4.4 Article

Does the low-carbon pilot cities policy make a difference to the carbon intensity reduction?

Journal

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION
Volume 217, Issue -, Pages 227-239

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.10.032

Keywords

Low -carbon pilot cities policy; Urban carbon intensity; Difference -in -difference model; China

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on China's low-carbon pilot cities policy, this study examines the implementation repercussions of the policy by analyzing urban carbon intensity data. The findings show that the policy has significantly reduced carbon intensity in the pilot cities. The analysis also suggests that the policy is more prevalent in regions with higher concentrations of secondary industries and has achieved decarbonization through technological innovation, particularly in eastern China.
The low-carbon pilot cities policy (LCPCP) aims to stimulate economic growth and ensure the attainment of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to address climate change. China issued the LCPCP in 2010 and steadily expanded the size of its pilot zones. This study builds a quasinatural experiment based on China's LCPCP and a difference-in-difference model employing urban carbon intensity data over a 10-year period beginning in 2007 to examine the implementation repercussions of the LCPCP. According to the findings, the LCPCP has significantly reduced the carbon intensity of pilot cities. Additionally, an analysis of heterogeneity suggests that the LCPCP is more prevalent in regions with higher concentrations of secondary industries. Moreover, the mechanism reveals that the decarbonization program reduces carbon intensity through technological innovation, particularly in eastern China. In conclusion, our findings provide strong support for the operation and promotion of China's LCPCP as well as guidance and support for China's goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available