IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i3p1048-d1326542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the Synergistic Effect of Pollution and Carbon Reduction in China’s Industrial Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Minglong Xu

    (Beijing Climate Change Response Research and Education Center, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China)

  • Huimin Li

    (Beijing Climate Change Response Research and Education Center, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Beijing 100044, China)

  • Xianghui Deng

    (China Industrial Energy Conservation and Cleaner Production Association, Beijing 100034, China)

Abstract

The industrial sector is a major source of CO 2 and atmospheric pollutants in China, and it is important to promote industrial pollution reduction and carbon reduction to improve the quality of China’s atmospheric environment and meet CO 2 peak targets. In this paper, based on 2005 to 2021’s panel data from the industrial sector, we construct a computational model of the synergistic effect of pollution reduction and carbon reduction, quantitatively evaluate the synergistic effect of industrial CO 2 emissions and air pollutants, and explore its evolutionary mechanism. The results showed that between 2005 and 2021, there was a clear synergistic effect between CO 2 and air pollutants in China’s industrial sector, and the synergistic effect is increasing. For different pollutants, CO 2 and SO 2 have the strongest synergies, and CO 2 and particulate matter have relatively weak synergies. For different energy types, the synergies between coal-related carbon emissions and air pollutants gradually increase, while gas-related carbon emissions and pollutants tend to decrease. From different industry types, the synergies between CO 2 and air pollutants are weaker in high-polluting and high-emission industries than in other industries. These results have strong policy implications. First, the focus of synergistic measures should be on source reduction. The second is to make high-polluting and high-emission industries the focus of pollution reduction and carbon reduction. Third is harmonized management of air quality standards and carbon peaking should be promoted. The formulation of relevant policies from the above three aspects will help synergize pollution reduction and carbon reduction in the industrial sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Minglong Xu & Huimin Li & Xianghui Deng, 2024. "Measuring the Synergistic Effect of Pollution and Carbon Reduction in China’s Industrial Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-14, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:3:p:1048-:d:1326542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1048/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1048/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zeng, Qing-Hua & He, Ling-Yun, 2023. "Study on the synergistic effect of air pollution prevention and carbon emission reduction in the context of "dual carbon": Evidence from China's transport sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    2. Burtraw, Dallas & Krupnick, Alan & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Toman, Michael & Bloyd, Cary, 2003. "Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 650-673, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Minhua Yang & Rui Yao & Linkun Ma & Ang Yang, 2024. "Towards a Low-Carbon Target: How the High-Speed Rail and Its Expansion Affects Industrial Concentration and Macroeconomic Conditions: Evidence from Chinese Urban Agglomerations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Pizer, William A. & Burtraw, Dallas & Harrington, Winston & Newell, Richard G. & Sanchirico, James N., 2005. "Modeling Economywide versus Sectoral Climate Policies Using Combined Aggregate-Sectoral Models," Discussion Papers 10502, Resources for the Future.
    3. Danmeng Feng & Xiang Fan & Xiaoyuan Chu, 2017. "The Spillover Effect of Ecological Environment Protection on Poverty Reduction," Applied Economics and Finance, Redfame publishing, vol. 4(4), pages 59-65, July.
    4. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    5. Ikefuji, M. & Magnus, J.R. & Sakamoto, H., 2010. "Climate Change, Economic Growth, and Health," Discussion Paper 2010-86, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Milan Ščasný & Emanuele Massetti & Jan Melichar & Samuel Carrara, 2015. "Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 383-415, October.
    7. Bonilla, Jorge & Coria, Jessica & Sterner, Thomas, 2012. "Synergies and Trade-offs between Climate and Local Air Pollution: Policies in Sweden," Working Papers in Economics 529, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    8. J. West & Arlene Fiore & Larry Horowitz, 2012. "Scenarios of methane emission reductions to 2030: abatement costs and co-benefits to ozone air quality and human mortality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 441-461, October.
    9. Erin T. Mansur, 2007. "Do Oligopolists Pollute Less? Evidence From A Restructured Electricity Market," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 661-689, December.
    10. Hu, Ming-Che & Hobbs, Benjamin F., 2010. "Analysis of multi-pollutant policies for the U.S. power sector under technology and policy uncertainty using MARKAL," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 5430-5442.
    11. Shupeng Zhu & Michael Mac Kinnon & Andrea Carlos-Carlos & Steven J. Davis & Scott Samuelsen, 2022. "Decarbonization will lead to more equitable air quality in California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Rodgers, Mark & Coit, David & Felder, Frank & Carlton, Annmarie, 2019. "Assessing the effects of power grid expansion on human health externalities," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 92-104.
    13. Fabio Antoniou & Efthymia Kyriakopoulou, 2019. "On the Strategic Effect of International Permits Trading on Local Pollution," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1299-1329, November.
    14. Weijiang Liu & Yangyang Li & Tingting Liu & Min Liu & Hai Wei, 2021. "How to Promote Low-Carbon Economic Development? A Comprehensive Assessment of Carbon Tax Policy in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Reeling, Carson & Garnache, Cloé & Horan, Richard, 2018. "Efficiency gains from integrated multipollutant trading," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 124-136.
    16. Färe, Rolf & Grosskopf, Shawna & Pasurka, Carl A., 2014. "Potential gains from trading bad outputs: The case of U.S. electric power plants," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 99-112.
    17. Nam, Kyung-Min & Selin, Noelle E. & Reilly, John M. & Paltsev, Sergey, 2010. "Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe: A CGE analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5059-5071, September.
    18. Bollen, Johannes, 2015. "The value of air pollution co-benefits of climate policies: Analysis with a global sector-trade CGE model called WorldScan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 178-191.
    19. Kenneth Rødseth & Eirik Romstad, 2014. "Environmental Regulations, Producer Responses, and Secondary Benefits: Carbon Dioxide Reductions Under the Acid Rain Program," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(1), pages 111-135, September.
    20. Krook Riekkola, Anna & Ahlgren, Erik O. & Söderholm, Patrik, 2011. "Ancillary benefits of climate policy in a small open economy: The case of Sweden," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4985-4998, September.

    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:16:y:2024:i:3:p:1048-:d:1326542. 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.