Empirical analysis demonstrates carbon trading reduces emissions in industries, suggesting targeted policy improvements.
Clarifying the heterogeneity of the driving mechanism of the carbon trading market for different industries can provide more detailed theoretical references for the design of targeted emission reduction programs. Based on three-dimensional panel data of 27 subdivided industrial sectors in 30 provinces in China from 2007 to 2019, a multi-period double-difference model is constructed to empirically test the industrial emission reduction effect of the carbon trading market pilot policy and its mechanism of action. The empirical results show that carbon trading policies can effectively reduce the carbon emissions of the industrial sectors, with their impact showing a certain lag effect. Specifically, its impact coefficients on production scale, technological innovation, and carbon emission intensity are -0.156, 0.377, and -0.251, respectively. This indicates that although the industrial sector achieves emission reduction under the carbon trading market system by upgrading the level of technological innovation and lowering the intensity of carbon emissions, it also compresses the production scale to a certain extent. In addition, there is an antagonistic relationship between growth and emission reduction targets. Further research showed that carbon trading policies have a greater reduction effect on sectors with low capital returns, such as ferrous metal mining and dressing and non-metallic mineral products, as well as sectors with low technology intensity such as textiles, garments, footwear, leather and its products, and coal mining and washing. Furthermore, they have a better quality improvement effect on carbon-intensive sectors such as electricity, gas, water production and supply, and ferrous metal smelting and rolling processing. Based on these conclusions, this paper proposes relevant policy recommendations for improving the carbon market system according to targeted industrial technology and emission characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: