4.7 Article

Decarbonizing or illusion? How carbon emissions of commercial building operations change worldwide

期刊

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104654

关键词

Carbon abatement; Commercial building operations; Decarbonization efficiency; Generalized Divisia index method; Building electrification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study uses the GDIM to analyze the decarbonization performance in commercial building operations (CBOs) of sixteen countries during 2000-2019. The results show that global carbon emissions from CBOs have increased, with contrasting trends in the U.S. and China. The U.S. and China contributed the most to the decarbonization of CBOs.
To lead the low-carbon transition in global buildings, this study is the first to use the generalized Divisia index method (GDIM) to identify the factors driving carbon emissions and assess the decarbonization performance in commercial building operations (CBOs) of sixteen countries during 2000-2019. Results show that (1) while the global carbon emissions from CBOs have increased at a modest rate of 0.9%/yr, this trend runs counter to the declining emissions in the U.S. (-1.1%/yr) and the significant growth in China (14.4%/yr), which can be attributed to the impact of economy-related factors. (2) The U.S. and China, as the largest emitters, contributed 66.8% of the samples' decarbonization of CBOs (919.1 million tons of carbon dioxide). (3) Most countries' CBOs had a decarbonization efficiency level of less than 10%, except for Spain (27.8%). Spain excelled in both areas of per capita and per floor area with an average efficiency of nearly 30%. Moreover, ridge regression successfully confirms the stability of GDIM results and it should be noted GDIM has limitations in characterizing the end-use activity. Overall, this study tracks the historical decarbonization of global CBOs and offers benchmarks for different emitters to forecast the dynamic of building emissions along with economic booms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据