IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i10p2972-d558870.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Study on Relative Fossil Energy Carrying Capacity in China and the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Zhili Zuo

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Jinhua Cheng

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
    Research Center of Resource and Environment Economics, Mineral Resource Strategy and Policy Research Center, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Haixiang Guo

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
    Research Center of Resource and Environment Economics, Mineral Resource Strategy and Policy Research Center, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China)

  • Yonglin Li

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China)

Abstract

Based on resource carrying capacity, this study used the revised theory of relative resource carrying capacity (RRCC) and introduced an innovative concept of relative fossil energy carrying capacity (RFECC), which evaluates the degree of fossil energy sustainability based on the relationship between economy, population, and environment. This study took China and the United States as the study objects, took the whole country as the reference area, and calculated the RFECC of population, economic, and environmental resources from 2000 to 2018. Therefore, based on the comparative analysis, the following conclusions were drawn: (i) there is a big difference in the RFECC between China and the United States, which is manifested in the inverted U-shaped trend in China and the U-shaped trend in the United States; (ii) the relative fossil energy carrying states in China and the United States are different, mainly reflected in the economy and environment; (iii) the gap in RFECC between China and the United States has gradually widened; in general, China’s economic RFECC is better than that of the United States, while environmental RFECC and population RFECC in the United States is better than that of China; and (iv) coal and oil should be used as a breakthrough point for the sustainable fossil energy and sustainable development for China and the United States, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhili Zuo & Jinhua Cheng & Haixiang Guo & Yonglin Li, 2021. "Comparative Study on Relative Fossil Energy Carrying Capacity in China and the United States," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:10:p:2972-:d:558870
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/10/2972/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/10/2972/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huiming Duan & Guang Rong Lei & Kailiang Shao, 2018. "Forecasting Crude Oil Consumption in China Using a Grey Prediction Model with an Optimal Fractional-Order Accumulating Operator," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-12, August.
    2. Huafeng Xu & Bin Liu & Zhigeng Fang, 2014. "New grey prediction model and its application in forecasting land subsidence in coal mine," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 71(2), pages 1181-1194, March.
    3. Arrow, Kenneth & Bolin, Bert & Costanza, Robert & Dasgupta, Partha & Folke, Carl & Holling, C.S. & Jansson, Bengt-Owe & Levin, Simon & Mäler, Karl-Göran & Perrings, Charles & Pimentel, David, 1996. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 104-110, February.
    4. Graymore, M.L.M. & Sipe, Neil G. & Rickson, Roy E., 2010. "Sustaining Human Carrying Capacity: A tool for regional sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 459-468, January.
    5. Lane, Murray & Dawes, Les & Grace, Peter, 2014. "The essential parameters of a resource-based carrying capacity assessment model: An Australian case study," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 272(C), pages 220-231.
    6. Russell Hopfenberg & David Pimentel, 2001. "Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Costanza, Robert, 1995. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 89-90, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wenxiao Chu & Maria Vicidomini & Francesco Calise & Neven Duić & Poul Alborg Østergaard & Qiuwang Wang & Maria da Graça Carvalho, 2022. "Recent Advances in Low-Carbon and Sustainable, Efficient Technology: Strategies and Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-30, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yi-ping Fang & Fu-biao Zhu & Shu-hua Yi & Xiao-ping Qiu & Yong-jiang Ding, 2021. "Ecological carrying capacity of alpine grassland in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau based on the structural dynamics method," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 12550-12578, August.
    2. Xiaoyan Cao & Jizong Jiao & Xiuli Liu & Wanyang Zhu & Haoran Wang & Huiqing Hao & Jingtao Lu, 2022. "Establishment of an Ecological Security Pattern under Arid Conditions Based on Ecological Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of Arid Area in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Qun Zhang & Lili Wang & Hanmei Wang & Yang Chen & Chunhua Tian & Yixi Shao & Tiange Liu, 2024. "An Improved Framework of Major Function-Oriented Zoning Based on Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Delta Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Manshadi, Zahra Dehghan & Parivar, Parastoo & Sotoudeh, Ahad & Morovati Sharifabadi, Ali, 2024. "Modeling urban growth effects on carrying capacity in arid and semi-arid regions using system dynamics," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 487(C).
    5. Xiao-meng Song & Fan-zhe Kong & Che-sheng Zhan, 2011. "Assessment of Water Resources Carrying Capacity in Tianjin City of China," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(3), pages 857-873, February.
    6. Zhimin Zhang & Guoli Ou & Ayman Elshkaki & Ruilin Liu, 2022. "Evaluation of Regional Carrying Capacity under Economic-Social-Resource-Environment Complex System: A Case Study of the Yangtze River Economic Belt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Opschoor, J. (Hans) B., 1995. "Ecospace and the fall and rise of throughput intensity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 137-140, November.
    8. Kaika, Dimitra & Zervas, Efthimios, 2013. "The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) theory. Part B: Critical issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1403-1411.
    9. Bradford David F. & Fender Rebecca A & Shore Stephen H. & Wagner Martin, 2005. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Exploring a Fresh Specification," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-28, June.
    10. Ghimire, Narishwar & Woodward, Richard T., 2013. "Under- and over-use of pesticides: An international analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 73-81.
    11. Jha, Raghbendra & Murthy, K. V. Bhanu, 2003. "An inverse global environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 352-368, June.
    12. Shuaibing Zhang & Kaixu Zhao & Shuoyang Ji & Yafang Guo & Fengqi Wu & Jingxian Liu & Fei Xie, 2022. "Evolution Characteristics, Eco-Environmental Response and Influencing Factors of Production-Living-Ecological Space in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, July.
    13. G. Mythili & Shibashis Mukherjee, 2011. "Examining Environmental Kuznets Curve for river effluents in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 627-640, June.
    14. George Halkos & Iacovos Psarianos, 2016. "Exploring the effect of including the environment in the neoclassical growth model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 18(3), pages 339-358, July.
    15. Fabian Knorre & Martin Wagner & Maximilian Grupe, 2021. "Monitoring Cointegrating Polynomial Regressions: Theory and Application to the Environmental Kuznets Curves for Carbon and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-35, March.
    16. Carmen van der Merwe & Martin de Wit, 2021. "An In-Depth Investigation into the Relationship Between Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Economic Growth in the City of Cape Town," Working Papers 07/2021, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics, revised 2021.
    17. Nunes, P.A.L.D. & Nijkamp, P., 2011. "Biodiversity: Economic perspectives," Serie Research Memoranda 0002, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    18. Thomas Bolognesi, 2015. "The water vulnerability of metro and megacities: An investigation of structural determinants," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(2), pages 123-133, May.
    19. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    20. Rothman, Dale S., 1998. "Environmental Kuznets curves--real progress or passing the buck?: A case for consumption-based approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 177-194, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:10:p:2972-:d:558870. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.