This framework reveals industrial carbon footprint transfers in China, highlighting economic benefits and energy flows.
The equitable allocation of carbon emission responsibility is fundamental to advancing China’s industrial decarbonization, achieving its dual-carbon goals, and realizing regional sustainable development. However, prevailing interprovincial carbon accounting frameworks often neglect the coupled dynamics of economic benefits, energy flows, and ecological capacity, leading to systematic misattribution of industrial carbon footprint transfers. Here, we develop an integrated analytical framework combining multi-regional input–output (MRIO) modeling and net primary productivity (NPP) assessment to comprehensively quantify industrial carbon footprints and their transfers across 30 Chinese provinces. By embedding both the benefit principle (aligning responsibility with trade-generated economic gains) and the energy flow principle (accounting for interprovincial energy trade), we construct a dual-adjustment mechanism that rectifies spatial and sectoral imbalances in traditional accounting. Our results reveal pronounced east-to-west industrial carbon footprint transfers, with resource-rich provinces (e.g., Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang) disproportionately burdened by external consumption, impacting the balance of sustainable development in these regions. Implementing benefit and energy flow adjustments redistributes responsibility more fairly: high-benefit, energy-importing provinces (e.g., Shanghai, Jiangsu, Beijing) assume greater carbon obligations, while energy-exporting, resource-dependent regions see reduced responsibilities. This approach narrows the gap between production- and consumption-based accounting, offering a scientifically robust, policy-relevant pathway to balance regional development and environmental accountability. The proposed framework provides actionable insights for designing carbon compensation mechanisms and formulating equitable decarbonization policies in China and other economies facing similar regional disparities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: