Sulfur dioxide emissions curbing effects and influencing mechanisms of China’s emission trading system

Abstract

The emissions trading system, a crucial and fundamental system reform in the environmental resources field of China, was established to promote the continuous and effective reduction of total emissions of major pollutants. In this context, based on the panel data of 285 Chinese cities (except Tibet) from 2004 to 2018, this paper uses the quasi-experimental method of Difference in Difference to assess the effect of the emissions trading system introduced on sulfur dioxide emissions of China and the transmission mechanism. The article generates several intriguing findings. (1) The emissions trading system has a significant suppressive effect on sulfur dioxide emissions. (2) Mechanistic tests show that the emissions trading system can effectively suppress sulfur dioxide emissions by reducing government intervention, stimulating green patent innovation, and improving resource use efficiency, in which green utility patents have a masking effect. (3) From the east, central and west divisions, the emissions trading system has a significant suppression effect on sulfur dioxide emission in the eastern and central regions, and the eastern region is better than the central region. (4) In terms of factor endowment, the emissions trading system has a significant suppression effect on sulfur dioxide emissions in both resource-based and non-resource-based cities, with non-resource-based cities outperforming resource-based cities; while within resource-based effect exists only in regenerative cities. (5) The emissions trading system has a significant suppression effect on sulfur dioxide emissions in old and non-old industrial base cities in industrial base zoning. The suppression effect in non-old industrial base cities is better than that in old industrial base cities. This paper provides empirical evidence for evaluating the emissions trading system at the provincial level in China and suggests policy recommendations for selecting government tools to effectively curb sulfur dioxide emissions. Although the emissions trading system has made an outstanding contribution to sulfur dioxide emissions reduction, there is still much space for further development of potential emission reductions.

Can Infrastructure Upgrading Achieve the Synergistic Effect of Pollution Reduction and Carbon Reduction? Evidence from the High-Speed Rail and “Broadband China” Strategies

“…Second, there is significant heterogeneity in the impact of infrastructure upgrading on Pc, which is mainly manifested by the fact that the impact of infrastructure upgrading on Pc is stronger in non-resource-based cities, central cities, and eastern cities. The main reasons may be that resource-based cities face greater environmental governance pressure [87], industrial transformation is relatively difficult, and it is necessary to further exert the environmental dividends brought by pilot policies. Central cities have stronger spatial efficiency, scale effect, and agglomeration ability than peripheral cities, which is a new growth pole for urban environmental governance and high-quality development.…”

“…Due to the influence of the previous extensive development model, resource-based cities are facing greater pressure towards transformation and environmental governance [87].…”

A study on the evolutionary game theory of third-party governance of environmental pollution based on the quasi-co-owned relationship of pollution rights

“…The empirical research has shown that pollution rights trading policy can significantly promote the green technology innovation of enterprises in pilot areas. Yao et al (2022) used the quasinatural experiment of the difference method to assess the impact of the pollution rights trading system on SO 2 emissions in China based on the panel data of 285 cities in China from 2004 to 2018 and found that the pollution rights trading system has a Frontiers in Environmental Science frontiersin.org significant effect on SO 2 emissions. Furthermore, Zhang et al (2020) used the difference-in-differences method to assess the impact of the pollution rights trading system on carbon emission reductions and found that this effect is particularly prominent in the economically developed eastern region.…”

“…1) At present, some scholars have paid attention to the importance of promoting the synergy between the third-party treatment of environmental pollution and the pollution rights trading system but have focused mainly on the institutional basis and practical reasons for the participation of third-party pollution-control enterprises in pollution rights trading (Ren, 2023); moreover, no scholars have been able to explicitly propose specific ways in which to realize the synergy between the two. 2) Current studies on the third-party governance of environmental pollution (Zhou C. H. et al, 2019;Wu et al, 2023) and pollution rights trading systems (Zeng et al, 2020;Yao et al, 2022) are abundant, but in terms of the path of third-party pollution-control enterprises in participating in pollution rights trading, there are only a relatively small number of qualitative jurisprudential studies (Ren, 2023), and no scholars have yet quantitatively studied the reasonable path through which third-party pollution-control enterprises actually participate in pollution rights trading. 3) In terms of the definitions of responsibility for pollution-discharging enterprises and third-party pollution-control enterprises, existing scholars have noted that how to divide responsibilities (Tang et al, 2019;Zhou, 2023) and how to define these responsibilities remain unclear (Wu et al, 2023); additionally, scholars have proposed solutions such as the "polluter pays principle" (Zahar, 2019) and the "principle of sharing responsibility" (Huang et al, 2023), but these means have not completely solved the problem of defining third-party governance responsibilities for environmental pollution.…”

Does the Emissions Trading System Promote Clean Development? A Re-Examination based on Micro-Enterprise Data

“…In other words, environmental oversight is a regulatory tool implemented to achieve sustainable development goals by the government. Research on this issue remains a relevant issue within the domain of environment, innovation, and economics [9][10][11]. To date, the majority of studies have shown that environmental oversight is the most fundamental institutional arrangement that motivates firms to fulfill their environmental responsibilities [12,13].…”