Advertisement

Identifying the sources of structural changes in CO2 emissions in Italy

  • Yousaf AliEmail author
  • Maurizio Ciaschini
  • Claudio Socci
  • Rosita Pretaroli
  • Muhammad Sabir
Original Paper
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Decomposition analysis represents an important tool in order to highlight the implication of socio-economic, employment and environmental indicators. In addition, it also helps to assess the determinants which are responsible for changes in such indicators. In this paper, changes in CO2 emissions in Italy are examined on the basis of the combination of singular value decomposition (SVD) analysis and structural decomposition analysis (SDA). SVD is used to decompose the total environmental pollution impact coefficient matrix and the pollution multiplier matrix in three different factors: key structures of the policy objective, key structures of the policy control and singular values to find out the potential behaviour of the economy. Furthermore, SDA is carried out to classify the CO2 emission into four main determinants over a period of fourteen years i.e. from 1995 to 2009. These four determinants include: the policy objective effects, the policy control effects, the singular values effects and the final demand structure effects. The results point out that the CO2 emissions decreased during the overall period of 1995–2009, the only exception to this was the period 1995–2000 in which the CO2 emissions increased to 0.29% and technological change was a positive contributor to the increase of carbon emission during this period. Structural decomposition suggests that CO2 increases with an increase in the final demand, implying that a reduction in CO2 emissions is possible only if the increase in demand is based on renewable energies or if economic growth is sustainable.

Keywords

Climate policy SDA SVD CO2 emissions Environmental input–output model 

List of symbols

\({\mathbf{I}}\)

\(n{\text{ by }}n\) identity matrix

\({\mathbf{A}}\)

\(n{\text{ by }}n\) matrix of technical coefficient

\(\varphi_{i}\)

Intensity of direct CO2 emission for sector \(i\)

\(\hat{\varphi }\)

Diagonal matrix with \(\varphi\) on the main diagonal

C

Total CO2 emissions of the economy

M

Matrix of total environmental pollution impact coefficient

W

Square of matrix M

\({\mathbf{W}}^{{\mathbf{T}}}\)

An orthonormal basis

U

Unitary matrix whose columns define two reference structure for output

V

Unitary matrix whose rows define two reference structure for final demand

S

Diagonal matrix of scalars, the elements of matrix S are positive scalars called singular values

\({\mathbf{V}}^{{\mathbf{T}}}\)

An unitary orthonormal basis matrix of dimension \(n \times n\)

\({\mathbf{U}}^{{{\mathbf{effect}}}}\)

Display structures of the objective variable (the total CO2 emissions)

\({\mathbf{V}}^{{{\mathbf{T}}^{{{\mathbf{effect}}}} }}\)

Based on the change in the structures of the policy control and its impact on these measures

\({\mathbf{S}}^{{{\mathbf{effect}}}}\)

Examines the change in the singular values and its impact on the corresponding multipliers

\({\mathbf{f}}^{{{\mathbf{effect}}}}\)

Effect of final demand structural changes over a period of 14 years, from 1995 to 2009

JEL Classification

D57 C67 C54 

Notes

References

  1. Afrasiab, A., & Casler, S. D. (1991). Product-mix and technological change within the Leontief inverse. Journal of Regional Science, 3(1), 147–160.Google Scholar
  2. Alcántara, V., & Padilla, E. (2003). “Key” sectors in final energy consumption: An input–output application to the Spanish case. Energy Policy, 31(15), 1673–1678.Google Scholar
  3. Ali, Y. (2015). Measuring CO2 emission linkages with the hypothetical extraction method (HEM). Ecological Indicators, 54, 171–183.Google Scholar
  4. Ali, Y., Pretaroli, R., Socci, C., & Severini, F. (2018). Carbon and water footprint accounts of Italy: A multi-region input–output approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1813–1824.Google Scholar
  5. Ali, Y., et al. (2017). An analysis of CO2 emissions in Italy through the macro multiplier (MM) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 238–250.Google Scholar
  6. Annicchiarico, B., Bennato, A. R., & Zanetti Chini, E. (2014). 150 years of Italian CO2 emissions and economic growth. CEIS Tor Vergata, Research Papers Series, 7(320), 1–50.Google Scholar
  7. Arbex, M., & Perobelli, F. S. (2010). Solow meets Leontief: Economic growth and energy consumption. Energy Economics, 32, 43–53.Google Scholar
  8. Arto, I., & Dietzenbacher, E. (2014). Drivers of the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Science and Technology, 48(10), 5388–5394.Google Scholar
  9. Brizga, J., Feng, K., & Hubacek, K. (2014). Drivers of greenhouse gas emissions in the Baltic States: A structural decomposition analysis. Ecological Economics, 98, 22–28.Google Scholar
  10. Butnara, I., & Llop, M. (2011). Structural decomposition analysis and input–output subsystems: Changes in CO2 emissions of Spanish service sectors (2000–2005). Ecological Economics, 70(11), 2012–2019.Google Scholar
  11. Cansino, J. M., Román, R., & Ordóñez, M. (2016). Main drivers of changes in CO2 emissions in the Spanish economy: A structural decomposition analysis. Energy Policy, 18, 150–159.Google Scholar
  12. Cansino, J. M., Sánchez-Brazac, A., & Rodríguez-Arévalod, M. L. (2015). Driving forces of Spain’s CO2 emissions: A LMDI decomposition approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 48, 749–759.Google Scholar
  13. Cellura, M., Longo, S., & Mistretta, M. (2012). Application of the structural decomposition analysis to assess the indirect energy consumption and air emission changes related to Italian households consumption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(2), 1135–1145.Google Scholar
  14. Chang, N., & Lahr, M. L. (2016). Changes in China’s production-source CO2 emissions: Insights from structural decomposition analysis and linkage analysis. Economic Systems Research, 28(2), 224–242.Google Scholar
  15. Ciaschini, M., Pretaroli, R., & Socci, C. (2010a). Multisectoral structures and policy design. International Journal of Control, 83(2), 281–296.Google Scholar
  16. Ciaschini, M., Severini, F., Socci, C. & Pretaroli, R. (2010a). The economic impact of the green certificate market through the macro multiplier approach. Note Di Lavoro Della Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Google Scholar
  17. Ciaschini, M., & Socci, C. (2006). Income distribution and output change: A macro multiplier approach. Economic Growth and Distribution, 10 247.Google Scholar
  18. Ciaschini, M., & Socci, C. (2007). Final demand impact on output: A macro multiplier approach. Journal of Policy Modeling, 29, 115–132.Google Scholar
  19. Ciaschini, M., Socci, C., & Pretaroli, R. (2009). A convenient multisectoral policy control for ICT in the US economy. Metroeconomica, 60, 660–685.Google Scholar
  20. Duro, J. A., & Padilla, E. (2006). International inequalities in per capita CO2 emissions: A decomposition methodology by Kaya factors. Energy Economics, 28(2), 1701–1787.Google Scholar
  21. EU (2017). Europe 2020 strategy [Online]. https://ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-commission/contact_en. Accessed 7 Jan 2018.
  22. Frobenius, G. (1908). Uber matrizen aus positiven elementen. Zeitschrift fuer Reine und Angewandte Mathmatik, 271–276.Google Scholar
  23. Fujimagari, D. (1989). The sources of change in Canadian industry output. Economic Systems Research, 1, 187–201.Google Scholar
  24. González, P., Landajo, M., & Presno, M. (2014). The driving forces behind changes in CO2 emission levels in EU-27. Differences between member states. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 11–16.Google Scholar
  25. Guana, D., et al. (2008). The drivers of Chinese CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2030. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 626–634.Google Scholar
  26. Gutiérrez, M. S. (2008). Economic activity and atmospheric pollution in Spain an input-output approach. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  27. Hongguang, N., & Rene, K. (2013). Why did energy intensity fluctuate during 2000–2009 a combination of index decomposition analysis and structural decomposition analysis. Energy for Sustainable Development, 17, 482–488.Google Scholar
