Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 16, pp 16091–16100 | Cite as

A predictive analysis of CO2 emissions, environmental policy stringency, and economic growth in China

Research Article
  • 152 Downloads

Abstract

This study takes environmental policy stringency and economic activity as the controlling variables and forecasts the CO2 emissions in China up to 2022. In doing so, an application of corrected grey model with convolution is used over the annual time series data between 1990 and 2012. The simulation results show that (1) between 2012 and 2022, CO2 emissions in China is expected to increase at an average rate of 17.46% annually, raising the emissions intensity from 7.04 in 2012 to 25.461 metric tons per capita by 2022; (2) stringent environmental policies reduce CO2 emissions—whereas, GDP tends to increase the emissions intensity in China; (3) stringent environmental policies are found to have a negative impact on GDP in China. Based on the empirical findings, the study also provides some policy suggestions to reduce emissions intensity in China.

Keywords

CO2 emissions Predictive analysis Environmental policy stringency China 

References

  1. Adamović V M, Antanasijević D Z, Ristić M D, Perić-Grujic A A, Pocajt V V (2017) Prediction of muncipal solid waste generation using artificial neural network approach enhanced by structural break analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(1):299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed K, Bhattacharya M, Qazi A, Long W (2016) Energy cinsumption in China and underlying factors in a changing landscape: empirical evidence since the reform period. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 58:224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auffhammer M, Carson R T (2008) Forecasting the path of China’s CO 2 emissions using province-level information. J Environ Econ Manag 55(3):229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botta E, Kozluk T (2014) Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: a composite index approach. OECD Econ Depart Work Papers 1177:0–1Google Scholar
  5. Calel R, Dechezlepretre A (2016) Environmental policy and directed technological change: evidence from the European carbon market. Rev Econ Statist 98(1):173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen W, Lei Y (2017) Analysis of the impact path on factor of China’s energy-related CO2 emissions: a path analysis with latent variables. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(6):5757–5772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chow GC (2010) China’s environmental policy: a critical survey. Center for Economic Policy Studies, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Deng JL (1982) Control problems of grey systems. Syst Control Lett 1(5):288–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng JL (2002) The elements of grey theory. HUST Press, WuhanGoogle Scholar
  10. Frondel M, Horbach J, Rennings K (2008) What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany. Ecol Econ 66(1):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gentle P (2016) China’s environmental policy and urban developmentGoogle Scholar
  12. Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energ Polic 37(12):5167–5172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jayanthakumaran K, Verna R, Liu Y (2012) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energ Polic 42:450–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnstone N, Haščič I, Poirier J, Hemar M, Michel C (2012) Environmental policy stringency and technological innovation: evidence from survey data and patent counts. Appl Econ 44(17):2157–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lanoie P, Laurent-Lucchetti J, Johnstone N, Ambec S (2011) Environmental policy, innovation and performance: new insights on the Porter hypothesis. J Econ Manag Strat 20(3):803–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liang QM, Fan Y, Wei YM (2007) Multi-regional input–output model for regional energy requirements and CO2 emissions in China. Energ Polic 35(3):1685–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu SF, Dang YG, Fang ZG (2004) Grey system theory and its applications. Sciences Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  18. Moore FC, Diaz DB (2015) Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy. Nat Clim Change 5(2):127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ravallion M (2013) How long will it take to lift one billion people out of poverty? The World Bank Research Observer 28(2):139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saboori B, Rasoulinezhad E, Sung J (2017) The nexus of oil consumption and South Korea. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(8):7436–7455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schreurs MA (2016) The Paris climate agreement and the three largest emitters: China, the United States, and the European Union. Polit Govern 4(3):219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Song YC, Zhang ZQ (2012) Prediction on energy requirements of China “12th Five Planning” based on ARIMA model. Coal Eng 44(1):76–79Google Scholar
  23. Wang ZX (2015) A predictive analysis of clean energy consumption, economic growth and environmental regulation in China using an optimized grey dynamics model. Comput Econ 46(3):437–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang HT, Mu SR (2010) The characteristics and trend of carbon emissions in Beijing. Urban Stud 17 (9):55–61Google Scholar
  25. Xing XJ, Zhou DQ (2008) The predictive function of Chinese energy demand: co-integration analysis assisted by principal components. J Appl Stat Manag 27(6):945–951Google Scholar
  26. Zhang YJ (2011) The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: an empirical analysis in China. Energ Polic 39(4):2197–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhu Q, Peng X (2012) The impacts of population change on carbon emissions in China during 1978-2008. Environ Imapct Assess Rev 36:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sukkur IBA UniversitySukkurPakistan

Personalised recommendations