4.7 Article

Carbon inequality in China: Evidence from city-level data

Journal

CHINA ECONOMIC REVIEW
Volume 78, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2023.101940

Keywords

Carbon inequality; Gini; Concentration index; Decomposition

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper utilizes data from China's High Spatial Resolution Emission Gridded Database (CHRED) to examine carbon emission inequality in China. The study finds a slight decrease in the Gini coefficient of carbon emission from 0.411 to 0.385, indicating a more symmetric distribution from 2005 to 2020. Additionally, the positive concentration index reveals an asymmetry between carbon emission and economic development. The research highlights the importance of considering factors such as economic structure, energy intensity, and climate conditions in addressing carbon inequality.
Carbon inequality has attracted increasing attention worldwide. Utilizing data from China's High Spatial Resolution Emission Gridded Database (CHRED), this paper presents the measured CO2 emission inequality in China for the years 2005, 2012, 2015, and 2020. Results show that the Gini coefficients of carbon emission report a slight decrease from 0.411 to 0.385 and the distribution becomes more symmetric from 2005 to 2020. Linking carbon inequality to economic level, the positive concentration index (0.230 to 0.118) indicates asymmetricity between carbon emission and economic development. A further decomposition analysis reveals the industrial sector's un-even development, indicating that energy-intensive features can be blamed for a large proportion of carbon inequality. Our findings suggest that policymakers should not consider economic development level alone as the only indicator of the allocation of abatement, as economic structure, energy intensity, and climate conditions are all responsible for such inequality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available