IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/marecl/v26y2024i1d10.1057_s41278-023-00259-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emissions intensity comparisons and consumption-based CO2 accounting of transportation services

Author

Listed:
  • Pei-Chun Lin

    (National Cheng Kung University)

  • Her-Jen Bai

    (THI Consultants, Inc.)

Abstract

As the international division of labour becomes more entrenched, the distance goods travel before they reach the final consumer increases; at least this was the case before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. International trade and cross-border cargo movements generate significant carbon emissions. Despite theoretical advances, empirical studies frequently draw contradictory conclusions and the influence of international trade on a country’s decarbonization efforts is inconclusive. This study examines the carbon emissions caused by countries’ transportation services on global value chains. The input–output (IO) model and the 2015 multi-regional environmental input–output table from the UNCTAD-Eora database are employed. The input–output approach was used to determine the carbon emissions generated by the transport sector, along global value chains, in 190 countries. Environmentally extended IO analysis then reallocates emissions responsibilities of the transport sector from production to consumption. The study identifies which country’s transport sectors add more value or emit more CO2. Our findings indicated that: (1) the transportation industry of a country may have a detrimental effect on the environment while generating minimal economic benefit; and (2) a country’s transport industry may be tightly related to global value chain operations, but does not create considerable environmental impact. Given the significant differences in emissions intensity, we propose not only calculating the production-based accounting (PBA) of CO2 emissions, but also the consumption-based accounting (CBA). If CBA emissions are lower than PBA emissions, a country’s transport sector is in carbon-leakage credit. The top three countries with the highest carbon-leakage credit for the transport sector were China, Russia and USA. If carbon emissions are taken into consideration, some nations may cease to possess a comparative advantage in manufacturing and trade.

