Similarly, let WD-HE, WD-ME, and WD-LE be 3, 2, and 1, respectively. Let END-HE, END-ME, and END-LE be 2, 1, and 0, respectively. (b) When , RD-HE is a relatively ideal decoupling state, and let it be 3, and let RD-ME and RD-LE be 2 and 1, respectively. Let WND-HE, WND-ME, and WND-LE be 2, 1, and 0. Let SND-HE, SND-ME, and SND-LE be 1, 0, and −1, respectively.
Variables influencing decoupling.
| Variables | Indicator Explanation | Symbol |
|---|---|---|
| Population scale | Resident population at year-end |
|
| Economic output | GDP per capita |
|
| Industrial structure | Ratio of the second industrial increment to GDP |
|
| Power intensity | Ratio of the total energy consumption to the second industrial increment |
|
| Power structure | The proportion of consumption of energy |
|
| Carbon emission coefficient | Ratio of CO2 emission emitted by energy |
|
Figure 2The research area.
Conversion factors of standard coal and CO2 emission factors.
| Energy Types | Average Low Calorific Capacity (kJ/kg) | Conversion Factor of Standard Coal (kgce/kg, m3) | CO2 Content per Unit Calorific Value (t CO2/TJ) | Oxidation Rate of CO2 | CO2 Emission Factor (kgCO2/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw coal | 20,908 | 0.7143 | 26.37 | 0.94 | 1.9003 |
| Natural gas | 38,931 | 12.143 | 17.20 | 0.99 | 2.1622 |
| Liquefied petroleum gas | 50,179 | 1.7143 | 15.30 | 0.98 | 3.1013 |
Notes. 1. The low calorific capacity of 1 kg standard coal (1 kgce) is equal to that of 29307 kJ fuel. 2. The average low calorific capacity and conversion factor of standard coal are from the General Rules for Calculating Comprehensive Energy Consumption (GB/T 2589–2008). The CO2 content per unit calorific value and Oxidation rate of CO2 are from Guidelines for Preparing Provincial Greenhouse Gas Inventories (National Development and Reform Commission No. [2011] 1041). 3. CO2 emission factor = Average low calorific capacity × Conversion factor of standard coal × CO2 content per unit calorific value × Oxidation rate of CO2.
Regional division of China’s power grid.
| Region | Provinces and Cities |
|---|---|
| Northern China | Beiijng City, Tianjin City, Hebei Province, Shanxi Province, Shandong Province, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region |
| Northeast China | Liaoning Province, Jilin Province, Heilongjiang Province |
| Eastern China | Shanghai City, Jiangsu Province, Zhejiang Province, Anhui Province, Fujian Province |
| Central China | Henan Province, Hubei Province, Hunan Province, Jiangxi Province, Sichuan Province, Chongqing City |
| Northwest China | Shaanxi Province, Gansu Province, Qinghai Province, Ningxia Autonomous Region, Xinjiang Autonomous Region |
| Southern Region | Guangdong Province, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Yunnan Province, Guizhou Province, Hainan Province |
CO2 emission factors of each regional grid from 2006–2019.
| Year | CO2 Emission Factors (kgCO2/Kwh) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northern China | Northeast China | Eastern China | Central China | Northwest China | Southern Region | |
| 2006 | 0.9825 | 1.0045 | 0.8640 | 0.9445 | 0.8410 | 0.7784 |
| 2007 | 1.0302 | 1.0517 | 0.9047 | 0.9746 | 0.8498 | 0.8434 |
| 2008 | 0.9928 | 1.0314 | 0.8888 | 0.9735 | 0.8712 | 0.8712 |
| 2009 | 0.8935 | 0.9267 | 0.7826 | 0.8529 | 0.8340 | 0.7880 |
| 2010 | 0.8704 | 0.9097 | 0.7691 | 0.7707 | 0.8413 | 0.7134 |
| 2011 | 0.8114 | 0.8420 | 0.7495 | 0.7244 | 0.7926 | 0.6323 |
| 2012 | 0.7980 | 0.8520 | 0.7567 | 0.7339 | 0.7656 | 0.6568 |
| 2013 | 0.8039 | 0.8619 | 0.7613 | 0.7385 | 0.7418 | 0.6496 |
| 2014 | 0.7995 | 0.8409 | 0.7478 | 0.7231 | 0.7045 | 0.6775 |
| 2015 | 0.7598 | 0.7803 | 0.7029 | 0.6508 | 0.6310 | 0.6304 |
| 2016 | 0.7253 | 0.7798 | 0.6785 | 0.6150 | 0.6392 | 0.5874 |
| 2017 | 0.7129 | 0.7196 | 0.6485 | 0.6063 | 0.6194 | 0.5422 |
| 2018 | 0.7080 | 0.6778 | 0.5886 | 0.5714 | 0.6430 | 0.5029 |
| 2019 | 0.7119 | 0.6613 | 0.5896 | 0.5721 | 0.6665 | 0.5089 |
Figure 3Decoupling states of cities in the YRB, 2006–2019. (a) Decoupling states of cities, 2006–2010. (b) Decoupling states of cities, 2010–2015. (c) Decoupling states of cities, 2015–2019.
Figure 4The fitting curve of CO2 emissions and per capital GDP, 2006–2019.
The regression result of CO2 emissions and per capital GDP, 2006–2019.
| Variable | Coefficients | z-Statistic | Prob. |
|---|---|---|---|
| lng | 3.032 | 6.40 | 0.000 |
| lng2 | −0.651 | −4.38 | 0.000 |
Two-dimensional decoupling states and dynamic path of cities in the YRB, 2006–2019.
| City | Decoupling State | Dynamic Path | Total Score | Rank | Type | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006–2010 | 2010–2015 | 2015–2019 | |||||
| Zibo | WD-HE | SD-HE | WD-HE | 3-4-3 | 10 | 1 | I |
| Lanzhou | SD-ME | SD-ME | WD-HE | 3-3-3 | 9 | 2 | I |
| Sanmenxia | SD-ME | SD-HE | END-HE | 3-4-2 | 9 | 3 | I |
| Jinan | WD-HE | SD-HE | END-HE | 3-4-2 | 9 | 4 | I |
| Xining | SD-ME | WD-ME | WD-HE | 3-2-3 | 8 | 5 | II |
| Shizuishan | WD-ME | SD-ME | WD-HE | 2-3-3 | 8 | 6 | II |
| Hohhot | END-HE | WD-HE | WD-HE | 2-3-3 | 8 | 7 | II |
| Baotou | WD-HE | END-HE | WD-HE | 3-2-3 | 8 | 8 | II |
| Wuhai | WD-HE | WD-HE | END-HE | 3-3-2 | 8 | 9 | II |
| Ordos | END-HE | SD-HE | END-HE | 2-4-2 | 8 | 10 | II |
| Taiyuan | WD-ME | WD-HE | WD-HE | 2-3-3 | 8 | 11 | II |
| Luoyang | END-ME | SD-HE | WD-HE | 1-4-3 | 8 | 12 | II |
| Dongying | WD-HE | WD-HE | END-HE | 3-3-2 | 8 | 13 | II |
| Taian | SD-ME | SD-ME | END-HE | 3-3-2 | 8 | 14 | II |
| Baiyin | WD-ME | SD-ME | WD-ME | 2-3-2 | 7 | 15 | II |
| Wuwei | SD-ME | SD-ME | END-ME | 3-3-1 | 7 | 16 | II |
| Datong | SD-ME | WD-ME | WD-ME | 3-2-2 | 7 | 17 | II |
| Changzhi | WD-ME | SD-ME | WD-ME | 2-3-2 | 7 | 18 | II |
| Jincheng | WD-ME | WD-ME | WD-HE | 2-2-3 | 7 | 19 | II |
| Yuncheng | WD-ME | SD-ME | WD-ME | 2-3-2 | 7 | 20 | II |
| Linfen | SD-ME | WD-ME | WD-ME | 3-2-2 | 7 | 21 | II |
| Xi’an | WD-ME | WD-HE | END-HE | 2-3-2 | 7 | 22 | II |
| Baoji | WD-ME | WD-ME | WD-HE | 2-2-3 | 7 | 23 | II |
| Xianyang | WD-ME | SD-ME | WD-ME | 2-3-2 | 7 | 24 | II |
| Yan’an | WD-ME | WD-ME | WD-HE | 2-2-3 | 7 | 25 | II |
| Zhengzhou | END-ME | WD-HE | WD-HE | 1-3-3 | 7 | 26 | II |
| Hebi | WD-ME | WD-ME | WD-HE | 2-2-3 | 7 | 27 | II |
| Xinxiang | WD-ME | SD-ME | WD-ME | 2-3-2 | 7 | 28 | II |
| Jiaozuo | WD-ME | WD-HE | END-HE | 2-3-2 | 7 | 29 | II |
| Yinchuan | WD-ME | SD-HE | END-HE | 2-2-2 | 6 | 30 | II |
| Bayannao | WD-ME | WD-ME | END-HE | 2-2-2 | 6 | 31 | II |
| Yangquan | WD-ME | WD-ME | WD-ME | 2-2-2 | 6 | 32 | II |
| Luliang | WD-ME | SD-ME | END-ME | 2-3-1 | 6 | 33 | II |
| Tongchuan | WD-ME | SD-ME | END-ME | 2-3-1 | 6 | 34 | II |
| Kaifeng | WD-ME | WD-ME | WD-ME | 2-2-2 | 6 | 35 | II |
| Anyang | WD-ME | WD-ME | WD-ME | 2-2-2 | 6 | 36 | II |
| Jining | WD-ME | WD-ME | END-HE | 2-2-2 | 6 | 37 | II |
| Dezhou | WD-ME | WD-ME | END-HE | 2-2-2 | 6 | 38 | II |
| Binzhou | WD-ME | END-HE | END-HE | 2-2-2 | 6 | 39 | II |
| Pingliang | SD-LE | WD-ME | END-ME | 2-2-1 | 5 | 40 | II |
| Wuzhong | END-ME | SD-ME | END-ME | 1-3-1 | 5 | 41 | II |
| Weinan | WD-LE | WD-ME | WD-ME | 1-2-2 | 5 | 42 | II |
| Puyang | WD-ME | WD-ME | END-ME | 2-2-1 | 5 | 43 | II |
| Liaocheng | END-ME | WD-ME | END-HE | 1-2-2 | 5 | 44 | II |
| Zhongwei | SD-LE | END-ME | END-ME | 2-1-1 | 4 | 45 | III |
| Ulanqab | END-ME | WD-ME | END-ME | 1-2-1 | 4 | 46 | III |
| Shuozhou | END-ME | END-ME | WD-ME | 1-1-2 | 4 | 47 | III |
| Xinzhou | END-LE | WD-ME | WD-ME | 0-2-2 | 4 | 48 | III |
| Yulin | END-ME | END-ME | END-HE | 1-1-2 | 4 | 49 | III |
| Shangluo | WD-LE | WD-ME | END-ME | 1-2-1 | 4 | 50 | III |
| Tianshui | WD-LE | WD-LE | END-ME | 1-1-1 | 3 | 51 | III |
| Qingyang | WD-LE | END-ME | END-ME | 1-1-1 | 3 | 52 | III |
| Dingxi | END-LE | SD-LE | WD-LE | 0-2-1 | 3 | 53 | III |
| Jinzhong | END-ME | END-ME | END-ME | 1-1-1 | 3 | 54 | III |
| Heze | END-LE | WD-ME | END-ME | 0-2-1 | 3 | 55 | III |
| Longnan | WD-LE | END-LE | END-ME | 1-0-1 | 2 | 56 | III |
| Guyuan | END-LE | END-LE | WD-ME | 0-0-2 | 2 | 57 | III |
Figure 5Low-carbon types of cities in the YRB by total score, 2006–2019.
Figure 6Dynamic change path types for two-dimensional decoupling states, 2006–2019.
Figure 7Cumulative contribution value and cumulative contribution rate in 2006–2010, 2010–2015, and 2015–2019. (a) Cumulative contribution value (decoupling index). (b) Cumulative contribution rate of six factors.
Figure 8Contribution and contribution rate of economic-output factor. (a) Contribution of economic-output factor. (b) Contribution rate of economic-output factor.
Figure 9Contribution and contribution rate of power-intensity factor. (a) Contribution of power-intensity factor. (b) Contribution rate of power-intensity factor.
Figure 10Contribution and contribution rate of industrial-structure factor. (a) Contribution of industrial-structure factor. (b) Contribution rate of industrial-structure factor.
Figure 11Contribution and contribution rate of carbon-emission-coefficient factor. (a) Contribution of carbon-emission-coefficient factor. (b) Contribution rate of carbon-emission-coefficient factor.
Figure 12Contribution and contribution rate of population-scale factor. (a) Contribution of population-scale factor. (b) Contribution rate of population-scale factor.
Figure 13Contribution and contribution rate of power-structure factor. (a) Contribution of power-structure factor. (b) Contribution rate of power-structure factor.