IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i12p2268-d122065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic Trends of Carbon Intensities among 127 Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Sang Chang

    (Gachon Center for Convergence Research, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Sujung-gu, Gyeonggi-do 13120, Korea)

  • Dosoung Choi

    (Department of Global Business, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Sujung-gu, Gyeonggi-do 13120, Korea)

  • Hann Earl Kim

    (Department of Global Business, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnam-daero, Sujung-gu, Gyeonggi-do 13120, Korea)

Abstract

Many countries in the world have been experiencing widely varying rates of change in their carbon intensity (CI) of economic output. The dynamic trend of CI in this research is measured by the progress ratio (PR) from an experience curve (EC) involving 127 countries during the period of 1980–2011. The overall average PR of 88.8% estimated for the total group of 127 indicates a decreasing trend of carbon intensity. This means that each doubling of the cumulative CO 2 emission by this group has reduced carbon intensity by 11.2%. While a majority of 83 countries experienced a decreasing trend with an average PR of 73.1%, the remaining 44 countries have experienced an increasing trend with an average PR of 114.5%. When two different types of EC, classical and kinked, were applied, 73 countries displayed a kinked slope with an average PR of 73.4%, and 54 countries displayed a classical slope with an average PR of 104.2%. Examination of the type of trend and slope of EC suggests the chance of a major improvement of the future CI in the following order: (1) the 35 countries with a classical slope and an increasing trend of CIs; (2) the nine countries with a kinked slope and an increasing trend of CIs; (3) the 19 countries with a classical slope and a decreasing trend of CIs; and (4) the 64 countries with a kinked slope and a decreasing trend of CIs. Further implications from these findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Sang Chang & Dosoung Choi & Hann Earl Kim, 2017. "Dynamic Trends of Carbon Intensities among 127 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:12:p:2268-:d:122065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/12/2268/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/12/2268/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Du, Kerui & Xie, Chunping & Ouyang, Xiaoling, 2017. "A comparison of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission trends among provinces in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 19-25.
    2. Grubler, Arnulf, 2010. "The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5174-5188, September.
    3. Sagar, Ambuj D. & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2006. "Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2601-2608, November.
    4. McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
    5. Trappey, Amy J.C. & Trappey, Charles V. & Liu, Penny H.Y. & Lin, Lee-Cheng & Ou, Jerry J.R., 2013. "A hierarchical cost learning model for developing wind energy infrastructures," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 386-391.
    6. Zhu, Zhi-Shuang & Liao, Hua & Cao, Huai-Shu & Wang, Lu & Wei, Yi-Ming & Yan, Jinyue, 2014. "The differences of carbon intensity reduction rate across 89 countries in recent three decades," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 808-815.
    7. Rout, Ullash K. & Blesl, Markus & Fahl, Ulrich & Remme, Uwe & Voß, Alfred, 2009. "Uncertainty in the learning rates of energy technologies: An experiment in a global multi-regional energy system model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(11), pages 4927-4942, November.
    8. Wei, Max & Smith, Sarah Josephine & Sohn, Michael D., 2017. "Non-constant learning rates in retrospective experience curve analyses and their correlation to deployment programs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 356-369.
    9. Wang, H. & Ang, B.W. & Su, Bin, 2017. "A Multi-region Structural Decomposition Analysis of Global CO2 Emission Intensity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 163-176.
    10. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    11. Zhang, Ming & Mu, Hailin & Ning, Yadong, 2009. "Accounting for energy-related CO2 emission in China, 1991-2006," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 767-773, March.
    12. Nikolaos Kouvaritakis & Antonio Soria & Stephane Isoard, 2000. "Modelling energy technology dynamics: methodology for adaptive expectations models with learning by doing and learning by searching," International Journal of Global Energy Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(1/2/3/4), pages 104-115.
    13. Yu Sang Chang & Sung Jun Jo & Seongmin Jeon, 2017. "Using experience curve to project net hydroelectricity generation: in comparison to EIAs projection," International Journal of Energy Technology and Policy, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 13(4), pages 305-319.
    14. Chang, Yusang & Lee, Jinsoo & Yoon, Hyerim, 2012. "Alternative projection of the world energy consumption-in comparison with the 2010 international energy outlook," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 154-160.
    15. AkbostancI, Elif & Tunç, Gül Ipek & Türüt-AsIk, Serap, 2011. "CO2 emissions of Turkish manufacturing industry: A decomposition analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(6), pages 2273-2278, June.
    16. Chang, Yu Sang, 2014. "Comparative analysis of long-term road fatality targets for individual states in the US—An application of experience curve models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 53-69.
    17. Rodríguez, Miguel & Pena-Boquete, Yolanda, 2017. "Carbon intensity changes in the Asian Dragons. Lessons for climate policy design," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 17-26.
    18. Donglan, Zha & Dequn, Zhou & Peng, Zhou, 2010. "Driving forces of residential CO2 emissions in urban and rural China: An index decomposition analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3377-3383, July.
    19. Albino, Vito & Ardito, Lorenzo & Dangelico, Rosa Maria & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2014. "Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: A patent analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 836-854.
    20. Wei, Max & Smith, Sarah J. & Sohn, Michael D., 2017. "Experience curve development and cost reduction disaggregation for fuel cell markets in Japan and the US," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 346-357.
    21. Feng, Kuishuang & Hubacek, Klaus & Guan, Dabo, 2009. "Lifestyles, technology and CO2 emissions in China: A regional comparative analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 145-154, November.
    22. Zhang, Ming & Mu, Hailin & Ning, Yadong & Song, Yongchen, 2009. "Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emission over 1991-2006 in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2122-2128, May.
    23. Nemet, Gregory F., 2012. "Inter-technology knowledge spillovers for energy technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1259-1270.
    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. Yu Sang Chang & Byong-Jin You & Hann Earl Kim, 2020. "Dynamic Trends of Fine Particulate Matter Exposure across 190 Countries: Analysis and Key Insights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-34, 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. Hann-Earl Kim & Yu-Sang Chang & Hee-Jin Kim, 2021. "Dynamic Electricity Intensity Trends in 91 Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-26, April.
    2. Yu Sang Chang & Byong-Jin You & Hann Earl Kim, 2020. "Dynamic Trends of Fine Particulate Matter Exposure across 190 Countries: Analysis and Key Insights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-34, April.
    3. Elia, A. & Kamidelivand, M. & Rogan, F. & Ó Gallachóir, B., 2021. "Impacts of innovation on renewable energy technology cost reductions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. Samadi, Sascha, 2018. "The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies – A literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2346-2364.
    5. Zhu, Zhi-Shuang & Liao, Hua & Cao, Huai-Shu & Wang, Lu & Wei, Yi-Ming & Yan, Jinyue, 2014. "The differences of carbon intensity reduction rate across 89 countries in recent three decades," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 808-815.
    6. Thomassen, Gwenny & Van Passel, Steven & Dewulf, Jo, 2020. "A review on learning effects in prospective technology assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    7. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-Ming & Guo, Haixiang & Ding, Liping, 2014. "Carbon emission coefficient measurement of the coal-to-power energy chain in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 290-300.
    8. Nemet, Gregory F. & Lu, Jiaqi & Rai, Varun & Rao, Rohan, 2020. "Knowledge spillovers between PV installers can reduce the cost of installing solar PV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    9. Schauf, Magnus & Schwenen, Sebastian, 2021. "Mills of progress grind slowly? Estimating learning rates for onshore wind energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Hernandez-Negron, Christian G. & Baker, Erin & Goldstein, Anna P., 2023. "A hypothesis for experience curves of related technologies with an application to wind energy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    11. Reinhard Haas & Marlene Sayer & Amela Ajanovic & Hans Auer, 2023. "Technological learning: Lessons learned on energy technologies," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), March.
    12. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    13. Bento, Nuno & Gianfrate, Gianfranco & Groppo, Sara Virginia, 2019. "Do crowdfunding returns reward risk? Evidences from clean-tech projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 107-116.
    14. Wen, Xin & Jaxa-Rozen, Marc & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2023. "Hindcasting to inform the development of bottom-up electricity system models: The cases of endogenous demand and technology learning," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 340(C).
    15. Castrejon-Campos, Omar & Aye, Lu & Hui, Felix Kin Peng, 2022. "Effects of learning curve models on onshore wind and solar PV cost developments in the USA," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Castrejon-Campos, Omar & Aye, Lu & Hui, Felix Kin Peng & Vaz-Serra, Paulo, 2022. "Economic and environmental impacts of public investment in clean energy RD&D," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Criqui, P. & Mima, S. & Menanteau, P. & Kitous, A., 2015. "Mitigation strategies and energy technology learning: An assessment with the POLES model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 119-136.
    18. Chang, Yu Sang, 2014. "Comparative analysis of long-term road fatality targets for individual states in the US—An application of experience curve models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 53-69.
    19. Yuling Sun & Junsong Jia & Min Ju & Chundi Chen, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Direct Carbon Emission and Policy Implication of Energy Transition for China’s Residential Consumption Sector by the Methods of Social Network Analysis and Geographically We," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-26, July.
    20. Upstill, Garrett & Hall, Peter, 2018. "Estimating the learning rate of a technology with multiple variants: The case of carbon storage," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 498-505.

    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:9:y:2017:i:12:p:2268-:d:122065. 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.