Four-quadrant modelling of carbon inequality in international trade and accounting for carbon compensation

References

• Wiedmann T, Lenzen M. Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nature Geosci. 2018;11(5):314–321. 05/01. doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0113-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters GP, Hertwich EG. CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ Sci Technol. 2008; 42(5):1401–1407. doi:10.1021/es072023k.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CL, et al. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(21):8903–8908. doi:10.1073/pnas.1006388108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang XD, Yang X, Yan FH, et al. Exploring global embodied metal flows in international trade based combination of multi-regional input-output analysis and complex network analysis. Resour Policy. 2020; 67:13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris S, Weinzettel J, Bigano A, et al. Low carbon cities in 2050? GHG emissions of European cities using production-based and consumption-based emission accounting methods. J Cleaner Prod. 2020;248:119206. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu SM, Li ST, Lei YL, et al. Temporal changes in China’s production and consumption-based CO2 emissions and the factors contributing to changes. Energy Econ. 2020; 89:104770. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrano A, Guan D, Duarte R, et al. Virtual water flows in the EU27 a consumption-based approach. J Ind Ecol. 2016; 20(3):547–558. doi:10.1111/jiec.12454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franzen A, Mader S. Consumption-based versus production-based accounting of CO2 emissions: is there evidence for carbon leakage? Environ Sci Policy. 2018; 84:34–40. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakob M, Ward H, Steckel JC. Sharing responsibility for trade-related emissions based on economic benefits. Glob Environ Change-Human Policy Dimens. 2021; 66:8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golgeci I, Makhmadshoev D, Demirbag M. Global value chains and the environmental sustainability of emerging market firms: a systematic review of literature and research agenda. Int Bus Rev. 2021; 30(5):29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Liu Y, Feng KS, et al. Revealing environmental inequality hidden in China’s inter-regional trade. Environ Sci Technol. 2018; 52(13):7171–7181. doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b00009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dauda L, Long X, Mensah CN, et al. Innovation, trade openness and CO2 emissions in selected countries in Africa. J Cleaner Prod. 2021;281:125143. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Wang L, Li R. Trade openness helps move towards carbon neutrality—insight from 114 countries. Sustain Dev. 2023; doi:10.1002/sd.2720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li R, Wang Q, Li L, et al. Do natural resource rent and corruption governance reshape the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint? Evidence from 158 countries. Resour Policy. 2023;85:103890.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Zhang F, Li R. Free trade and carbon emissions revisited: the asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness. Sustain Dev. 2023; doi:10.1002/sd.2703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amaral LP, Martins N, Gouveia JB. A review of emergy theory, its application and latest developments. Renew Sust Energ Rev. 2016; 54:882–888. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan J, Guo X, Marinova D, et al. Embedded carbon footprint of chinese urban households: structure and changes. J Cleaner Prod. 2012; 33:50–59. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakob M, Marschinski R. Interpreting trade-related CO2 emission transfers. Nat Clim Change. 2013; 3(1):19–23. doi:10.1038/nclimate1630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mi Z, Meng J, Guan D, et al. Chinese CO2 emission flows have reversed since the global financial crisis. Nat Commun. 2017; 8(1):1712. doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01820-w.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilting HC, Schipper AM, Ivanova O, et al. Subnational greenhouse gas and land-based biodiversity footprints in the European Union. J Ind Ecol. 2021; 25(1):79–94. doi:10.1111/jiec.13042.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruckner B, Shan YL, Prell C, et al. Ecologically unequal exchanges driven by EU consumption. Nat Sustain. 2023; 6(5):587–598. doi:10.1038/s41893-022-01055-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brizga J, Feng KS, Hubacek K. Household carbon footprints in the Baltic States: a global multi-regional input-output analysis from 1995 to 2011. Appl Energy. 2017; 189:780–788. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao LJ, Lv Y, Wang CC, et al. Embodied greenhouse gas emissions in the international agricultural trade. Sustain Prod Consump. 2023; 35:250–259. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darwili A, Schröder E. On the interpretation and measurement of technology-adjusted emissions embodied in trade. Environ Resource Econ. 2023; 84(1):65–98. doi:10.1007/s10640-022-00725-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertwich EG. Carbon fueling complex global value chains tripled in the period 1995–2012. Energy Econ. 2020; 86:104651. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li R, Wang Q, Liu Y, et al. Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: the effect of economic, energy, social, and trade structural changes. Sustain Prod Consump. 2021;27:1149–1164. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Udeagha MC, Muchapondwa E. Investigating the moderating role of economic policy uncertainty in environmental Kuznets curve for South Africa: evidence from the novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022;29(51):77199–77237. doi:10.1007/s11356-022-21107-y.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Ren F, Li R. Exploring the impact of geopolitics on the environmental Kuznets curve research. Sustain Dev. 2023; doi:10.1002/sd.2743.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou X, Zhou D, Wang Q, et al. How information and communication technology drives carbon emissions: a sector-level analysis for China. Energy Econ. 2019;81:380–392. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2019.04.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Sun J, Pata UK, et al. Digital economy and carbon dioxide emissions: examining the role of threshold variables. Geosci Front. 2023;:101644. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101644.
