4.7 Article

Accounting and structure decomposition analysis of embodied carbon trade: A global perspective

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 137, Issue -, Pages 140-151

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.064

Keywords

Embodied carbon trade; Structure decomposition analysis (SDA); Multi-regional input-output model (MRIO)

Funding

  1. Lanzhou University of Finance and Economics Silk Road Economic Research Institute [JYYZ201603]
  2. Lanzhou University of Finance and Economics' research projects [Lzufe201601]
  3. Shanghai University of Finance and Economics [CXJJ-2014-411]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper, a multi-regional input-output-model is built to estimate the global embodied carbon trade from 1995 to 2009 based on the World Input-Output Database (WIOD). The method of structure decomposition analysis (SDA) is applied to quantify the changes in the scale and structure of embodied carbon trade in China, India, Japan, and the United States. According to the results, the top three countries with the most embodied carbon trade were: the United States, China and Japan in 1995, and the United States, China and India in 2009. In 1995 and 2009, the sectors which have the highest direct carbon emission coefficients and total carbon emission coefficients in China, India and the United States are electricity, gas and water supply sectors, while each country maintained a different coefficient. A decrease of direct carbon emission coefficient will result in a reduction of the imports and exports, as well as the self-consumption of embodied carbon. Therefore, it is suggested that countries should develop low-carbon industries, and reduce the carbon emissions per unit of output. In addition, those countries with higher carbon emission coefficients should consider of importing products to lower carbon emissions. (C) 2017 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