The drivers of carbon intensity and emission reduction strategies in heavy industry: Evidence from nonlinear and spatial perspectives

Carbon intensity, a critical indicator for assessing the efficacy of carbon dioxide emissions reduction, plays a crucial role in achieving the “double carbon” target. Exploring the primary drivers influencing carbon intensity in heavy industry is essential for informed decision-making. Different fro...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nan Ke, Jianbao Chen, Tingting Cheng
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2024-03-01
Series:Ecological Indicators
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X24002218
Description
Summary:Carbon intensity, a critical indicator for assessing the efficacy of carbon dioxide emissions reduction, plays a crucial role in achieving the “double carbon” target. Exploring the primary drivers influencing carbon intensity in heavy industry is essential for informed decision-making. Different from the traditional linear models, spatial autoregressive threshold panel (SARTP) model can simultaneously capture the possible existed spatial spillover effect of response and nonlinear threshold effects of regressors. Based on 2005–2020 panel data, we use the SARTP model to investigate the drivers of carbon intensity in heavy industry of China. The empirical results reveal that the carbon intensity in heavy industry has a significant positive spatial spillover effect. Notably, the drivers exhibit distinct characteristics across three regimes (regimes I, II, and III) based on different levels of economic development -- low, median, and high. Concretely, (1) 1% increase of carbon intensity in adjacent provinces results in 0.158% increase in the observing province. (2) There are positive impacts of advanced industrial structure, technological progress and environmental regulation under regime I. However, these impacts turn negative, and their influence strengthens with ascension of economic development level under regimes II and III. (3) The elasticity coefficient of economic development is significantly negative in regimes I and II, while positive in regime III. (4) As economic development levels rise, the positive contributions of energy structure and urbanization to carbon intensity gradually weaken. (5) Energy efficiency has almost the same significant positive marginal contribution to carbon intensity under all three regimes. (6) The openness degree has a noticeable negative effect on carbon intensity under regime II and significantly positive effect under regime III. In light of these findings, local governments are advised to formulate tailored policies and measures according to their economic development levels. Cooperation among regions is emphasized as a crucial strategy to effectively reduce carbon intensity in the heavy industry sector.
ISSN:1470-160X