4.6 Article

Value-Added-Based Accounting of CO2 Emissions: A Multi-Regional Input-Output Approach

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 9, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su9122220

关键词

embodied emissions; multi-regional input-output; value-added; global

资金

  1. Ministry of Education for the Development of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences of China [16YJA790027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the era of globalization and international trade, the production-based CO2 emissions accounting system, proposed by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, can easily lead to a carbon leakage issue. Thus, the accounting of consumption-based carbon emissions and carbon emissions embodied in international trade has received considerable research attention. Nevertheless, researchers also indicated that the consumption-based principle has some weaknesses, for example, it leads the producers inert on reducing carbon emissions while gaining economic benefits. To share carbon emissions responsibilities between producers and consumers is widely recognized. So, setting an income-based emissions accounting method as to producer is a necessary complement for accounting national carbon emissions. This study promoted a model, called the value-added-based accounting of CO2 emissions method, to account for anthropogenic CO2 emissions within the context of the economic benefit principle. Based on the global multi-regional input-output table and national carbon emissions database, we calculated the national/regional carbon emissions based on the value-added accounting approach as well as the amount of global carbon emissions embodied in value-added chains. If the results are served as a supplement for calculating the amount of CO2 emissions reduction that a country is responsible for, problems such as carbon leakage and resistance to improving the energy efficiency of exporting sector may be solved, because all the supply chains emissions associated with the economic growth of a country would be considered.

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

4.6
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