4.7 Article

Embodied carbon dioxide flow in international trade: A comparative analysis based on China and Japan

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Volume 209, Issue -, Pages 371-381

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.067

Keywords

Embodied carbon dioxide flow; Multi-regional input-output model; Production-based emissions; Consumption-based emissions; Import and export

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017XKZD12]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon dioxide embodied flow in international trade has become an important factor in defining global carbon emission responsibility and climate policy. We conducted an empirical analysis for China and Japan for the years 2000-2014, using a multi-region input-output model and considering the rest of the world as a comparison group. We compared the two countries' direct and complete carbon dioxide emissions intensity and bilateral economic activities such as imports and exports, production and consumption to analyze the difference between China and Japan. The results showed that the intensities of carbon emissions in all sectors of China were higher than that in Japan and that China's annual production-based emissions were greater than consumption-based emissions, the opposite of these relationships in Japan. China was a typical net carbon export country, and carbon embodied in its imports and exports continued to increase throughout the study period. In contrast, Japan's volume and growth rate of embodied carbon emissions were far less than China's and Japan was a typical net carbon import country. Finally, the conclusions of this study support recommendations for the formulation of international carbon emission responsibility allocation, domestic abatement policy as well as China's trade policy. (C) 2018 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