Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Land-use carbon emissions are typically analyzed within administrative or economic regions; however, natural temperature gradients may modulate how socioeconomic and policy drivers translate into emissions. Using China’s land-use, energy, and meteorological data (1990–2022), we applied a coupled nature–economy–policy modeling framework across six temperature zones to test whether temperature acts as a nonlinear moderator rather than a direct determinant. The warm temperate zone accounted for >55% of national emissions and, together with the mid-temperate zone, this share reached ~80%, while the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau remained a net sink. Driver contributions varied systematically: economic factors dominated tropical and subtropical zones (74.3%), natural constraints dominated the plateau (41.7%), and policy interactions dominated mid- and warm-temperate zones (58.4%). Temperature acted nonlinearly, with emission effects rising from 0.277 to 1.212 t CO2 per °C above a 26.65 °C summer mean (a 4.4-fold amplification). A generalized additive model confirms this significant nonlinearity. Scenario simulations suggest that the business-as-usual scenario peaks in 2035–2040, whereas the ecological protection and low-carbon scenarios peak around 2030. Under RCP4.5, the model projects a potential shift of the plateau from sink to source, but this result is conditional on simplified climate–carbon feedbacks and should be interpreted as a plausible risk rather than a prediction. These findings indicate that temperature zones offer a complementary natural gradient—not a replacement for administrative divisions—for understanding how similar human activities produce different carbon outcomes under contrasting thermal conditions. Given the use of partly uniform emission factors, the results represent macro-scale differentiation; governance implications are therefore conditional on scenario assumptions and require local feasibility assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: