Advertisement

A comparative study of the economy’s environmental impact between states in the USA and provinces in China

  • Feng Hao
  • Guizhen He
  • Michael Snipes
Article

Abstract

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are one important factor that lead to climate change, and the burning of fossil fuels for many economic activities has significantly contributed to CO2 emissions. The USA and China together accounted for 43% of global CO2 emissions in 2013. This study assesses and compares how the economy has affected the environment by analyzing data for 50 states and DC in the USA and 30 provinces in China. From a longitudinal perspective, the findings show that the economy, measured by GDP per capita, contributed to CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, the impact has become relatively decoupled. From a spatial perspective, the coastal states and provinces that have higher GDP per capita tend to have less CO2 emissions. In addition, Democratic states in the USA tend to have less CO2 emissions than Republican states, after controlling for other variables. We explain the findings by referring to the various contexts at the state/provincial level, country level, and international level. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare the environmental impact of the economy between the US states and China’s provinces. There are many political implications of these findings for both the USA and China moving forward, especially considering the recent political climate change in the USA, along with China’s continued expansion as a major global power.

Keywords

China Comparative Economy Environmental impact The USA 

References

  1. Allison PD (2009) Fixed effects regression models. Sage, Thousand Oaks.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412993869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carleton TA, Hsiang SM (2016) Social and economic impacts of climate. Science 353(6304):1112.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad9837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clement MT (2011) The Jevons paradox and anthropogenic global warming: a panel analysis of state-level carbon emissions in the United States, 1963–1997. Soc Nat Resour 24(9):951–961.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903482937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dietz T, Rosa EA (1997) Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. PNAS 94(1):175–179.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.1.175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dietz T, Frank K, Whitley C, Kelly J, Kelly R (2015) Political influences on greenhouse gas emissions from US states. PNAS 112(27):8254–8259.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417806112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox J (1999) Mountaintop removal in West Virginia: an environmental sacrifice zone. Organ Environ 12(2):163–183.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026699122002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gould KA, Pellow DN, Schnaiberg A (2004) Interrogating the treadmill of production: everything you wanted to know about the treadmill but were afraid to ask. Organ Environ 17(3):296–316.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026604268747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gould KA, Pellow DN, Schnaiberg A (2008) The treadmill of production: injustice and unsustainability in the global economy. Paradigm, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  9. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hao F (2014) Material extraction/consumption and global trade: an empirical examination for 95 countries between 1980 and 2009. Perspect Glob Dev Technol 13(4):423–443.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hao F (2017) A temporal and spatial analysis of anthropogenic drivers of environmental impact for 30 Chinese provinces across three regions between 1997 and 2009. Soc Thought and Res 34:59–84Google Scholar
  12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. United Nations, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson RB, Canadell JG, Quéré CL, Andrew RM, Korsbakken JI, Peters GP, Nakicenovic N (2016) Reaching peak emissions. Nat Clim Chang 6(1):7–10.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jorgenson AK (2012) The sociology of ecologically unequal exchange and carbon dioxide emissions, 1960-2005. Soc Sci Res 41(2):242–252.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2010) Assessing the temporal stability of the population/environment relationship in comparative perspective. Popul Environ 32(1):27–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0117-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2012) Are the economy and the environment decoupling? A comparative international study, 1960–2005. Am J Sociol 118(1):1–44 http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/665990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jorgenson AK, Schor JB, Huang X (2017) Income inequality and carbon emissions in the United States: a state-level analysis, 1997-2012. Ecol Econ 134:40–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lidskog R, Mol APJ, Oosterveer P (2015) Towards a global environmental sociology? Legacies, trends and future directions. Curr Sociol 63(3):339–368.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114543537 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Longhofer W, Jorgenson AK (2017) Decoupling reconsidered: does world society integration influence the relationship between the environment and economic development? Soc Sci Res 65:17–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marquart-Pyatt S, Jorgenson AK, Hamilton L (2015) Methodological approaches for sociological research on climate change. In: Dunlap RE, Brulle R (eds) Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 369–411.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meng L, Guo J, Chai J, Zhang Z (2011) China’s regional CO2 emissions: characteristics, inter-regional transfer and emission reduction policies. Energy Policy 39(10):6136–6144.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mol APJ (1995) The refinement of production: ecological modernization theory and the chemical industry. Van Arkel, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Mol APJ (2006) Environment and modernity in transitional China: frontiers of ecological modernization. Dev Chang 37(1):29–56.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-155X.2006.00468.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mol APJ, Spaargaren G (1993) Environment, modernity and the risk society: the apocalyptic horizon of environmental reform. Int Sociol 8(4):431–459.  https://doi.org/10.1177/026858093008004003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mol APJ, Spaargaren G (2005) From additions and withdrawals to environmental flows. Organ Environ 18(1):91–107.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026604270459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002) Indicators to measure decoupling of environmental pressure from economic growth. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosa EA, Dietz T (2012) Human drivers of national greenhouse-gas emissions. Nat Clim Chang 2(8):581–586.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosa EA, Rudel TK, York R, Jorgenson AK, Dietz T (2015) The human (anthropogenic) driving forces of global climate change. In: Dunlap RE, Brulle R (eds) Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 32–60.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schnaiberg A (1980) The environment: from surplus to scarcity. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Schnaiberg A, Gould KA (1994) Environment and society: the enduring conflict. St. Martin’s, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Spaargaren G, Mol APJ (1992) Sociology, environment and modernity: ecological modernization as a theory of social change. Soc Nat Resour 5(4):323–344.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929209380797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wooldridge JM (2006) Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. South-Western, MasonGoogle Scholar
  33. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) Footprints on the earth: the environmental consequences of modernity. Am Sociol Rev 68(2):279–300 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South Florida Sarasota-ManateeSarasotaUSA
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Centre for Eco-Environmental SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations