The dynamic effect of structural factors and patents on carbon emission intensity in China from the year of 1985 to 2009 is analyzed by employing ARDL model and bound testing approach. The empirical results show that per-capita income has a significant negative impact on carbon emission intensity and the coal share in total energy consumption has a significant positive impact on it. The increasing per-capita income might help improving the decline of carbon emission intensity; however the marginal impact of per-capita income on carbon emission intensity is lower than that of the coal share on the intensity. The short term impact of the coal share on carbon emission intensity is significantly lower than its long term effect. The share of tertiary industry in GDP shows a significant impact on carbon emission intensity; however its impact on the carbon emission intensity is not identical with the different models, indicating an unbalanced development trend within tertiary industry. Therefore, the target of industrial structure adjustment is not only to increase the proportion of tertiary industry in GDP, but also to speed up its transition to resource-saving and environment-friendly economic development. The short-term impact of patent output on carbon emission intensity is basically insignificant, showing a lag influence of patent output on carbon emission intensity. In the long run, a significantly negative correlation is found between carbon emission intensity and total amount of patent, practical new-typed patent and appearance design patent while there is a significantly positive relationship between carbon emission intensity and invention patents, showing that the invention patents have not played its promotive role in carbon intensity reduction yet.
Key words
carbon emissions intensity /
structural effect /
patent effect /
ARDL approach
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2] Greeting, L.A., Davis, W.B., Schipper, L. Decomposition of aggregate carbon intensity for the manufacturing sector: comparison of declining trends from 10 OECD countries for the period 1971-1991[J]. Energy Economics, 1998, 20(1): 43-65.
[3] Tan Z.F, Li L, Wang J.J, et al. Examining the driving forces for improving China’s CO2 emission intensity using the decomposing method [J]. Applied Energy, 2011, 88(12): 4496-4504.
[4] 虞义华,郑新业,张莉.经济发展水平、产业结构与碳排放强度:中国省级面板数据分析[J].经济理论与经济管理,2011(3):72- 81.
[5] Fan Y, Liu L C, Wu G, et al. Changes in carbon intensity in China: Empirical findings from 1980-2003 [J]. Ecological Economics, 2007, 62(3-4):683-691.
[6] 张友国.经济发展方式变化对中国碳排放强度的影响[J].经济研究,2010(4):120- 133.
[7] 籍艳丽,郜元兴.二氧化碳排放强度的实证研究[J].统计研究,2011,28(7):37- 44.
[8] 孙敬水.中国碳排放强度驱动因素实证研究[J].贵州财经学院学报,2011(3):1-6.
[9] 张炎治,聂锐.能源强度的指数分解分析研究综述[J].管理学报,2008,5(5):647-650.
[10] 周五七,聂鸣.中国低碳技术创新企业专利战略研究[J].情报杂志,2011,30(6):20- 25.
[11] 任晓玲.全球清洁能源技术专利分布与许可状况:欧专局等公布"专利和清洁能源"项目调查报告[J].中国发明与专利,2011(1):96- 97.
[12] Stern D I. Progress on the Environmental Kuznets Curve?[J].Environment and Development Economics, 1998, 3:173-196.
[13] Harbaugh, William T, Levinson, Arik, Wilson, David Molloy, Rethinking the empirical evidence for an Environmental Kuznets Curve[J].Review of Economics and Statistics, 2002,84 (3):541-551.
[14] Pesaran M H, Shin Y, Smith R. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships[J]. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2001, 16(3):289-326.
PDF(1192 KB)