   Google Scholar
• Mörsdorf G. A simple fix for carbon leakage? Assessing the environmental effectiveness of the EU carbon border adjustment. Energy Policy. 2022; 161:112596. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112596.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickel J, Dorninger C, Wieland H, et al. Imperialist appropriation in the world economy: drain from the global South through unequal exchange, 1990-2015. Glob Environ Change-Hum Policy Dimens. 2022; 73:13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinha A. Inequality of carbon intensities across OECD countries. Energy Procedia. 2015; 75:2529–2533. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.275.
   Google Scholar
• Tomás M, López LA, Monsalve F. Carbon footprint, municipality size and rurality in Spain: inequality and carbon taxation. J Cleaner Prod. 2020; 266:121798. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121798.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang R, Tian L. CO2 emissions inequality through the lens of developing countries. Appl Energy. 2021; 281:116043. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groot L. Carbon lorenz curves. Resour Energy Econ. 2010; 32(1):45–64. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu G, Zhang F. China’s carbon inequality of households: perspectives of the aging society and urban-rural gaps. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2022; 185:15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen W, Kang J-N, Han MS. Global environmental inequality: evidence from embodied land and virtual water trade. Sci Total Environ. 2021;783:146992. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, Li X, Lu F. Matching degree of embodied carbon trade and value-added trade among Chinese provinces (regions). PLoS One. 2023;18(2):e0277128. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Ren F, Li R. Assessing the impact of geopolitics on international scientific cooperation - the case of US-China marine pollution research. Mar Policy. 2023;155:105723. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yarime M, Takeda Y, Kajikawa Y. Towards institutional analysis of sustainability science: a quantitative examination of the patterns of research collaboration. Sustain Sci. 2009;5(1):115–125. doi:10.1007/s11625-009-0090-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu B, Xu LY, Yang ZF. Ecological compensation for inundated habitats in hydropower developments based on carbon stock balance. J Cleaner Prod. 2016; 114:334–342. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galik CS, Jackson RB. Risks to Forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. For Ecol Manage. 2009; 257(11):2209–2216. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovell H, Liverman D. Understanding carbon offset technologies. New Polit Econ. 2010;15(2):255–273. doi:10.1080/13563460903548699.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang GC, Shang PP, He LC, et al. Interregional carbon compensation cost forecast and priority index calculation based on the theoretical carbon deficit: China as a case. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 654:786–800. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arowolo AO, Deng XZ, Olatunji OA, et al. Assessing changes in the value of ecosystem services in response to land-use/land-cover dynamics in Nigeria. Sci Total Environ. 2018; 636:597–609. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rama M, Entrena-Barbero E, Dias AC, et al. Evaluating the carbon footprint of a spanish city through environmentally extended input output analysis and comparison with life cycle assessment. Sci Total Environ. 2021; 762:143133. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huo JW, Meng J, Zhang ZK, et al. Drivers of fluctuating embodied carbon emissions in international services trade. One Earth. 2021; 4(9):1322–1332. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.011.
   Google Scholar
• Zhong S, Goh T, Su B. Patterns and drivers of embodied carbon intensity in international exports: the role of trade and environmental policies. Energy Econ. 2022; 114:106313. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorninger C, Hornborg A, Abson DJ, et al. Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange: implications for sustainability in the 21st century. Ecol Econ. 2021; 179:106824. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjelle EL, Többen J, Stadler K, et al. Adding country resolution to EXIOBASE: impacts on land use embodied in trade. J Econ Struct. 2020; 9(1):14. doi:10.1186/s40008-020-0182-y.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wood R, Neuhoff K, Moran D, et al. The structure, drivers and policy implications of the European carbon footprint. Clim Policy. 2019;20(sup1):S39–S57. doi:10.1080/14693062.2019.1639489.
   Google Scholar
• He K, Hertwich EG. The flow of embodied carbon through the economies of China, the European Union, and the United States. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;145:190–198. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanning AL, Hickel J. Compensation for atmospheric appropriation. Nat Sustain. 2023;6(9):1077–1086. doi:10.1038/s41893-023-01130-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prell C, Feng KS. Unequal carbon exchanges the environmental and economic impacts of iconic US consumption items. J Ind Ecol. 2016; 20(3):537–546. doi:10.1111/jiec.12377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giljum S, Wieland H, Lutter S, et al. The impacts of data deviations between MRIO models on material footprints: a comparison of EXIOBASE, eora, and ICIO. J Ind Ecol. 2019; 23(4):946–958. doi:10.1111/jiec.12833.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar