Advertisement

Study of the impact of energy consumption structure on carbon emission intensity in China from the perspective of spatial effects

  • Hongwei Xiao
  • Zhongyu Ma
  • Peng Zhang
  • Ming Liu
Original Paper
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

From now until 2030, China will be in a sprint to achieve reductions of 40–45% in carbon emission intensity by 2020 and 60–65% by 2030 compared to 2005; rigid requirements have thus been imposed for controlling carbon emission intensity. In this study, a spatial Durbin model that integrates a spatial lag model and a spatial error model is used to measure the degree of influence held by the energy consumption structure and other factors over carbon emission intensity and the spatial spillover effect. The results show that there is a spatial demonstration effect on the reduction in interregional carbon emission intensity in China. While the carbon emission intensity in the adjacent region decreases by 1%, the carbon emission intensity in this region will decrease by 0.05%, indicating that China’s regional low-carbon development model is also applicable to neighboring provinces and plays a large role in driving and demonstrating a low-carbon economy. Every additional 1% improvement toward optimizing the energy consumption structure enables the carbon emission intensity of the region to decrease by 0.21%; further, there is a positive spatial spillover effect driving carbon emission intensity decreases in neighboring areas of 0.25%. Industrial structure, energy intensity, energy price, and level of openness are the main factors influencing regional carbon emission intensity. According to the “14th Five-Year Plan,” there is an urgent need to optimize the energy consumption structure in the medium and long term and give full play to its ability to contribute to declines in carbon emission intensity.

Keywords

Energy consumption structure Spatial Durbin model Carbon emission intensity Demonstration-driving effect Spatial spillover 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2016YFA0602601), Special Items Fund of Beijing Municipal Commission of Education of China, Program of Beijing Energy Development Research Center of China (NYJD20170101), and National Social Science Fund of China (15ZDA011).

References

  1. Alves MR, Moutinho V (2013) Decomposition analysis and innovative accounting approach for energy-related CO2, (carbon dioxide) emissions intensity over 1996–2009 in Portugal. Energy 57(3):775–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ang BW, Su B (2016) Carbon emission intensity in electricity production: a global analysis. Energy Policy 94:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin L (1987) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Econ Geogr 65(2):160–162Google Scholar
  4. Anselin L (2001) Spatial effects in econometric practice in environmental and resource economics. Am J Agric Econ 83(3):705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anselin L (2007) Spatial econometrics. A companion to theoretical econometrics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Hoboken, pp 310–330Google Scholar
  6. Baltagi BH (2013) Econometric analysis of panel data, 4th edition. Econ Theor (5):747–754Google Scholar
  7. Barnali Nag M (2000) Carbon emission intensity of power consumption in India: a detailed study of its indicators. Energy Sources 22(2):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattacharyya SC, Matsumura W (2010) Changes in the GHG emission intensity in eu-15: lessons from a decomposition analysis. Energy 35(8):3315–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen S (2011) The abatement of carbon dioxide intensity in China: factors decomposition and policy implications. World Econ 34(7):1148–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen Y, Lin S (2015) Decomposition and allocation of energy-related carbon dioxide emission allowance over provinces of China. Nat Hazards 76(3):1893–1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chik NA, Rahim KA, Radam A, Shamsudin MN (2013) Impact of Malaysian industrial energy use on carbon dioxide emissions. Pertan J Soc Sci Humanit 21:13–28Google Scholar
  12. Cui E, Ren L, Sun H (2016) Analysis of energy-related CO2 emissions and driving factors in five major energy consumption sectors in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23(19):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dong F, Long R, Li Z, Dai Y (2016) Analysis of carbon emission intensity, urbanization and energy mix: evidence from China. Nat Hazards 82(2):1375–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Du G (2013) Analysis of carbon emission based on stochastic IPAT model. Int J Appl Math Stat™ 47(17):230–238Google Scholar
  15. Ebohon OJ, Ikeme AJ (2006) Decomposition analysis of CO2, emission intensity between oil-producing and non-oil-producing sub-Saharan African countries. Energy Policy 34(18):3599–3611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elhorst JP (2005) Unconditional maximum likelihood estimation of linear and log-linear dynamic models for spatial panels. Geogr Anal 37(1):85–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elhorst JP (2016) Specification and estimation of spatial panel data models. Int Reg Sci Rev 26(3):244–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fan F, Lei Y (2016) Decomposition analysis of energy-related carbon emissions from the transportation sector in Beijing. Transp Res Part D 42:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fan JL, Liao H, Liang QM, Tatano H, Liu CF, Wei YM (2013) Residential carbon emission evolutions in urban–rural divided China: an end-use and behavior analysis. Appl Energy 101(1):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fang G, Tian L, Fu M, Sun M (2013) The impacts of carbon tax on energy intensity and economic growth—a dynamic evolution analysis on the case of China. Appl Energy 110(5):17–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher-Vanden K, Schu K, Wing IS, Calvin K (2012) Decomposing the impact of alternative technology sets on future carbon emissions growth. Energy Econ 34(2):S359–S365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giblin S, Mcnabola A (2009) Modelling the impacts of a carbon emission-differentiated vehicle tax system on co emissions intensity from new vehicle purchases in Ireland. Energy Policy 37(4):1404–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greening LA (2004) Effects of human behavior on aggregate carbon emission intensity of personal transportation: comparison of 10 OECD countries for the period 1970–1993. Energy Econ 26(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greening LA, Davis WB, Schipper L (1998) Decomposition of aggregate carbon emission intensity for the manufacturing sector: comparison of declining trends from 10 OECD countries for the period 1971–1991. Energy Econ 20(97):43–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greening LA, Ting M, Davis WB (1999) Decomposition of aggregate carbon emission intensity for freight: trends from 10 OECD countries for the period 1971–1993. Energy Econ 21(4):331–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greening LA, Ting M, Krackler TJ (2001) Effects of changes in residential end-uses and behavior on aggregate carbon emission intensity: comparison of 10 OECD countries for the period 1970 through 1993. Energy Econ 23(2):153–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammond GP, Norman JB (2012) Decomposition analysis of energy-related carbon emissions from UK manufacturing. Energy 41(1):220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jiang J (2017) The decomposition and policy meaning of China’s carbon emission intensity. Evolut Inst Econ Rev 14(1):295–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jiao J, Yang Y, Bai Y (2018) The impact of inter-industry R&D technology spillover on carbon emission in China. Nat Hazards 91(3):913–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jovanović M, Kašćelan L, Despotović A, Kašćelan V (2015) The impact of agro-economic factors on GHG emissions: evidence from european developing and advanced economies. Sustainability 7(12):16290–16310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Köne AÇ, Büke T (2016) The impact of changing energy mix of turkey on CO2 emission intensities. Environ Prot Eng 42(3):85–93Google Scholar
  32. Lee LF, Yu J (2010) Estimation of spatial autoregressive panel data models with fixed effects. J Econ 154(2):165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lessage JP, Pace RK (2009) Introduction to spatial econometrics. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Spatial Demography, 1(1):143–145Google Scholar
  34. Li ZZ (2013) Mining and analyzing energy layout on carbon emission intensities of industrial sectors. Adv Mater Res 807–809:857–860Google Scholar
  35. Li W, Ou QX (2013) Decomposition of China’s carbon emissions intensity from 1995 to 2010: an extended KAYA identity. Math Probl Eng 2013(3):1–7Google Scholar
  36. Li M, Wang Q (2017) Will technology advances alleviate climate change? Dual effects of technology change on aggregate carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Sustain Dev 41:61–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lin B, Nelson BI (2017) Influencing factors on carbon emissions in China transport industry. a new evidence from quantile regression analysis. J Clean Prod 150:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lin B, Omoju OE, Okonkwo JU (2015) Impact of industrialization on CO2 emissions in Nigeria. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 52:1228–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu SB (2013) Energy consumption and structural reformation in Chinese northeast old industrial base. Appl Mech Mater 448–453:4281–4284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu N, Ma Z, Kang J (2015) Changes in carbon emission intensity in China’s industrial sector: decomposition and attribution analysis. Energy Policy 87:28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Long R, Yang R, Song M, Ma L (2015) Measurement and calculation of carbon emission intensity based on impact model and scenario analysis: a case of three regions of Jiangsu province. Ecol Ind 51(2):180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lu IJ, Lin SJ, Lewis C (2007) Decomposition and decoupling effects of carbon dioxide emission from highway transportation in Taiwan, Germany, Japan and south Korea. Energy Policy 35(6):3226–3235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moutinho V, Robaina-Alves M, Mota J (2014) Carbon dioxide emissions intensity of Portuguese industry and energy sectors: a convergence analysis and econometric approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 40(C):438–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nag B, Parikh J (2000) Indicators of carbon emission intensity from commercial energy use in India. Energy Econ 22(4):441–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ohlan R (2015) The impact of population density, energy consumption, economic growth and trade openness on CO2, emissions in India. Nat Hazards 79(2):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Piras G, Elhorst JP, Arbia G (2010) Growth and convergence in a multiregional model with space–time dynamics. Geogr Anal 42(3):338–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ren S, Yuan B, Ma X, Chen X (2014) The impact of international trade on China’s industrial carbon emissions since its entry into WTO. Energy Policy 69(3):624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sambodo MT, Oyama T (2011) Investigating economic growth, energy consumption and their impact on CO2 emissions targets in China. J Asian Public Policy 4(3):279–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Su B, Ang BW (2016) Multi-region comparisons of emission performance: the structural decomposition analysis approach. Ecol Ind 67:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sun C, Ding D, Yang M (2017) Estimating the complete CO2 emissions and the carbon emission intensity in India: from the carbon transfer perspective. Energy Policy 109:418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tian Y, Xiong S, Ma X, Ji J (2018) Structural path decomposition of carbon emission: a study of China’s manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod 61(480):113–121Google Scholar
  52. Torvanger A (1991) Manufacturing sector carbon dioxide emissions in nine OECD countries, 1973–87: a divisia index decomposition to changes in fuel mix, emission coefficients, industry structure, energy intensities and international structure. Energy Econ 13(3):168–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang J, Ren Y (2013) Dynamic impact of economic development mode transformation on CO2 emission intensity reduction. Int J Appl Environ Sci 8(21):2665–2677Google Scholar
  54. Wang P, Dai HC, Ren SY, Zhao DQ, Masui T (2015) Achieving Copenhagen target through carbon emission trading: economic impacts assessment in Guangdong province of China. Energy 79(79):212–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wei P, Zhou Y (2014) Urbanization, energy consumption and carbon emission: a empirical study on transnational panel data based on STIPAT model. Ecol Econ 14(2):571–575Google Scholar
  56. Wen L, Bai L, Zhang E (2016) System dynamic modeling and scenario simulation on Beijing industrial carbon emissions. Environ Eng Res 21(4):355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Xu F, Xiang N, Nijkamp P, Higano Y (2013) Dynamic simulation of China’s carbon emission intensity and energy intensity evaluation focusing on industry and energy structure adjustments by 2020. Environ Eng Manag J 12(10):1897–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yu X, Chen H, Wang B, Wang R, Shan Y (2018) Driving forces of CO2 emissions and mitigation strategies of China’s national low carbon pilot industrial parks. Appl Energy 212:1553–1562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang YJ, Da YB (2015) The decomposition of energy-related carbon emission and its decoupling with economic growth in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:1255–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang YJ, Liu Z, Zhang H, Tan TD (2014) The impact of economic growth, industrial structure and urbanization on carbon emission intensity in China. Nat Hazards 73(2):579–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang W, Li K, Zhou D, Zhang W, Gao H (2016) Decomposition of intensity of energy-related CO2, emission in Chinese provinces using the LMDI method. Energy Policy 92:369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Forecasting DepartmentState Information CenterBeijingChina
  2. 2.Beijing Energy Development Research CenterBeijingChina
  3. 3.State Information CenterBeijingChina
  4. 4.School of Environment and Natural ResourcesRenmin University of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations