IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i17p9758-d625762.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information Disclosure, Coal Withdrawal and Carbon Emissions Reductions: A Policy Test Based on China’s Environmental Information Disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Nan Li

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Beibei Shi

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

  • Rong Kang

    (School of Economics and Management, Northwest University, Xi’an 710127, China)

Abstract

How to better explore a diversity of emissions reduction paths has become the key to China achieving carbon peak and carbon neutralization goals as well as transforming the existing energy structure as soon as possible. Based on this, from the perspective of information flow, this study used the differences-in-differences method (DID) to identify the “net effect” of the carbon emissions reduction caused by China’s environmental information disclosure. The results showed the following: first, environmental information disclosure could effectively promote regional carbon emissions reductions and had a better effect on the central and western regions and low carbon emissions density regions. Second, the achievement of carbon emissions reduction targets was mainly attributed to the positive impact of information disclosure in the process of “coal withdrawal.” Finally, this study also found that environmental information disclosure helped to promote the positive effect of clean energy development on “coal withdrawal,” and the promotion of public awareness regarding environmental supervision helped to strengthen the external impact of environmental information disclosure on regional carbon emissions reduction.

Suggested Citation

  • Nan Li & Beibei Shi & Rong Kang, 2021. "Information Disclosure, Coal Withdrawal and Carbon Emissions Reductions: A Policy Test Based on China’s Environmental Information Disclosure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9758-:d:625762
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9758/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9758/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yun-Jung Lee & Neung-Woo Kim & Ki-Hong Choi & Seong-Min Yoon, 2020. "Analysis of the Informational Efficiency of the EU Carbon Emission Trading Market: Asymmetric MF-DFA Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, May.
    2. Ralf Martin & Mirabelle Muûls & Ulrich J. Wagner, 2016. "The Impact of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme on Regulated Firms: What Is the Evidence after Ten Years?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(1), pages 129-148.
    3. Hu, Bin & Li, Zhengtao & Zhang, Lin, 2019. "Long-run dynamics of sulphur dioxide emissions, economic growth and energy efficiency in China," MPRA Paper 94588, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Weijiang Liu & Tingting Liu & Yangyang Li & Min Liu, 2021. "Recycling Carbon Tax under Different Energy Efficiency Improvements: A CGE Analysis of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Höfer, Tim & Madlener, Reinhard, 2020. "A participatory stakeholder process for evaluating sustainable energy transition scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    6. Beibei Shi & Lei Wu & Rong Kang, 2021. "Clean Development, Energy Substitution, and Carbon Emissions: Evidence from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Project Implementation in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Cong, Rong-Gang & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2012. "Experimental comparison of impact of auction format on carbon allowance market," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 4148-4156.
    8. Dai, Xingyu & Xiao, Ling & Wang, Qunwei & Dhesi, Gurjeet, 2021. "Multiscale interplay of higher-order moments between the carbon and energy markets during Phase III of the EU ETS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    9. Duan, Hongxia, 2010. "The public perspective of carbon capture and storage for CO2 emission reductions in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5281-5289, September.
    10. Zhang, Xian & Fan, Jing-Li & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2013. "Technology roadmap study on carbon capture, utilization and storage in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 536-550.
    11. Fei Zou & Yanju Zhou & Caihua Yuan, 2020. "The Impact of Retailers’ Low-Carbon Investment on the Supply Chain under Carbon Tax and Carbon Trading Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-27, April.
    12. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    13. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    14. Jørgen Wettestad & Torbjørg Jevnaker, 2019. "Smokescreen Politics? Ratcheting Up EU Emissions Trading in 2017," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 36(5), pages 635-659, September.
    15. Yanhong Tang & Xin Miao & Hongyu Zang & Yanhong Gao, 2018. "Information Disclosure on Hazards from Industrial Water Pollution Incidents: Latent Resistance and Countermeasures in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
    16. Yuhuan Sun & Qian Li & Ting Chen & Xiaoai Jia, 2015. "Dynamic Factor Analysis of Trends in Temporal–Spatial Patterns of China’s Coal Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-17, November.
    17. Xiao Liu & Yee Leung & Yuan Xu & Linda Chor Wing Yung, 2017. "The effect of carbon tax on carbon emission abatement and GDP: a case study," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 399-414, October.
    18. Song, Yan & Sun, Junjie & Zhang, Ming & Su, Bin, 2020. "Using the Tapio-Z decoupling model to evaluate the decoupling status of China's CO2 emissions at provincial level and its dynamic trend," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 120-129.
    19. Zhang, Hui & Zhang, Bing, 2020. "The unintended impact of carbon trading of China's power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    20. Bengart, Paul & Vogt, Bodo, 2021. "Fuel mix disclosure in Germany—The effect of more transparent information on consumer preferences for renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    21. Sam Meng & Mahinda Siriwardana & Judith McNeill, 2013. "The Environmental and Economic Impact of the Carbon Tax in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(3), pages 313-332, March.
    22. Haoran Li & Wei Peng, 2020. "Carbon Tax, Subsidy, and Emission Reduction: Analysis Based on DSGE Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-10, December.
    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. Erli Dan & Jianfei Shen & Yiwei Guo, 2023. "Corporate Sustainable Growth, Carbon Performance, and Voluntary Carbon Information Disclosure: New Panel Data Evidence for Chinese Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-27, March.

