Synergy or conflict? The joint effect of carbon and energy trading schemes on emission reduction in China
相乗効果か衝突か？中国における炭素排出権取引とエネルギー消費許可取引の排出削減への共同効果 (AI 翻訳)
Ling Tang, Yan Huang, Hui Yu, Zhuoming He, Jianhui Ruan, Ling Li
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
中国の排出権取引制度（ETS）とエネルギー消費許可取引制度（ECPTS）の共同効果を、都市レベルの排出インベントリを用いて分析。個別には両政策とも排出削減に寄与するが、同時実施では政策のクラウディングアウトにより有意な追加効果は見られない。メカニズム分析では、グリーン技術革新とエネルギー効率への相互抑制が原因であり、都市の階層によって効果が異なることを明らかにした。
English
This study examines the joint effect of China's Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and Energy Consumption Permit Trading Scheme (ECPTS) on emission reduction using city-level data from 2008-2020. Employing a difference-in-difference approach with propensity score matching, they find that while each policy independently reduces emissions, their concurrent implementation does not yield additional reductions, indicating policy crowding-out. Mechanism analysis shows mutual crowding-out on green technology innovation and energy efficiency. Heterogeneity analysis reveals synergy in higher-tier cities but conflict in lower-tier ones.
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
中国のETSとECPTSの相互作用分析は、日本でも複数の炭素価格付け施策（例：カーボンプライシング、排出量取引）を検討する上で示唆に富む。政策間の調整不足によるクラウディングアウトは、日本の制度設計でも注意すべき点。
In the global GX context
This paper contributes to global understanding of policy interactions in multi-instrument climate policy settings. It provides empirical evidence of crowding-out between overlapping carbon and energy trading schemes, which is relevant for jurisdictions like the EU and US where multiple carbon pricing instruments coexist.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a rigorous empirical framework for studying policy interaction between overlapping emission trading schemes.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights the risk of policy crowding-out when implementing multiple market-based instruments simultaneously; underscores the need for coordinated policy design.
📄 Abstract（原文）
China has introduced multiple market-oriented policies to achieve its carbon peak and neutrality targets, notably the emission trading scheme (ETS) and energy consumption permit trading scheme (ECPTS), which partly overlap in coverage and mitigation mechanisms. While the individual effects of each policy on emission reduction have been well documented, their joint impact remains unclear. Here, using a difference-in-difference approach combined with propensity score matching, we assess the joint effects of ETS and ECPTS on carbon emissions and intensities based on a city-level emission inventory spanning from 2008 to 2020. We find that although both ETS and ECPTS independently contribute to emission reductions, their concurrent implementation does not yield a significant improvement over the no-policy baseline, suggesting policy crowding-out. Mechanism analysis indicates that this conflict stems from the policies’ mutual crowding-out effects on green technology innovation and energy efficiency improvements. Heterogeneity analysis indicates that policy conflict emerges mainly in third-tier, non-key environmental protection and low fiscal constraint cities, whereas synergy appears in second-tier, key, and high-constraint cities, resulting in significant reductions in carbon intensities. Our findings highlight the importance of establishing a coordinated framework to align carbon and energy trading systems, thereby maximizing their joint contribution to China’s emission mitigation goals.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2026.102024first seen 2026-07-13 05:33:41
🔔 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。