Suggested Citation

  • Pei-Chun Lin & Her-Jen Bai, 2024. "Emissions intensity comparisons and consumption-based CO2 accounting of transportation services," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 26(1), pages 131-150, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:marecl:v:26:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41278-023-00259-9
    DOI: 10.1057/s41278-023-00259-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41278-023-00259-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41278-023-00259-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin Kitzes, 2013. "An Introduction to Environmentally-Extended Input-Output Analysis," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Krugman, Paul R, 1993. "What Do Undergrads Need to Know about Trade?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 23-26, May.
    3. Bruno Casella & Richard Bolwijn & Daniel Moran & Keiichiro Kanemoto, . "Improving the analysis of global value chains: the UNCTAD-Eora Database," UNCTAD Transnational Corporations Journal, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    4. Onno Kuik & Reyer Gerlagh, 2003. "Trade Liberalization and Carbon Leakage," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 97-120.
    5. Photis M Panayides, 2006. "Maritime Logistics and Global Supply Chains: Towards a Research Agenda," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 8(1), pages 3-18, March.
    6. Theo Notteboom & Thanos Pallis & Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2021. "Disruptions and resilience in global container shipping and ports: the COVID-19 pandemic versus the 2008–2009 financial crisis," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 23(2), pages 179-210, June.
    7. Babiker, Mustafa H., 2005. "Climate change policy, market structure, and carbon leakage," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 421-445, March.
    8. Cadarso, María-Ángeles & López, Luis-Antonio & Gómez, Nuria & Tobarra, María-Ángeles, 2010. "CO2 emissions of international freight transport and offshoring: Measurement and allocation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1682-1694, June.
    9. Bin Fan & Yun Zhang & Xiuzhen Li & Xiao Miao, 2019. "Trade Openness and Carbon Leakage: Empirical Evidence from China’s Industrial Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    10. Alan McKinnon, 2014. "The possible influence of the shipper on carbon emissions from deep-sea container supply chains: An empirical analysis," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 16(1), pages 1-19, March.
    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. Dieter Helm & Cameron Hepburn & Giovanni Ruta, 2012. "Trade, climate change, and the political game theory of border carbon adjustments," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(2), pages 368-394, SUMMER.
    2. Sato, Misato & Dechezleprêtre, Antoine, 2015. "Asymmetric industrial energy prices and international trade," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 130-141.
    3. Ronald D. Sands, Katja Schumacher, and Hannah Forster, 2014. "U.S. CO2 Mitigation in a Global Context: Welfare, Trade and Land Use," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I).
    4. Antimiani, Alessandro & Costantini, Valeria & Martini, Chiara & Salvatici, Luca & Tommasino, Maria Cristina, 2011. "Cooperative and non-cooperative solutions to carbon leakage," Conference papers 332096, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Birgit Bednar-Friedl & Karl Farmer & Andreas Rainer, 2010. "Effects of Unilateral Climate Policy on Terms of Trade, Capital Accumulation, and Welfare in a World Economy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 495-520, December.
    6. Đurđica Stojanović & Jelena Ivetić & Marko Veličković, 2021. "Assessment of International Trade-Related Transport CO 2 Emissions—A Logistics Responsibility Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, January.
    7. Barker, Terry & Junankar, Sudhir & Pollitt, Hector & Summerton, Philip, 2007. "Carbon leakage from unilateral Environmental Tax Reforms in Europe, 1995-2005," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6281-6292, December.
    8. Özge Demiral & Mehmet Demiral & Emine Dilara Aktekin‐Gök, 2022. "Extra‐regional trade and consumption‐based carbon dioxide emissions in the European countries: Is there a carbon leakage?," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(6), pages 1987-2001, December.
    9. Birgit Bednar-Friedl & Veronika Kulmer & Thomas Schinko, 2012. "The effectiveness of anti-leakage policies in the European Union: results for Austria," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 233-260, May.
    10. Vural, Ceren Altuntaş & Göçer, Aysu & Halldórsson, Árni, 2019. "Value co-creation in maritime logistics networks: A service triad perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 27-39.
    11. Onno Kuik, 2014. "REDD+ and international leakage via food and timber markets: a CGE analysis," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 641-655, August.
    12. Birgit Bednar-Friedl & Veronika Kulmer & Thomas Schinko, 2011. "ETCLIP – The Challenge of the European Carbon Market: Emission Trading, Carbon Leakage and Instruments to Stabilise the CO2 Price. Effects of Different EU Climate Policy Scenarios on International Tra," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 43107.
    13. Reyer Gerlagh & Onno Kuik, 2007. "Carbon Leakage with International Technology Spillovers," Working Papers 2007.33, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    14. PU, Zhengning & YUE, Shujing & GAO, Peng, 2020. "The driving factors of China's embodied carbon emissions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    15. Carpa, Nur & Martínez-Zarzoso, Inmaculada, 2022. "The impact of global value chain participation on income inequality," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 269-290.
    16. Cristea, Anca & Hummels, David & Puzzello, Laura & Avetisyan, Misak, 2013. "Trade and the greenhouse gas emissions from international freight transport," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 153-173.
    17. He, Ling-Yun & Chen, Kun-Xian, 2023. "Does China's regional emission trading scheme lead to carbon leakage? Evidence from conglomerates," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    18. Ying Tung Chan, 2019. "Optimal Environmental Tax Rate in an Open Economy with Labor Migration—An E-DSGE Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-38, September.
    19. Bednar-Friedl, Birgit & Schinko, Thomas & Steininger, Karl W., 2012. "The relevance of process emissions for carbon leakage: A comparison of unilateral climate policy options with and without border carbon adjustment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 168-180.
    20. Birgit BEDNAR-FRIEDL & Thomas SCHINKO & Karl STEININGER, 2010. "A CGE Analysis of Climate Policy Options after Copenhagen: Bottom-up Approaches, Border Tax Adjustments, and Carbon Leakage," EcoMod2010 259600022, EcoMod.

    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:pal:marecl:v:26:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41278-023-00259-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.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.