  28. Lancaster, P., & Tismenetsky, M. (1985). The theory of matrices: With applications (2nd ed.). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lenzen, M. (2003). Environmentally important paths, linkages and key sectors in the Australian Economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Issue, 14, 1–34.Google Scholar
  30. Leontief, W. W. (1936). Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. The Review of Economic Statistics, 18(3), 105–125.Google Scholar
  31. Lima, F., Nunes, M. L., Cunha, J., & Lucenac, A. F. (2016). A cross-country assessment of energy-related CO2 emissions: An extended Kaya index decomposition approach. Energy, 115(2), 1361–1374.Google Scholar
  32. Lin, X., & Polenske, K. R. (1995). Input–output anatomy of China’s energy use changes in the 1980s. Economic System Research, 7, 67–84.Google Scholar
  33. Llop, M. (2011). Air pollution: Economic modelling and control policies. Sharjah: Bentham Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Moran, D., Petersone, M., & Verones, F. (2016). On the suitability of input–output analysis for calculating product-specific biodiversity footprints. Ecological Indicators, 60, 192–201.Google Scholar
  35. Mu, T., Xi, Q., & Kang, C. (2010). Input–output table of electricity demand and its application. Energy, 35(1), 326–331.Google Scholar
  36. Oosterhaven, J., Hoen, A. R., Van der Linden, J. A. (1995). Technology, trade and real value added growth of EC countries, 1975–1985. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Input–Output Techniques, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  37. Roca, J., & Serrano, M. (2007). Income growth and atmospheric pollution in Spain: An input–output approach. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 230–242.Google Scholar
  38. Rocchi, P., Serrano, M., & Roca, J. (2014). The reform of the European energy tax directive: Exploring potential economic impacts in the EU27. Energy Policy, 75, 341–353.Google Scholar
  39. Rose, A., & Casler, S. (1996). Input–Output structural decomposition analysis: A critical appraisal. Economic Systems Research, 8(1), 33–62.Google Scholar
  40. Sheng, Z., Xinyu, W., Yufei, X., & Rong, H. (2016). Estimation of embodied carbon based on input–output analysis. Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, 75, 529–533.Google Scholar
  41. Subhesh, C. B., & Matsumura, W. (2010). Changes in the GHG emission intensity in EU-15: Lessons from a decomposition analysis. Energy, 35, 3315–3322.Google Scholar
  42. Sun, J. W. (1998). Changes in energy consumption and energy intensity: A complete decomposition model. Energy Economics, 20(1), 85–100.Google Scholar
  43. Tukker, A., & Dietzenbacher, E. (2013). Global multiregional input–output frameworks: An introduction and outlook. Economic System Research, 25, 1–19.Google Scholar
  44. Wang, C., Chen, J., & Zou, J. (2005). Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emission in China: 1957–2000. Energy, 30, 73–83.Google Scholar
  45. Wang, Q., Chiu, Y.-H., & Chiu, C.-R. (2015). Driving factors behind carbon dioxide emissions in China: A modified production-theoretical decomposition analysis. Energy Economics, 51, 252–260.Google Scholar
  46. Weber, C. L. (2009). Measuring structural change and energy use: Decomposition of the US economy from 1997 to 2002. Energy Policy, 37(4), 1561–1570.Google Scholar
  47. Wiedmann, T. (2009). A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecological Economics, 69, 211–222.Google Scholar
  48. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Turner, K., & Barrett, J. (2007). Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities—Part 2: Review of input–output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade. Ecological Economics, 61(1), 15–26.Google Scholar
  49. Wood, R. (2009). Structural decomposition analysis of Australia’s green house gas emissions. Energy Policy, 37, 4943–4948.Google Scholar
  50. Wood, R., & Lenzen, M. (2009). Structural path decomposition. Energy Economics, 31(3), 335–341.Google Scholar
  51. World Bank. (2018). World developing indicators (WDI) 2018. Washington: The World Bank Group: World Bank.Google Scholar
  52. Xu, Y., & Dietzenbacher, E. (2014). A structural decomposition analysis of the emissions embodied in trade. Ecological Economics, 101, 10–20.Google Scholar
  53. Zane, E. B. (2014). Assessment of climate change policies in the context of the European semester, country report: Italy. Berlin: Ecologic Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yousaf Ali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maurizio Ciaschini
    • 2
  • Claudio Socci
    • 2
  • Rosita Pretaroli
    • 2
  • Muhammad Sabir
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management SciencesGhulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and TechnologyTopiPakistan
  2. 2.Economics and Law DepartmentUniversity of MacerataMacerataItaly
  3. 3.Department of Management SciencesGhulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and TechnologyTopiPakistan

Personalised recommendations