4.7 Article

Provincial responsibility for carbon emissions in China under different principles

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 86, Issue -, Pages 142-153

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.002

Keywords

Carbon emissions; Regional responsibility; Carbon multiplier; Benefit principle; Multi-regional input-output model

Funding

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China [13CJY009]
  2. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By applying a multi-regional input-output model, the study compares the provincial responsibility for carbon emissions and provincial carbon multipliers in China under seven responsibility-allocating principles, including three basic principles, the production, income and consumption principles, and four shared responsibility principles, the income-weighted, consumption weighted, comprehensive, and weighted comprehensive principles. Empirical results indicate that carbon multipliers of provinces under these principles are significantly different from one another. The carbon multipliers of provinces with higher ratios of carbon intensive sectors in their outputs are also larger. At the same time, the carbon multipliers of the same sector in the provinces are significantly different from one another. Changing the principle causes significant changes in the responsibility for carbon emissions of some provinces, but only slight changes in the responsibilities of some other provinces. However, the responsibilities of provinces with large economic sizes (output) are always the largest, whereas provinces with the smallest economic sizes are always the smallest regardless of the principles. Further, this study proposes a series of regional policies for carbon mitigation according to provincial carbon multipliers and responsibility allocation features under the different principles. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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