Decomposing the “clean” energy paradox: Carbon versus land ecological footprints in G7 nations
「クリーン」エネルギーのパラドックスの分解：G7諸国における炭素と土地のエコロジカルフットプリント (AI 翻訳)
Chun‐Chih Chen, Hsiao-Tien Pao
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
G7諸国では再生可能エネルギーが炭素フットプリントを削減する一方、土地フットプリントには影響を与えず、GDPは土地フットプリントに大きな圧力をかけていることを実証。二つのチャネル（炭素・土地）に異なる政策手段が必要と論じる。
English
This paper decomposes ecological footprint into carbon and land components for G7 nations (1975-2024), finding that renewable energy reduces carbon footprint but has no effect on land footprint, while GDP exerts twice the pressure on land. It argues for separate policy instruments for carbon and land channels.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本はG7の一員であり、再生可能エネルギー導入拡大に伴う土地利用の課題（太陽光発電の用地確保など）が顕在化している。本論文は、炭素削減だけでは不十分で、土地利用を考慮した政策設計が必要であることを示唆する。
In the global GX context
This research provides a novel decomposition of the ecological footprint into carbon and land components, revealing a gap in current decarbonization strategies. It suggests that global frameworks like ISSB or TCFD may need to incorporate land-use metrics alongside carbon metrics.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides empirical evidence on the differential impacts of renewables and nuclear on carbon vs. land footprint, supporting a two-channel policy framework.
🏢実務担当者:Sustainability teams should consider land-use impacts of renewable projects and complement carbon reduction with land footprint management.
🏛政策担当者:Policies should address both carbon and land channels separately, e.g., combining carbon pricing with land-use planning instruments.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Global efforts to curb carbon emissions have produced a paradox: across the G7 economies, renewable energy has grown at 5.4% per annum and CO 2 has declined at 2.0%, yet the aggregate Ecological Footprint (EF) has contracted only 1.1% per annum. This article argues that the aggregate masks two opposing channels. Using a G7 balanced panel (1975–2024; N = 7, T = 50; 350 country-year observations) from the Global Footprint Network and the Energy Institute Statistical Review, we decompose Total EF into Carbon EF and Land EF and estimate the ecological elasticities of GDP, fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables using Common Correlated Effects fixed-effects, Method of Moments Quantile Regression, and Dumitrescu–Hurlin panel Granger causality tests. Three findings emerge. First, renewable energy significantly reduces Carbon EF (−0.308, p < .01) but has no detectable effect on Land EF (0.037, p = .506): the decarbonization benefit does not translate into land-use relief. Second, nuclear energy operates primarily through the land channel (Land EF elasticity 0.078 vs Carbon EF 0.028), reflecting the physical footprint of siting, fuel cycles, and exclusion zones. Third, GDP exerts a larger pressure on Land EF (0.423) than on Carbon EF (0.184). Dumitrescu–Hurlin tests confirm unidirectional causality from each driver to EF, with bidirectional feedback only for nuclear. The results support a “two channels, two instruments” policy logic: decarbonization tools alone cannot close the biocapacity gap, and land-channel instruments must complement carbon pricing.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1177/01445987261464226first seen 2026-07-03 05:14:20
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。