EN中文

地理科学进展 >

2018 , Vol. 37 >Issue 10: 1303 - 1313

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2018.10.001

专栏：地理新青年

区际贸易隐含碳排放转移研究进展与展望

  • 李富佳
展开
  • 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所,北京 100101

作者简介：李富佳(1983- ),男,副研究员,主要研究方向为区域生态经济、资源经济,E-mail: 。

收稿日期: 2018-07-15

  要求修回日期: 2018-10-14

  网络出版日期: 2018-10-28

基金资助

国家自然科学基金项目(41301637)

收起

Progress and prospects of research on transfer of carbon emissions embodied in inter-regional trade

  • LI Fujia
Expand
  • Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Beijing 100101, China

Received date: 2018-07-15

  Request revised date: 2018-10-14

  Online published: 2018-10-28

Supported by

National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41301637

Copyright

《地理科学进展》杂志 版权所有
Fold

摘要

区际贸易隐含碳排放转移是导致区际碳泄漏、碳减排权责失衡等问题的重要原因,对全球碳排放格局及碳减排效果影响重大。研究区际碳转移时空格局演化规律和内在驱动机理,研制针对性碳转移优化调控方案,对提升区域整体碳减排效率和经济生态综合效益,具有重要现实意义,近年来已引起了国内外学者越来越多的关注,逐渐成为区域可持续发展和生态经济研究的热点问题之一。本文对国内外区际碳转移的相关研究成果进行了梳理,重点总结了对中国省际隐含碳转移问题研究的进展和成果应用情况,展望了区际贸易碳转移问题未来研究的方向：进一步重视国际、省际碳排放转移间的协同研究,揭示区际碳排放转移的动态驱动力及驱动机理,探索创新基于共同责任的省际碳转移减排机制等。

关键词： 区际贸易; 碳排放空间转移; 区域间投入产出; 碳泄漏; 进展与展望

本文引用格式

李富佳 . 区际贸易隐含碳排放转移研究进展与展望[J]. 地理科学进展, 2018 , 37(10) : 1303 -1313 . DOI: 10.18306/dlkxjz.2018.10.001

Abstract

Transfer of carbon emissions embodied in inter-regional trade is an important reason that leads to inter-regional carbon leakage and inequity of regional carbon emission reduction responsibility, which has significant impact on global carbon emission pattern and carbon emission reduction effect. Therefore, studying the spatial-temporal evolution pattern and internal driving mechanism of carbon emission transfer and developing corresponding optimization policies are of great practical significance to improving the overall efficiency of carbon emission reduction and the comprehensive regional economic and ecological benefit, which has attracted extensive attention of scholars, and has gradually become one of the key issues of regional sustainable development and ecological economic research. This research systematically reviewed relevant studies about transfer of carbon emissions embodied in inter-regional trade in China and abroad, with special emphasis on summarizing the research progress and their application, as well as the future research directions of transfer of carbon emissions embodied in inter-regional trade. These directions include strengthening collaborative research between transfer of carbon emissions embodied in international and inter-provincial trade, revealing the dynamic driving forces and driving mechanism of transfer of carbon emissions embodied in inter-regional trade, and exploring innovative carbon emission transfer reduction mechanisms that are based on the shared production and consumption accounting principle.

Key words： inter-regional trade; spatial transfer of carbon emissions; inter-regional input and output; carbon leakage; progress and prospects

1 引言

近年来,温室气体排放引起的全球气候变化,已日渐威胁到全球生态平衡和人类社会的可持续发展(Peters et al, 2011; Dong et al, 2017)。控制CO2等温室气体的排放,已成为当前人类应对全球气候变化的重要任务(李富佳等, 2012; Li et al, 2017)。目前,核算区域碳排放的方法一般采用《联合国气候变化框架公约》中提出的生产责任法,即因生产、出口和调出产品而排放的CO2包含在一个区域的碳排放账户里,但因进口和调入引起的碳排放却被排除在外。然而,随着区域间贸易,经济发达地区会通过区际贸易从经济落后地区调入高碳排放的产品,从而使经济发达地区表面上实现了碳减排,实际上却是以经济落后地区碳排放量增长为代价。而落后地区为了经济发展,必须长时间生产此类产品。发达地区虽然减排成效显著,但却加重了欠发达地区的碳减排压力。这种严重的双边贸易过程中隐含的碳转移问题既存在于国家之间,也广泛存在于经济体系相对独立的不同行政单元之间。区际碳排放转移直接导致了区域间在整体上不但没有实现碳减排,反而加剧了彼此碳减排权责的不公平、低效率和高成本。区际碳隐含转移问题对区域碳排放格局和碳减排效果影响重大,是造成区域间减排压力转嫁、整体减排效果抵消、碳排放净转出区经济增长负担加重和产业结构升级转型困难等问题的重要原因之一(Miller et al, 2009; 李富佳等, 2015)。
区域间隐含碳排放转移的处理,直接关系到全球碳减排的效果,在碳减排政策的实际制定和调整中,有着重要的现实意义和重大的研究价值,近年来已引起国际地理学、生态学、区域经济学等领域广大专家学者日益关注的重要科学问题之一,其形成机理和调控方法论,具有重要的理论内涵和研究价值。目前,国内外相关学者对区域间隐含碳排放转移问题进行了较多研究。然而,由于受到区际长周期分部门贸易数据难以获得等原因的限制,现有研究的深度、广度、可应用度,较之区域碳减排的实际需求,仍然远远不足。因此,迫切需要在系统梳理当前研究进展的基础上,对照中国碳减排现实需求,进一步理清区际碳排放转移研究的不足,明确未来的重要研究方向,以期更好地推动相关领域的研究,早日科学揭示区际贸易隐含碳排放转移的全部机理,为中国区际碳减排工作实践提供科技支撑。
因此,本文在广泛吸纳国内外区际碳转移研究成果基础上,从他国国际贸易、中国国际贸易及中国省际贸易的隐含碳排放3个层次,系统梳理区际碳排放转移研究的代表性成果,并立足中国碳减排总体战略部署、区际碳减排合作与分工政策制定等现实需求,分析现有研究成果的不足,并对区际碳转移问题的未来研究方向作出几点展望。

2 国际贸易隐含碳排放转移研究进展

20世纪末期,大量学者在研究区域能源消耗和碳排放时发现,在经济全球化和国际贸易日趋密切的背景和趋势下,某产品消费国的消费需求变化往往会造成其所需产品生产国的能源消耗和碳排放量随之发生变化。虽然消费国自身的碳排放量很少,但其贸易引起的关联性能源消耗和碳排放量却可能很大(Williams et al,1987; Howarth et al, 1991; Peters et al, 2008b; 魏本勇等, 2009; Zhu et al, 2018)。此后,越来越多的学者对贸易碳排放转移问题展开了大量研究。特别是近年来随着CO2 排放对全球变暖的影响引起全球的强烈关注(IPCC, 2006, 2007),全球碳减排合作不断加深、区域间在碳排放责任与减排目标等领域的博弈日趋激烈,贸易引发的碳排放空间转移问题开始逐渐成为学术界研究的一大热点(Wiedmann, 2009a, 2009b; Rüstemoğlu et al, 2016)。
在宏观层面,一些学者以全球、国家联盟等为对象,研究碳排放空间转移对世界碳排放形势的影响。早在20世纪后期,Wyckoff等(1994)就对当时最大的6个经合组织(OECD)国家美、日、英、法、德、加的行业碳排放情况进行了研究,结果表明这6 个国家通过制造业商品进口的隐含CO2 排放约占其国内总排放的13%。此后,Peters等(2008a)又利用2001年的投入产出数据分析了87 个国家的国际贸易隐含CO2 转移量,发现这些国家21.5%的碳排放来自国际贸易输入,或者通过国际贸易转移到其他国家。Arce等(2016)对低工资和高经济增长的16个国家(墨西哥、多米尼加等)的国际碳排放转移情况进行了趋势模拟,显示在最佳减排情景下,全球总体CO2排放量将降低18.2%,但由于国际贸易隐含碳排放转移,实际CO2排放量降低可能仅为1.5%。这些研究成果证实了国际贸易引发的碳排放转移对全球碳排放总量和空间格局具有广泛性和长期性的影响。
在微观方面,也有大量学者以单一的国家或地区为案例,对碳排放跨区域转移量进行核算。其结论均证明了区域间贸易引起的碳排放迁移量,在区域碳排放总量中往往占据着不可忽视的比重,对单个国家和地区的碳排放总量和构成具有显著影响(Munoz et al, 2010; Bushnell et al, 2012; Cahill et al, 2012)。如Schaeffer等(1996)对巴西 1970-1993 年非能源商品进出口中隐含的碳排放量进行了评估,证明巴西1980年以来一直保持着较高的净出口隐含碳排放量,而1990 年这部分碳排放量已占到巴西总碳排放量的11.4%。而Sánchez-Chóliz等(2004)对西班牙的研究也同样表明,西班牙在进口和出口贸易中隐含的碳排放量分别占到了总排放量的36%和37%。同样,Ståhls等(2011)对芬兰1991-2005年的国际贸易分析也显示,芬兰几乎所有的碳排放都是由于出口产品造成的。也就是说,碳排放净出口国在出口贸易过程中,承担了其他国家消费的碳排放;而碳排放净进口国家则在进口贸易中将自身所应承担的部分碳排放量转移到了其产品供应国。
这些研究成果表明,无论从全球格局还是地区发展的角度看,碳排放转移对区域碳排放量的影响不但范围广、时间长而且程度深,是研究区域碳排放问题必须考虑的重要影响因子。如果割裂区际联系,单纯地考虑某一区域范围内的碳排放问题,既不科学,也有失公平。这一点,在发达国家和发展中国家之间的碳排放转移研究成果上,得到了最明显的印证(Tolmasquim et al, 2003)。中国作为全球最大的发展中国家和全球第一贸易大国,其贸易碳转移问题,对本国乃至全球的碳排放格局都影响重大。因此,针对中国进出口贸易中隐含碳排放空间转移问题的研究,近年来已成为区际碳排放转移研究的一大热点,引起了全球同领域学者的广泛关注。

3 中国的贸易隐含碳排放转移研究进展

3.1 国际贸易

中国是全球最大的碳排放国,也是国际贸易大国,近年来国内外学者针对中国及其各省区对外进出口贸易隐含的碳排放空间转移研究日渐增多(Andersson, 2018)。对Web of Science的搜索发现,1981-2017年,关于中国国际贸易隐含碳排放的相关研究达到317篇,占国际贸易隐含碳排放研究的85%,并从2010年开始呈现快速增长的态势,2017年相关的研究论文高达116篇(Zhang et al, 2017)。而针对中国国际贸易隐含碳转移的研究成果再次说明,中国是承受全球碳泄漏最为严重的国家之一,区际贸易隐含碳转移,也是造成中国成为全球碳排放第一大国的关键原因之一(齐晔等, 2008; 潘安, 2017)。如,Shui等(2006)通过研究中美之间国际贸易造成的碳排放空间迁移变化发现,1997-2003年7%~14%的中国CO2排放是由于美国消费需求扩大而引起中国相关产业生产扩张所造成的。张晓平(2009)计算了2000-2006年中国本土出口到美国消费的CO2排放量,显示美国和欧盟通过国际贸易净转移到中国的CO2排放量分别达到中国CO2 总排放的4.1%~5.1%和1.8%~4.0%。Zhao等(2016)分析了1995-2009年中国与美国双边贸易的隐含碳排放驱动机制,认为海外贸易需求是中国对美国的隐含碳排放快速增加的最主要驱动因素。Liu 等(2016)对中国国际碳转移量的量化研究也表明,2007年,中国由于生产供发达国家消费商品所产生的国际碳排放转移高达17亿t CO2,占自身工业排放总量的1/4;2013年,中国由于国际贸易而被转移的隐含碳排放总量大于日本或德国的全年碳排放总量,相当于全球排放量第5位。
并且,在关注碳转移量的核算基础上,学者们逐渐开始深入探讨碳转移的形成过程、影响因素和内在机理。如倪红福等(2012)在计算国际贸易的隐含碳排放空间转移基础上,对其影响因素进行了结构分解分析;Dong等(2010)对中日之间的贸易隐含碳排放迁移量变化及其驱动因素进行研究,提出中国的碳减排过程对中日间的碳排放转移产生直接影响,对两国的碳排放量变化影响巨大;Wu等(2016)、;Long等(2018)在后续的研究中也再次证明了中国和日本分别为典型的碳净出口国和碳净进口国,在后京都议定书阶段的碳减排政策制定、碳排放责任分配上应采取不同的国际政策。
这些研究成果揭示了国际贸易中隐含的碳排放空间转移对中国造成的实际影响,说明了中国作为全球最大碳排放国家并非完全为了自身发展而排放了全部的碳,而是同时承担了很大比重的其他国家发展所需的碳排放(Pan et al, 2008; Guo et al, 2012)。这对理清中国碳排放账户,在国际碳减排博弈中争取自身应得利益起到了非常重要的作用,同时也为避免区域间碳泄漏,真正意义上减少全球碳排放总量提供了科学的依据。
综上所述,目前国内外关于国际贸易中隐含的碳排放空间转移问题研究成果较多,对全球范围的碳减排进程具有重要的理论指导价值和现实推动作用。

3.2 省际贸易

3.2.1 省际贸易碳排放转移的国内外研究进展
随着研究广泛开展,越来越多的学者意识到,在重视国际贸易的同时,还应该同样高度重视碳排放空间转移问题在另一个重要领域的重大研究价值,那就是一国之内各区域间贸易隐含的碳排放空间转移问题。中国有34个省级行政区,包括23个省、5个自治区、4个直辖市、2个特别行政区。省际之间贸易壁垒较小,省际贸易复杂、频繁且规模巨大,因此,对于中国而言,省际要素流动和经济联系对区域碳排放量的实际影响更加重要(Afton et al, 2011; Liu et al, 2015b; Cheng et al, 2018)。研究省际贸易的碳排放转移问题,对于深入揭示中国碳排放形成原因,促进形成区际协同作用,高效发挥碳减排投入总体功效、科学合理地切实减少自身碳排放具有重要的理论和现实意义。
省际贸易的碳排放转移问题的核心研究价值体现在其对具体国家或区域的自身碳排放量变化和碳减排效果方面具有的重要影响。因为排除国际贸易的干扰,省际贸易结构和产品供需关系,是造成某国自身碳排放产生和内部跨区域迁移的重要原因,省际碳排放空间转移对一国的碳排放总量变化、碳排放空间格局以及内部各区域协调发展的影响更为重要。特别是对于地域面积广阔,省际贸易总量大、结构复杂的国家而言尤其如此,而这些大国也往往都是世界碳排放量排名居前、对全球碳排放格局影响重大的国家,如中国、美国、日本、印度、巴西等。国内各行政区之间贸易隐含碳转移的影响对这些国家而言甚至超过了国际贸易对其产生的影响(Druckman, 2009; 石敏俊等, 2012; 王向阳等, 2016)。所以,针对省际贸易碳排放空间转移问题的研究,在切实减少一国国内碳排放方面,具有更重要的现实意义和研究价值(Guo et al, 2012),近年来逐渐引起了国内外学者的重视,也必将是未来该领域学术界研究的重要方向和热点之一。
在现有的研究成果中,相对于国际贸易间的碳排放转移而言,针对一国或某国家集团内部各区域或成员国间的碳排放空间转移研究开展较晚,也仍然相对较少(姚亮等, 2010)。其中,国外学者的相关研究开展早于国内学者。如McGregor等(2008)运用区域间投入产出分析模型对苏格兰地区与英国其他地区之间的碳排放空间转移进行了测算和研究,发现彼此之间存在着包括碳排放在内的大量“环境污染物质”的频繁转移,并且存在碳排放转移的“贸易平衡”状态,并对平衡状态的影响因子进行了判定和分析。Watcharejyothin等(2009)对大湄公河流域5个成员国内部的区域间贸易隐含碳排放转移量及其影响进行了核算和研究,发现建立一个内部开放的贸易体系,在改善内部贸易结构的同时,还能减少成员国总能源消耗量的18%和总碳排放量的5%。
在国内研究方面,Feng等(2012)基于2007年区域间投入产出表对中国区域间碳排放的驱动因素进行了分析;Su等(2010, 2011, 2014, 2017)和Su、Aug等(2017)通过计算2002年中国各大区之间的碳排放转移量,探讨了碳排放迁移的空间集聚问题,提出了从机理层面优化区际碳排放转移的构想。吴畏等(2011)对中国省际贸易中的隐含能源进行分析,对“生产者负担”的节能降耗责任提出了质疑,并提出隐含能源净调入省在碳减排中应承担更多帮扶责任;刘红光等(2010)利用1997年区域间投入产出表对中国八大区域的区域间碳排放转移情况进行了分析,并从产业部门角度提出了中国区域产业结构调整的CO2 减排模型,体现了区域统筹、协调发展等原则在发展低碳经济中的重要作用。
这些研究成果对中国区域碳转移研究和碳减排政策的制定起到了重要的完善和指导作用。但由于缺乏多年省际投入产出数据,这类研究大多都是对某一年份节点数据的静态研究,缺乏在长时间跨度上刻画和总结省际碳排放转移形势的动态演进过程和规律。而由于静态研究不能完全排除贸易格局的偶然性因素,不能全面地反映其本质特征和演变规律、趋势,从而难以在中国区域碳减排实践中,完全发挥出其应有的指导价值。
3.2.2 基于连续投入产出数据的省际贸易碳转移动态研究
为了连贯、深入地研究中国省际要素流动和经济联系,国务院发展研究中心李善同教授所带领的专家团队多年来一直致力于省际投入产出表的编制工作(许宪春等, 2008; 李善同等, 2010; 李善同, 2015)。目前已连续成功研制、出版了1997、2002、2007年中国省际区域间投入产出贸易数据,为区域碳排转移的研究提供了强大的数据基础(吴三忙等, 2016; 张少军等, 2017)。
为了突破静态研究的制约,探索和全面揭示区域间碳转移的真正本质特征、演变规律、趋势及其驱动因素和机理,本文在系统吸纳前人研究成果基础上,基于该连续区域间投入产出数据体系,从动态区际碳转移格局演变角度出发,应用EEBT模型和区域间投入产出表数据,对1997-2007年中国省际碳转移高速增长的30个省份的隐含碳转移格局演进情况进行了核算和动态刻画：
从转移量上看,1997-2007年之间,碳排放净转移量总体上升,隐含碳净转移总量从1997年的17222万t上升为2007年的51619万t,总量上增加了2倍。从省际隐含碳净转移省份数量看,1997年隐含碳净转出省份为14个,净转入省份为16个,至2007年,净转出省份降为13个,净转入省份为17个,在数量上基本呈现对称分布(图1-2)。
Fig.1 Provincial net carbon emissions embodied in interprovincial trade (CEs-PT) and their proportions to total net CEs-PT in 1997

图1 1997年省际隐含碳净转移量及其占净转移总量的比例

Fig.2 Provincial net carbon emissions embodied in interprovincial trade (CEs-PT) and their proportions to total net CEs-PT in 2007

图2 2007年省际隐含碳净转移量及其占净转移总量的比例

从隐含碳净转出省份的分布看,净转出省份可分为3类：一是自然资源富集的省份,如河北、内蒙古、辽宁、吉林等;二是人均GDP较高的经济发达省份,如天津、北京等;三是经济总量较大但人均GDP不高的省份,如山东、河南。进一步分析可知,1997年,隐含碳净转出省份中,资源型省份为10个,位列第5-14位,占净转移量的51.75%;天津、北京、河南、山东4省份位列前4,占净转移总量的48.25%,资源型省份数量虽多,但在转移量上并不突出。然而到了2007年,13个净转出省份中的9个资源型省份占了隐含碳净转移总量的93.27%,仅吉林、河北、辽宁前3大资源型省份就占了隐含碳净转移量的71%,资源型省份成为隐含碳净转出的主要省份,并且呈现出高度集中的态势。
从省际隐含碳净转入分布来看,隐含碳净转入省份主要分为2类,一是经济发达省份,如广东、江苏、浙江、北京、福建、上海等(图1-2);二是产业结构比较单一、经济发展水平有限的省份,如广西、江西、四川等省份,由于产业结构不完善,不得不依靠调入物资来满足最终需求。分析隐含碳净转入的分布,1997、2007年上述经济发达省份的隐含碳净转入量分别占净转移总量的73.61%、80.74%,是隐含碳净转入的主要省份,除了在排名上有所变化外,在总体分布上未出现大的结构性变化(图3)。
Fig.3 Geographic location of net carbon emissions embodied in interprovincial trade (CEs-PT), 1997-2007

图3 1997-2007年省际隐含碳净转移时空演化情况

隐含碳净转出省份主要位于中国东北部,净转入省份处于中国东南部,总体分布上呈现由北向南、由西向东转移的空间格局。时序变化上,1997-2007年,净转出省份从东北部的相对均匀分布转变为以吉林、辽宁、河北为重心,上述地区成为隐含碳净转出的重灾区。隐含碳净转入大省的空间分布未出现大的变化,延续了中国东南沿海省份为主的分布。
综上所述,国内外对国际、省际贸易隐含碳转移进行核算、分析、时空动态演化格局刻画等研究成果的不断涌现,为进一步研制更科学的区域贸易调控政策、区域碳减排政策等实践应用成果提供了良好的基础和科学依据。于是,区际碳排放空间转移研究,也从单纯的理论分析,开始走上理论与实证并重的道路,一系列应用性研究也快速展开。

4 碳排放转移问题的实践应用研究

国内外学者对区间贸易隐含碳排放转移问题研究成果的大量出现,近年来引发了全球对区域间碳减排合作方式的全新思考(Chen et al, 2016)。传统的固定区域碳排放削减措施由于没有充分考虑区域间的碳排放转移问题,导致一些地区为了减少碳排放,而从其他区域进口高碳排放的产品,这样的碳减排政策所产生的碳减排效果往往不能充分发挥作用,甚至可能造成局部减排,但总量反而增加,或者一个区域减排、多个区域增加的情况(Munksgaard, 2001; Zhong et al, 2018)。因为在这种情形下,理论上如果一个国家完全通过进口国外制造的商品来代替国内生产,就会出现零碳排放的情况,而实际上对全球碳排放总量没有丝毫减少,甚至由于生产国技术水平差异,会造成全球碳排放总量的增加。也就是学术界所指出的区域间“碳泄漏”问题(Rhee et al, 2006; Liu et al, 2015a)。
基于这种认识,大量学者提出了应根据区域贸易关系特征,提出更科学的产业结构调整策略,制定更为合理的碳减排政策(Ferng, 2003; Peters et al, 2007; Peters, 2008; 钟章奇等, 2017; 余晓泓等, 2018)。这些学者主张在碳减排的调控对策中,应充分考虑区域碳排放转移量,综合考虑不同地区的相对技术差异、贸易需求、贸易结构、贸易规模等影响因素,科学分析各类影响因素的影响机理和作用程度,科学制定碳减排调控对策(Peters et al, 2008b; Zhang Y X et al, 2014; Yang et al, 2017)。但是,目前对隐含碳排放转移研究成果的应用还基本停留在宏观层面的权责协调领域。由于缺乏碳转移动态驱动机制的探索,无法深入剖析长期遭受“碳泄漏”的持续性、变化性、系统性复杂原因,更无法针对碳转移机制制定有效的产业调控方案,难以真正破解“碳泄漏”困境。然而,深入产业部门层面的碳转移调控对策研究,对产业结构转型升级的方向和具体方案制定给予实际的指导,却是此类研究成果最能体现价值的用武之地。
同时,越来越多的学者认识到,在区际碳减排权责划分原则方面,单纯的生产者负责体系和单纯的消费者负责体系,都难以保证减排效果的最优(Gallego et al, 2005; Zhang Z K et al, 2014),只有充分研究区域贸易双方的价值转移和碳排放转移协同关系,制定针对贸易双方的协同调控措施,才能再保证区际贸易的经济效益的同时,最大限度的减少碳排放转移(Lenzen et al, 2007; Baker, 2018)。这也将是未来碳排放空间转移研究需要解决的重要问题之一,对于指导区域碳减排和区际碳减排权责协调机制等实际问题,具有重要价值。

5 讨论与展望

5.1 现有研究的不足

通过上述对区际碳转移现有成果的梳理,发现目前研究仍存在以下不足：第一,由于多年省际投入产出数据获取困难,目前相关研究大多集中于对某一年份节点数据的静态研究,缺乏在长时间跨度上刻画和总结省际碳排放转移形势的动态演进过程和规律。而静态研究不能完全排除贸易格局的偶然性因素,难以全面反映其本质特征和演变规律、趋势;第二,目前隐含碳排放转移研究成果的应用还基本停留在宏观层面的权责协调领域,缺乏碳转移动态驱动机制的探索。对长期遭受“碳泄漏”的持续性、变化性、系统性复杂原因,缺乏足够的研究,更无法针对碳转移机制制定有效的产业调控方案,导致碳减排效果大大降低,产业结构转型难以兼顾经济增长和环境保护,国际、省际贸易结构完全依靠市场,缺乏有效的宏观调控,难以真正破解“碳泄漏”困境。

5.2 区际贸易隐含碳排放转移研究展望

5.2.1 重视国际、省际碳排放转移间的协同研究
目前国内外针对区际碳转移的研究,多以国际贸易碳转移为主,缺乏国家内部的省际贸易碳转移研究,国际、省际碳转移并重、协同的研究则更为少见。据此制定的碳减排政策往往无法充分考虑国际贸易和省际贸易对碳排放的影响,导致碳减排效率低、效果差、负担沉重。同时,由于数据获取困难等问题的限制,国内碳转移的研究也多集中在大区层面,缺乏细化到省际层面的研究。而中国地域广、人口多、经济体量大,各省具有差异化的经济发展阶段、特点和任务,以国家、大区等大尺度的投入产出分析,难以契合各省产业、贸易、技术等独特结构、规模和层次特征,无法制定出有强针对性和可操作性的政策措施,导致区域碳转移问题难以有效缓解和消除。因此,未来应更加侧重于同一区域单元国内贸易、国际贸易的协同研究,通过建立统一的评估核算体系,整合省际贸易和国际贸易,分析其互动关系与互动作用,为更科学准确地评估和优化区际碳转移提供更精确的分析基础。
5.2.2 揭示区际碳排放转移的动态驱动力及驱动机理
现有研究基本明确了导致区际碳转移的驱动力种类、贡献率和驱动原理。但也发现,驱动力因素本身受多种因素的扰动,在碳转移演化过程中,也在同时发生动态变化。比如在将研究范围扩大到省际转移和国际碳转移统一协同分析时,随着两者互动作用的不断变化,各驱动力的贡献和影响也会发生变化。因此,未来的碳排放转移动力机制的研究,应着眼于动态驱动力和驱动机理的研究,即将驱动力本身的动态变化,以及多种驱动力的动态相互作用机制纳入研究中。分析碳转移时空演变过程背后驱动力的种类、规模,及多种驱动因素间的相互作用是如何进行动态变化的,这种动态变化对碳转移时空格局的影响过程、影响结果又是怎样的?这对于更加科学、完善、准确地揭示区际碳转移形成和演化动力机理具有重要创新意义。
5.2.3 探索创新基于共同责任的省际碳转移减排机制
现有研究表明,省际碳排放转移虽然能够通过产业调控政策进行优化,但只要省际贸易存在,且省际技术、能源、产业、贸易等存在差异,省际碳排放转移就不能被彻底消除。而优化后剩余的碳转移量,则需要通过省际间的碳减排权责划分机制来确定碳转移双方的减排权责。在当前世界各国普遍采用的生产者付费原则下的碳排放责任分担机制条件下,碳转移完全由转出方负担,造成了资源型、欠发达、老工业省区的发展负担过重及整体碳减排工作的低效。
而基于消费者负责的碳排放分担机制,虽然能够调整区际碳转移带来的不公平、低效率问题,在很大程度上缓解欠发达、资源型碳净转出省份的碳减排压力,但就一个国家内部的各省区而言,其在加强区际合作、共同解决碳转移压力方面,存在着矫枉过正的问题。对激发碳净转入省区的碳减排积极性缺乏作用,还会在一定程度上造成对碳净转入区的不公平。因此,未来应该重视探索和研究由生产者、消费者共同承担碳转移减排责任的协同减排分配机制。这将为从根本上消除区际碳排放权责不公平、提高全国整体碳减排效率、切实推动省际经贸发展与碳减排合作提供更好的政策方案和决策支撑,对中国的碳减排任务落实和目标实现,具有重要应用价值。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

参考文献

原文顺序 | 文献年度倒序 | 文中引用次数倒序
[1]
李富佳, 董锁成, 李荣生. 2012. 基于EA-SD模型的生态农业系统模拟与优化调控: 以平凉市崆峒区为例[J]. 地理研究, 31(5): 840-852.

[Li F J, Dong S C, Li R S.2012. Simulation and optimization of ecological agriculture system based on EA-SD model: Taking Kongtong District, Pingliang City as a case study[J]. Geographical Research, 31(5): 840-852.]

[2]
李富佳, 李宇, 李泽红, 等. 2015. 基于SD模型的循环农业系统构建及其综合效益评价研究[J]. 干旱区资源与环境, (6): 45-50.

[Li F J, Li Y, Li Z H, et al.2015. Comprehensive benefit evaluation on the circular agricultural system based on system dynamics[J]. Journal of Arid Resources and Environment, (6): 45-50.]

[3]
李善同. 2015. 2007年中国地区扩展投入产出表: 编制与应用[M]. 北京: 经济科学出版社.

[Li S T.2015. 2007 nian Zhongguo diqu kuozhan touruchanchubiao: Bianzhi yu yingyong[M]. Beijing, China: Economic Science Press.]

[4]
李善同, 齐舒畅, 许召元. 2010. 2002年中国地区扩展投入产出表: 编制与应用[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社.

[Li S T, Qi S C, Xu Z Y.2010. 2002 nian Zhongguo diqu kuozhan touruchanchubiao: Bianzhi yu yingyong[M]. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University Press.]

[5]
刘红光, 刘卫东, 唐志鹏, 等. 2010. 中国区域产业结构调整的CO2减排效果分析: 基于区域间投入产出表的分析[J]. 地域研究与开发, 29(3): 129-135.随着经济一体化进程的加快,区域间产业联系越来越紧密.分析区域产业活动CO2的排放问题不能不分析区域间的产业联系.由于中国区域之间的产业结构、技术水平和能源利用效率存在很大的差异,在不同地区不同产业实施相同的减排措施,对全国产生的减排效果也会存在很大的差异.定量衡量这种差异对于中国CO2减排措施的实施和CDM项目的落实具有很强的指导意义.本研究在区域间投入产出表的基础上,利用中国各省市自治区分行业的碳排放系数,建立了中国区域产业结构调整的CO2减排模型,对各区域各行业的减排效果进行了分析.结论认为,东北地区和中部地区是减排效果最为明显的区域,而电力、热力、化工、采掘、金属冶炼以及非金属制品等重工业行业是节能减排工作的重点行业.

DOI

[Liu H G, Liu W D, Tang Z P, et al.2010. The effect analysis of regional industry structure adjustment for CO2 emission reduction in China: On the base of inter-regional input-output analysis[J]. Areal Research and Development, 29(3): 129-135.]

[6]
倪红福, 李善同, 何建武. 2012. 贸易隐含CO2测算及影响因素的结构分解分析[J]. 环境科学研究, 25(1): 103-108.

[Ni H F, Li S T, He J W.2012. Calculation of CO2 embodied in international trade and structural decomposition analysis of the influencing factors[J]. Research of Environmental Sciences, 25(1): 103-108.]

[7]
潘安. 2017. 对外贸易、区域间贸易与碳排放转移: 基于中国地区投入产出表的研究[J]. 财经研究, 43(11): 57-69.

[Pan A.2017. Foreign trade, interregional trade and carbon emissions transfer: Analysis based on China' regional input output tables[J]. Journal of Finance and Economics, 43(11): 57-69]

[8]
齐晔, 李惠民, 徐明. 2008. 中国进出口贸易中的隐含能估算[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 18(3): 69-75.采用投入产出法,估算了1997-2006年中国进出口贸易中的隐含能。在考虑隐含能和进出口能源产品的情况下,都按我国的能耗效率对进出口进行的保守估计发现:1997-2006年,我国的能源进出口基本持平,其中1999-2005年是一个微弱的能源净进口国,而1997,1998和2006年却是能源净出口国;按照日本的能耗效率对进口产品进行调整后的乐观估计发现中国则是一个更大的能源净出口国,每年能源净出口量在10 000~50 000万t标煤之间,其中1997-2002年我国能源净出口量占当年能源消费总量的10%左右,之后该数字迅速增长,2006年更高达18.8%。可见我国进口的能源(包括进口产品中的隐含能)又以出口产品的形式输出到了国外,从能源净消费的角度看我国并没有多消费世界上其他国家的能源。虽然我国近年来能源产品进口增加较快,但我国快速增长的净出口使这些能源又"隐含"在产品中离开了中国。

DOI

[Qi Y, Li H M, Xu M.2008. Accounting embodied energy in import and export in China[J]. China Population, Resource and Environment, 18(3): 69-75.]

[9]
石敏俊, 王妍, 张卓颖, 等. 2012. 中国各省区碳足迹与碳排放空间转移[J]. 地理学报, 67(10): 1327-1338.

[Shi M J, Wang Y, Zhang Z Y, et al.2012. Regional carbon footprint and interregional transfer of carbon emissions in China[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 67(10): 1327-1338.]

[10]
王向阳, 杨五三, 张艳菊. 2016. 中国区域间碳排放转移的趋势分析[J]. 辽宁工程技术大学学报: 社会科学版, 18(6):835-839.针对区域间碳排放转移问题,在系统梳理碳足迹与碳排放区域间转移概念以及两者之间关系基础上,提出中国8大区域碳排放转移的计算方法。为了使数据具有可比性,根据1997年、2002年以及2007年中国能源统计年鉴,分别计算出这3年中国分部门碳排放系数,利用区域间投入产出表对中国8大区域间的碳排放转移进行定量测算,发现隐含碳转移呈逐年递增并且向西北区域发展趋势,为各省区制定碳减排基数提供决策依据。

[Wang X Y, Yang W S, Zhang Y J.2016. Analysis on China's inter regional transfer of carbon emissions[J]. Journal of Liaoning Technical University: Social Science Edition, 18(6): 835-839.]

[11]
魏本勇, 方修琦, 王媛, 等. 2009. 基于投入产出分析的中国国际贸易碳排放研究[J]. 北京师范大学学报: 自然科学版, 45(4): 413-419.采用投入产出分析法,结合部门能源消费数据,从最终需求的角度评估了2002年中国进出口贸易中国家和部门的碳排放.2002年中国为贸易隐含碳排放的净出口国,净出口的碳排放介于22.60～168.14Mt,占国内总排放的2.03%～15.09%.其中,满足国外需求的国内出口碳排放为261.19Mt,约占当年国内总排放的23.45%,相当于总出口排放的79.03%～90.62%;实际用于中国国内使用的进口碳排放为93.05～238.59Mt,约占总进口排放的77.49%,占国内总排放的8.35%～21.42%.2002年中国因进口而间接向全球减少的碳污染排放高达187.81Mt.约67%的总出口碳排放来自11个部门,超过50%的总进口碳排放主要来自5个部门;化学原料及化学制品制造业、黑色金属冶炼及压延加工业、通信设备、计算机及其他电子设备制造业是进出口碳排放净平衡中受生产技术影响最显著的部门.

[Wei B Y, Fang X Q, Wang Y, et al.2009. Estimation of carbon emissions embodied in international trade for China: An input-output analysis[J]. Journal of Beijing Normal University: Natural Science, 45(4): 413-419.]

[12]
吴三忙, 陈炜明, 李善同. 2016. 京津冀经济区内外部经济关联研究[J]. 区域经济评论, (3): 61-68.

[Wu S M, Chen W M, Li S T.2016. Internal and external economic relations in Jing-Jin-Ji economic region: Analysis based on multi-regional input-output model[J]. Regional Economic Review, (3): 61-68.]

[13]
吴畏, 何建武, 李善同. 2011. 我国省际贸易中的隐含能源分析: 环境经济与政策[C]. 北京: 科学出版社.

[Wu W, He J W, Li S T.2011. Woguo shengjimaoyi zhong de yinhan nengyuan fenxi: Huanjing jingji yu zhengce[C]. Beijing, China: Science Press.]

[14]
许宪春, 李善同. 2008. 中国区域投入产出表的编制及分析[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社.

[Xu X C, Li S T.2008. Zhongguo quyu touruchanchubiao de bianzhi ji fenxi[M]. Beijing, China: Tsinghua University Press.]

[15]
姚亮, 刘晶茹. 2010. 中国八大区域间碳排放转移研究[J]. 中国人口·资源与环境, 20(12): 16-19.我国国土幅员辽阔,各区域的经济发展水平和产业结构差异很大。在全国尺度上,发展低碳经济需要切实贯彻区域统筹原则,这就需要对中国区域间的碳排放转移问题进行深入分析。本研究利用EIO-LCA方法及1997年中国区域间投入产出表来核算中国八大区域间产品(服务)以及隐含的碳排放在区域之间流动和转移总量。研究发现,经济拉动作用收支方面,东北区域、京津区域、南部沿海区域、西北区域和西南区域对区域经济拉动作用总量大于其承接其他区域拉动作用的总量,北部沿海区域、东部沿海区域和中部区域反之。区域间隐含的碳排放转移收支方面,北部沿海区域和中部区域碳排放转入量大于转出量,承接了其他区域的高碳负荷产业转移,其他六个区域情况相反。另外,本研究还采用万元碳排放量表示区域间经济拉动的碳负荷系数,来衡量经济拉动作用的碳环境友好程度,即碳效率。区域承接的拉动作用的碳效率从大到小顺序是:京津,西南,东部沿海,北部沿海,西北,东北,南部沿海,中部区域。

DOI

[Yao L, Liu J R.2010. Transfer of carbon emissions between China's eight major regions[J]. China Population, Resource and Environment, 20(12): 16-19.]

[16]
余晓泓, 詹夏颜. 2018. 基于收益原则的碳排放转移及中国碳排放责任研究[J]. 资源科学, 40(1): 185-194.

[Yu X H, Zhan X Y.2018. Analysis of carbon emissions transferred and China's carbon emissions responsibility based on the income principle[J]. Resources Sicence, 40(1): 185-194.]

[17]
张少军, 李善同. 2017. 省际贸易对中国经济增长的贡献研究[J]. 数量经济技术经济研究, (2): 38-54.

[Zhang S J, Li S T.2017. Study on the inter-provincial trade's contribution to China's economic growth[J]. The Journal of Quantitative & Technical Economics, (2): 38-54]

[18]
张晓平. 2009. 中国对外贸易产生的CO2排放区位转移效应分析[J]. 地理学报, 64(2): 234-242.

[Zhang X P.2009. Carbon dioxide emissions embodied in China's foreign trade[J]. Acta Geographica Sinica, 64(2): 234-242]

[19]
钟章奇, 吴乐英, 陈志建, 等. 2017. 区域碳排放转移的演变特征与结构分解及减排对策分析: 以河南省为例[J]. 地理科学, 37(5): 773-782.

[Zhong Z Q, Wu L Y, Chen Z J, et al.2017. Evolution characteristics and structural decomposition of regional carbon emission transfer and implications for carbon-reduction policy: Taking Henan Province as an example[J]. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 37(5): 773-782.]

[20]
Afton C S, Qu J S, Wang Q.2011. Carbon inequality at the sub-national scale: A case study of provincial-level inequality in CO2 emissions in China 1997-2007[J]. Energy Policy, 39(9): 5420-5428.

DOI

[21]
Andersson F.2018. International trade and carbon emissions: The role of Chinese institutional and policy reforms[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 205: 29-39.

[22]
Arce G, López L A, Guan D.2016. Carbon emissions embodied in international trade: The post-China[J]. Applied Energy, 184: 1063-1072.The so-called post-China countries (PC-1607s), distinguished by low wages and high economic growth, will replace China as the “world’s factory”. The aim of this paper is to assess the effect of these changes on global CO2emissions pathways. To achieve this, a counterfactual is proposed wherein China’s trade with the rest of the world is replaced by the PC-16’s trade in a global multiregional input–output context. The emissions savings realized by trade replacement are significant in those scenarios where the current pattern of trade is maintained (6113% on emissions traded and 613.5% on global emissions) and in scenarios where enterprises relocate their production directly or indirectly to the most environmentally efficient countries (ranging from 6115.2% to 6118.2% on emissions embodied in trade). Nevertheless, the potential savings drop considerably (ranging from 611.5% to 617.1%) if companies and host countries take advantage of cheaper, but more polluting means of production and do not internalize the externalities. Through changes in international trade, there is a possibility of reducing emissions, which have to be included in international, multilateral and bilateral agreements to mitigate climate change if we do not want to lose the opportunities these changes present.

DOI

[23]
Baker L.2018. Of embodied emissions and inequality: Rethinking energy consumption[J]. Energy Research & Social Science, 36: 52-60.

[24]
Bushnell J, Chen Y.2012. Allocation and leakage in regional cap-and-trade markets for CO2[J]. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(4): 647-668.

DOI

[25]
Cahill C J, Gallachóir B P O.2012. Combining physical and economic output data to analyse energy and CO2 emissions trends in industry[J]. Energy Policy, 49: 422-429.

DOI

[26]
Chen S Q, Chen B.2016. Tracking inter-regional carbon flows: A hybrid network model[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 50: 4731-4741.

[27]
Cheng H, Dong S C, Li F J, et al.2018. Multi-regional input-output analysis of spatial-temporal evolution driving force for carbon emissions embodied in interprovincial trade and optimization polices: A case study of northeast industrial district in China[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 52: 346-358.

[28]
Dong S C, Wang Z, Li Y, et al.2017. Assessment of comprehensive effects and optimization of a circular economy system of coal power and cement in Kongtong District[J]. Sustainability, 9: 787.

DOI

[29]
Dong Y L, Ishikawa M, Liu X, et al.2010. An analysis of the driving forces of CO2 emissions embodied in Japan-China trade[J]. Energy Policy, 38(11): 6784-6792.By using the latest China–Japan input–output data sets and the index decomposition analysis (IDA) approach, this article analyzes the driving forces of CO 2 emissions embodied in trade between the two countries during 1990–2000. We found that the growth of trade volume had a large influence on the increase of CO 2 emissions embodiments in bilateral trade. The dramatic decline in carbon intensity of the Chinese economy is a primary cause in offsetting CO 2 emissions exported from China to Japan over 1995–2000. We argue that a better understanding of the factors affecting CO 2 emissions embodied in international trade will assist in seeking more effective climate policies with wider participation in the post-Kyoto regime.

DOI

[30]
Druckman A, Jackson T.2009. The carbon footprint of UK households 1990-2004: A socio-economically disaggregated, quasi-multi-regional input-output model[J]. Ecological Economics, 68(7): 2066-2077.

DOI

[31]
Feng K, Siu Y L, Guan D, et al.2012. Analyzing drivers of regional CO2 emissions for China: A structural decomposition analysis[J]. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16: 600-611.China faces the challenge of balancing unprecedented economic growth and environmental sustainability. Rather than a homogenous country that can be analyzed at the national level, China is a vast country with significant regional differences in physical geography, regional economy, demographics, industry structure, and household consumption patterns. There are pronounced differences between the much-developed Eastern-Coastal economic zone and the less developed Central and Western economic zones in China. Such variations lead to large regional discrepancies in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Using the 28 regional input-output tables of China for 2002 and 2007 and structural decomposition analysis (SDA), we analyze how changes in population, technology, economic structure, urbanization, and household consumption patterns drive regional CO2 emissions.The results show a significant gap between the three economic zones in terms of CO2 emission intensity, as the Eastern-Coastal zone possesses more advanced production technologies compared to the Central and Western zones. The most polluting sectors and largest companies are state-owned enterprises and thus are potentially able to speed up knowledge transfer between companies and regions. The 090008greening090009 of the more developed areas is not only a result of superior technology, but also of externalizing production and pollution to the poorer regions in China. The results also show that urbanization and associated income and lifestyle changes were important driving forces for the growth of CO2 emissions in most regions in China. Therefore, focusing on technology and efficiency alone is not sufficient to curb regional CO2 emissions.

DOI

[32]
Ferng J J.2003. Allocating the responsibility of CO2 over-emissions from the perspectives of benefit principle and ecological deficit[J]. Ecological Economics, 46(1): 121-141.

DOI

[33]
Gallego B, Lenzen M.2005. A consistent input-output formulation of shared consumer and producer responsibility[J]. Economic Systems Research, 17(4): 365-391.

DOI

[34]
Guo J E, Zhang Z K, Meng L.2012. China's provincial CO2 emissions embodied in international and interprovincial trade[J]. Energy Policy, 42: 486-497.

DOI

[35]
Howarth R B, Schipper L, Duerr P A, et al.1991. Manufacturing energy use in eight OECD countries: Decomposing the impacts of changes in output, industry structure and energy intensity[J]. Energy Economics, 13(2): 135-142.

DOI

[36]
IPCC.2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories[M]. Kanagawa, Japan: IGES.

[37]
IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis: Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[38]
Lenzen M, Murray J, Sack F, et al.2007. Shared producer and consumer responsibility-theory and practice[J]. Ecological Economics, 61(1): 27-42.

DOI

[39]
Li Y, Zheng J, Li Z H, et al.2017. Re-estimating CO2 emission factors for gasoline passenger cars adding driving behaviour characteristics: A case study of Beijing[J]. Energy Policy, 102: 353-361.

DOI

[40]
Liu H G, Liu W D, Fan X M, et al.2015a. Carbon emissions embodied in demand-supply chains in China[J]. Energy Economics, 50: 294-305.61An IO model is used to measure carbon emissions embodied in demand–supply chains.61Embodied emissions in products for final consumption and export are distinguished.61The net transfer of emissions caused by final use increased rapidly in China.

DOI

[41]
Liu H G, Liu W D, Fan X M, et al.2015b. Carbon emissions embodied in value added chains in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103: 362-370.

DOI

[42]
Liu Z, Davis S J, Feng K S, et al.2016. Targeted opportunities to address the climate-trade dilemma in China[J]. Nature Climate Change, 6: 201-208.

DOI

[43]
Long R Y, Li J Q, Chen H, et al.2018. Embodied carbon dioxide flow in international trade: A comparative analysis based on China and Japan[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 209: 371-381.

[44]
McGregor P G, Swales J K, Turner K.2008. The CO2 'trade balance' between Scotland and the rest of the UK: Performing a multi-region environmental input-output analysis with limited data[J]. Ecological Economics, 66: 662-673.

DOI

[45]
Miller R E, Blair P D.2009. Input-output analysis: Foundations and extensions second edition[M]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[46]
Munksgaard J, Pedersen K A.2001. CO2 accounts for open economies: Producer or consumer responsibility[J]. Energy Policy, 29(4): 327-335.International negotiations of reducing CO 2 emissions address the question of how to account annual CO 2 emissions. For open economies like Denmark facing national CO 2 targets import and export of commodities influence the total accounted CO 2 emissions. In this article we demonstrate the consequences of using two basic accounting principles: a production versus a consumption principle. The distinction between the two principles is whether the producer or the consumer is responsible for the CO 2 emitted. By subtracting total emissions based on the two accounting principles we develop the concept of a “CO 2 trade balance”. Using Denmark as a case, we show that from 1989 to 1994 the CO 2 trade balance has changed dramatically turning into a deficit of 7 million tonnes from a surplus of 0.5 million tonnes in 1987. Consequently, it has become more difficult to reach the national CO 2 target as an increasing part of emissions from Danish territory is caused by foreign demand.

DOI

[47]
Munoz P, Steininger K W.2010. Austria's CO2 responsibility and the carbon content of its international trade[J]. Ecological Economics, 69: 2003-2019.Seeking to limit global warming to 2 C puts narrow restrictions on the remaining carbon budget. While the prevalent accounting framework for carbon emissions is production based (Production-Based Principle, PBP), we here quantify the CO 2 emissions on the basis of the Consumption-Based Principle (CBP) for Austria. At a methodological level, a Multi-Regional Input utput model with full linkages is used to account for Austria's CO 2 responsibility on a global scale. Estimates are carried out for the years 1997 and 2004. Results show that during 1997 CO 2 responsibility based on CBP were 36% larger than those based on PBP. This relation has increased through time. The CBP indicator of 2004 was 44% larger than the PBP. In terms of carbon emission location, for each Euro spent on Austrian final demand in 2004, it is estimated that two-thirds of the CO 2 emissions occur outside Austrian borders. Regarding the origin of the emissions embodied in imports, it is estimated that about one-fourth originated in non-Annex I countries in 1997. This proportion increased to one-third by 2004. Due to this divergence between CBP and PBP indicators, there is a need to re-think current accounting bases in order to properly assign CO 2 responsibilities.

DOI

[48]
Pan J H,Phillips J,Chen Y.2008. China's balance of emissions embodied in trade: Approaches to measurement and allocating international responsibility[J]. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 24(2): 354-376.

DOI

[49]
Peters G P.2008. From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories[J]. Ecological Economics, 65(1): 13-23.

DOI

[50]
Peters G P, Hertwich E G.2008a. CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(5): 1401-1407.

[51]
Peters G P, Hertwich E G.2008b. Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: Production versus consumption[J]. Climatic Change, 86(1-2): 51-66.

DOI

[52]
Peters G P, Minx J C, Weber C Let al.2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(21): 8903-8908.

DOI

[53]
Peters G P, Weber C L, Guan D B, et al.2007. China's growing CO2 emissions: A race between increasing consumption and efficiency gains[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 41(17): 5939-5944.

[54]
Rhee H C,Chung H S.2006. Change in CO2 emission and its transmissions between Korea and Japan using international input-output analysis[J]. Ecological Economics, 58(4): 788-800.

DOI

[55]
Rüstemoğlu H, Andrés A R.2016. Determinants of CO2 emissions in Brazil and Russia between 1992 and 2011: A decomposition analysis[J]. Environmental Science & Policy, 58: 95-106.

[56]
Sánchez-Chóliz J, Duarte R.2004. CO2 emissions embodied in international trade: Evidence for Spain[J]. Energy Policy, 32(18): 1999-2005.

DOI

[57]
Schaeffer R, Sá A L D.1996. The embodiment of carbon associated with Brazilian imports and exports[J]. Energy Conversion and Management, 37(6-8): 955-960.

DOI

[58]
Shui B, Harris R C.2006. The role of CO2 embodied in US-China trade[J]. Energy Policy, 34: 4063-4068.

DOI

[59]
Ståhls M, Saikku L, Mattila T.2011. Impacts of international trade on carbon flows of forest industry in Finland[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19: 1842-1848.

DOI

[60]
Su B, Ang B W.2010. Input-output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: The effects of spatial aggregation[J]. Ecological Economics, 70: 10-18.Energy-related CO 2 emissions embodied in international trade have been widely studied by researchers using the input–output analysis framework. These studies are often conducted at a specific level of sector aggregation and the choice made to a large extent is dictated by economic and energy data availability. We investigate analytically the possible effects of sector aggregation on the study results. We conduct empirical studies using the data of China and Singapore where energy-related CO 2 emissions embodied in their exports are estimated at different levels of sector aggregation. A finding from the studies is that levels around 40 sectors appear to be sufficient to capture the overall share of emissions embodied in a country's exports. Another finding is that in approximating the “ideal” situation the hybrid data treatment approach produces better results than the uniformly distributed data treatment approach. Other findings and some recommendations are also presented.

DOI

[61]
Su B, Ang B W.2011. Multi-region input-output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: The feedback effects[J]. Ecological Economics, 71: 42-53.

DOI

[62]
Su B, Ang B W.2014. Input-output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: A multi-region model for China[J]. Applied Energy, 114: 377-384.

DOI

[63]
Su B, Ang B W.2017. Multiplicative structural decomposition analysis of aggregate embodied energy and emission intensities[J]. Ecological Economics, 65: 137-147.

[64]
Su B, Ang B W, Li Y Z.2017. Input-output and structural decomposition analysis of Singapore's carbon emissions[J]. Energy Policy, 105: 484-492.

DOI

[65]
Tolmasquim M T, Machado G.2003. Energy and carbon embodied in the international trade of Brazil[J]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 8(2): 139-155.

DOI

[66]
Watcharejyothin M, Shrestha R M.2009. Regional energy resource development and energy security under CO2 emission constraint in the greater Mekong sub-region countries (GMS)[J]. Energy Policy, 37(11): 4428-4441.

DOI

[67]
Wiedmann T.2009a. A first empirical comparison of energy footprints embodied in trade: MRIO versus PLUM[J]. Ecological Economics, 68: 1975-1990.The Ecological Footprint as an indicator that accounts for human demand on global bioproductivity sets out to quantify the impacts associated with consumption in a given country, including the impacts associated with trade. The National Footprint Accounts (NFA) by Global Footprint Network (GFN) calculate trade-embodied Footprints by multiplying yield and embodied energy factors with mass volumes of traded goods in a “Product Land Use Matrix (PLUM)”. This article compares energy Footprints embodied in trade from and to the United Kingdom in 2002 as calculated by the NFA-PLUM with the results from a recently developed multi-region input–output model (MRIO) for the UK. Although totals for imports and exports are comparable, breaking down the results by economic sectors reveals large differences and hardly any correlation between the two methods. The omission of trade in services (especially transport services) and upstream impacts of energy goods (fossil fuels) and the use of inappropriate embodied energy factors in the NFA-PLUM method are identified as the main reasons for these differences. In the light of the results it seems that a comprehensive Footprint account of trade can better be achieved with an input–output based approach. I conclude that MRIO models – once fully developed – will be particularly suitable in the future to estimate the Ecological Footprints of imports and exports of nations with the possibility to track their origin via inter-industry linkages, international supply chains and multi-national trade flows.

DOI

[68]
Wiedmann T.2009b. A review of recent multi-region input-output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting[J]. Ecological Economics, 69(2): 211-222.

DOI

[69]
Williams R H, Larson E D, Ross M H.1987. Materials, affluence, and industrial energy use[J]. Annual Review of Energy, 12: 99-144.

DOI

[70]
Wu R, Geng Y, Dong H J, et al.2016. Changes of CO2 emissions embodied in China-Japan trade: Drivers and implications[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112: 4151-4158.

DOI

[71]
Wyckoff A W, Roop J M.1994. The embodiment of carbon in imports of manufactured products: Implications for international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions[J]. Energy Policy, 22(3): 187-194.

DOI

[72]
Yang W S, Wang S G, Chen B.2017. Embodied carbon emission analysis of eco-industrial park based on input-output analysis and ecological network analysis[J]. Energy Procedia, 142: 3102-3107.

DOI

[73]
Zhang Y X, Wang H K, Liang S, et al.2014. Temporal and spatial variations in consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions in China[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40: 60-68.China’s CO2 emissions have sharply increased in recent years with soaring economic development and urbanization. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions could provide new insights for allocating regional mitigation responsibility and curbing the emissions. A multi-regional input–output model is used to study the trends and disparities of consumption-based emissions from Chinese provinces during the period 2002–2007. Results show that China’s consumption-based CO2 emissions grew from 3549Mt in 2002 to 5403Mt in 2007 with an annual average growth rate of 8.8%. The annual growth rate in the richer eastern region was over 10% because of a rapid increase in capital investment and the growth of urban consumption. Consumption-based CO2 emissions embodied in interprovincial trades contributed only 10% (351Mt) to the national total of such emissions in 2002, but 16% (864Mt) in 2007. Given low per capita emissions currently, China’s consumption-based emissions have much room to grow because of further development of urbanization and stimulation of domestic demand. The government should pay greater attention to controlling CO2 emissions from a consumption-based perspective.

DOI

[74]
Zhang Z H, Zhao Y H, Su B, et al.2017. Embodied carbon in China's foreign trade: An online SCI-E and SSCI based literature review[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68: 492-510.

DOI

[75]
Zhang Z K, Guo J E, Hewings G J D.2014. The effects of direct trade within China on regional and national CO2 emissions[J]. Energy Economics, 46: 161-175.

DOI

[76]
Zhao Y H, Wang S, Zhang Z H, et al.2016. Driving factors of carbon emissions embodied in China—US trade: A structural decomposition analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131:678-689.

DOI

[77]
Zhong Z Q, Jiang L, Zhou P.2018. Transnational transfer of carbon emissions embodied in trade: Characteristics and determinants from a spatial perspective[J]. Energy, 147: 858-875.

DOI

[78]
Zhu Y B, Shi Y J, Wu J, et al.2018. Exploring the characteristics of CO2 emissions embodied in international trade and the fair share of responsibility[J]. Ecological Economics, 146: 574-587.

DOI

Options
文章导航

/

〈 〉