    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. Shanglei Chai & Ruixuan Sun & Ke Zhang & Yueting Ding & Wei Wei, 2022. "Is Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) an Effective Market-Incentivized Environmental Regulation Policy? Evidence from China’s Eight ETS Pilots," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2020. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating Under Asymmetric Information," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt08c456vk, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    3. Irina Heimbach & Oliver Hinz, 2018. "The Impact of Sharing Mechanism Design on Content Sharing in Online Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 592-611, September.
    4. Löschel, Andreas & Lutz, Benjamin Johannes & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "The impacts of the EU ETS on efficiency and economic performance – An empirical analyses for German manufacturing firms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 71-95.
    5. Christian Volpe Martincus & Jerónimo Carballo, 2010. "Is Export Promotion Effective in Developing Countries? Firm-Level Evidence on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Exports," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 36763, Inter-American Development Bank.
    6. Berger, Allen N. & Kick, Thomas & Schaeck, Klaus, 2014. "Executive board composition and bank risk taking," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 48-65.
    7. Michele Campolieti & Chris Riddell, 2020. "Does Mediation-Arbitration Reduce Arbitration Rates? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(1), pages 211-235, January.
    8. Bonnet, Céline & Hilger, James & Villas-Boas, Sofia B., 2017. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating under Asymmetric Information - The Case of Wine Expert Opinions," TSE Working Papers 17-834, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised May 2019.
    9. Lin, Boqiang & Li, Xuehui, 2011. "The effect of carbon tax on per capita CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5137-5146, September.
    10. Colm Harmon & Claire Finn & Arnaud Chevalier & Tarja Viitanen, 2006. "The economics of early childhood care and education : technical research paper for the National Economic and Social Forum," Open Access publications 10197/671, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    11. Noel, Michael D. & Roach, Travis, 2017. "Marginal reductions in vehicle emissions under a dual-blend ethanol mandate: Evidence from a natural experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 45-54.
    12. Thomas Buchmueller & John C. Ham & Lara D. Shore-Sheppard, 2015. "The Medicaid Program," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, Volume 1, pages 21-136, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Sheila Hoag & Adam Swinburn & Sean Orzol & Michael Barna & Maggie Colby & Brenda Natzke & Christopher Trenholm & Fredric Blavin & Genevieve M. Kenney & Michale Huntress & Others, 2013. "CHIPRA Mandated Evaluation of Express Lane Eligibility: Final Findings," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 257e261f5ab440728eb301712, Mathematica Policy Research.
    14. Puhani, Patrick A., 2012. "The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear “difference-in-differences” models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 85-87.
    15. Schmidt, Lucie, 2007. "Effects of infertility insurance mandates on fertility," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 431-446, May.
    16. Schertler, Andrea, 2016. "Pricing effects when competitors arrive: The case of discount certificates in Germany," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 84-99.
    17. Resce, Giuliano, 2022. "The impact of political and non-political officials on the financial management of local governments," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 943-962.
    18. Dale Belman & Paul Wolfson & Kritkorn Nawakitphaitoon, 2015. "Who Is Affected by the Minimum Wage?," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 582-621, October.
    19. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 431-497, March.
    20. Ana Albuquerque & Julie Lei Zhu, 2019. "Has Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act Discouraged Corporate Investment? New Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(7), pages 3423-3446, July.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9758-:d:625762. 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.