Digital Economy and Carbon Emission Reduction: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Sirius Huang and Version 1 by Xue Dong.

Climate change poses a formidable global challenge, impacting the long-term sustainability of human society. The prosperous development of the digital economy can trigger a comprehensive green transformation from factors of production to productivity and production relationships.

  • digitization development
  • low-carbon development
  • CO2 reduction effect

1. Introduction

气候变化是严峻的全球性挑战，影响人类社会的长期可持续发展。化石燃料的燃烧主要导致二氧化碳（Climate change poses a formidable global challenge, impacting the long-term sustainability of human society. The burning of fossil fuels, chiefly responsible for the release of carbon dioxide (CO2), 2）的释放，被认为是气候变化的主要驱动因素。is identified as the primary driver of climate change. In 2021年，全球温室气体排放总量达到惊人的, the total global emissions of greenhouse gases reached an alarming 408亿吨.8 billion tons of CO2 2当量。其中，中国的CO 2排放量为equivalent. Among the major contributors, China accounted for 11.9亿吨，占全球 billion tons of CO2, 2排放量的representing 29.2%。美国和欧盟紧随其后，分别占全球 of global CO2 emissions. The United States and the European Union followed, contributing 11.3% and 6.6% of global CO2排放量的11.3%和6.6%[ 1 emissions, respectively [1]. The outbreak of the ]。COVID-19大流行的爆发对全球二氧化碳产生了重大影响 pandemic has had a significant impact on global CO2 emissions, with China experiencing an average growth rate of CO2排放量， emissions surpassing that of other major economies from 2020年至2021年中国CO to 2021. Moreover, China’s emissions exhibited a stronger growth trend compared to pre-pandemic levels. Consequently, China’s per capita 2排放量平均增速超过其他主要经济体。而且，与疫情前水平相比，中国排放量呈现出更强的增长趋势。因此，中国的人均CO2 2排放量持续上升，到emissions have continued to rise, surpassing those of developed and emerging economies in 2021年将超过发达经济体和新兴经济体。而中国于. While China, in November 2021年11月与美国发表了联合声明，即《中美关于加强碳排放的联合格拉斯哥宣言》。 《2020年代气候行动》，重申2030年碳排放达峰、2060年实现碳中和的承诺[, issued a joint statement with the United States known as the “China-US Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s”, reiterating its commitment to peak carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 [2], the reality remains that 2China’s ]，但现实是中国的CO2 2排放量持续居高不下，给实现碳中和目标带来了巨大挑战。emissions persist at high levels, presenting formidable challenges in attaining the carbon neutrality target.
事实上， In fact, the “碳排放峰值peak carbon emissions”战略是迈向“碳中和”战略的重要一步，而“碳中和”战略是实现零碳社会的必由之路。中国作为全球最大的 strategy is an essential step towards the “carbon neutrality” strategy, which is the way to achieve a zero-carbon society. In China, as the largest emitter of CO2 2排放国，这些目标的制定对于实现《巴黎协定》目标具有重要意义。最近的研究表明，技术进步和创新管理实践推动的能源革命和数字革命对于促进产业转型、实现碳排放峰值和碳中和发挥着关键作用[3globally, the establishment of these goals holds significant importance in fulfilling the objectives set forth in the Paris Agreement. Recent research suggests that the energy revolution and digital revolution, driven by technological advancements and innovative management practices, play a pivotal role in facilitating industrial transformation and the achievement of peak carbon emissions and carbon neutrality [3]. In the era of global digitization, the rise of the digital economy not only presents new opportunities for China’s low-carbon development [4], but also emerges as a promising avenue for realizing peak carbon emissions and carbon neutrality [5]. Particularly in the ]。全球数字化时代，数字经济的崛起不仅为中国低碳发展带来新机遇[aftermath 4]，而且也成为实现碳排放峰值和碳中和的有前途的途径[of 5the ]。特别是在COVID-19大流行之后，数字化转型推动了中国各个地区和行业的复苏和增长。以数据元素为基础的数字经济可以引发从生产要素到生产力和生产关系的全面绿色转型，从而赋能可持续发展[ pandemic, digital transformation has driven recovery and growth across various regions and industries in China. Anchored on data elements, the digital economy can instigate comprehensive green transformations, spanning from factors of production to productivity and production relationships, thus empowering sustainable development [6]. According to data from the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, China’s digital economy expanded from CNY 22.6 ]。中国信息通信研究院数据显示，trillion to CNY 45.5 trillion from 2016年至 to 2021年，我国数字经济规模从22.6万亿元扩大到45.5万亿元，跃居世界第二，占国内生产总值的比重从30.3%上升到39.8%。7]。
数字技术与中国经济社会融合逐步显现效率和质量优势。然而，还需要进一步的研究来确定它是否有潜力减少中国的, leaping to second position in the world and increasing from 30.3% to 39.8% of the domestic GDP [7]. The integration of digital technology with China’s economy and society has gradually manifested efficiency and quality advantages. However, further research is needed to determine whether it has the potential to reduce China’s CO2 emissions and demonstrate green and low-carbon advantages. Based on this foundation, it is important to investigate the mechanisms and pathways through which the 2减排，展现绿色低碳优势。在此基础上，探讨数字经济促进碳减排的机制和路径具有重要意义。此外，中国的数字鸿沟和区域发展不平衡的交织提出了数字经济对碳减排影响的空间异质性问题。探讨这些问题将有助于厘清中国数字经济发展与碳减排的关系，促进碳中和目标的及时实现。digital economy can contribute to carbon emission reduction. Moreover, the intertwining of China’s digital divide and regional development imbalances raises the question of spatial heterogeneity in the digital economy’s impact on carbon reduction. Exploring the issues will help clarify the relationship between China’s digital economic development and carbon reduction, facilitating the timely achievement of carbon neutrality goals. Tapscott[ [8] first introduced the concept of the 8 ]在其著作《数字经济》中首次引入了“数字经济digital economy”的概念 in his book “The Digital Economy”于 published in 1996年发表。随后，学者们从不同的角度丰富了数字经济的理论。. Subsequently, scholars have enriched the theory of the digital economy from different perspectives. Mesenbourg [9] defined [the boundaries of the digital economy, identifying it as consisting of e-commerce infrastructure, e-commerce processes, and e-commerce itself. Negroponte et al. [10] emphasized information on technology’s significant development prospects and application value. Kim et al. [11] defined the digital economy as a special economic 9form, ]定义了数字经济的边界，将其定义为由电子商务基础设施、电子商务流程和电子商务本身组成。尼葛洛庞帝等人。[with 10its ]强调了信息技术的重大发展前景和应用价值。金等人。[essence 11being ]将数字经济定义为一种特殊的经济形态，其本质是“以信息形式进行的商品和服务的交易”。这个定义抓住了数字经济的主要表现，但很难量化。尼克雷姆等人。[the transaction of goods and services in an informative form.” This definition captures the primary manifestation of the digital economy but is difficult to quantify. Knickrehm et al. [12] viewed the digital economy as the digital output resulting from digital input. While scholars have different understandings of the digital economy, it can essentially be seen as a collective term for a series of economic activities related to 12]the 将数字经济视为数字输入产生的数字输出。虽然学者们对数字经济有不同的理解，但本质上可以将其视为与数字经济相关的一系列经济活动的统称[digital 13economy ]。[13].
数字经济与碳排放关系的探索尚处于早期阶段，越来越多的研究课题不断涌现。一方面，人们关注数字经济本身及其对经济和社会的影响。这包括衡量数字经济发展水平、数字经济带来的企业运营战略升级[The exploration of the relationship between the digital economy and carbon emissions is in its early stages, with an increasing number of research topics emerging. On one hand, there is a focus on the digital economy itself and its impact on the economy and society. This includes measuring the level of digital economic development, strategic upgrading of business operations due to the digital economy [14], and the role of the digital economy in regional development. On the other hand, there is a focus on examining the relationship between the digital economy and carbon emissions. This involves investigating the potential for carbon reduction through digital technologies and digital industries [15], exploring the relationship between the digital economy and carbon emission performance, analyzing the connection between the digital economy and high-quality industrial development, and examining the regulatory role of innovation factors in the digital economy 17and ]以及数字经济在区域发展中的作用。另一方面，重点考察数字经济与碳排放之间的关系。这涉及调查通过数字技术和数字产业减少碳排放的潜力[carbon 18]，探讨数字经济与碳排放绩效的关系，分析数字经济与产业高质量发展的联系，考察创新因素对数字经济与碳减排的调节作用[19reduction ]。[16].

2、数字经济与碳排放的关系. Relationship between the Digital Economy and Carbon Emissions

随着全球极端气候事件的频繁发生，碳排放成为值得学术界关注的重要问题。现有观点认为，城镇化建设[With the frequent occurrence of global extreme climate events, carbon emissions have become an important issue worthy of academic attention. Existing views suggest that urbanization construction [17], economic growth [18], industrial agglomeration, energy demand, and R&D innovation [19] are the main causes of carbon emissions. After clarifying the sources of carbon emissions, we are faced with the challenge of how to solve the problem of reducing carbon emissions. For the agricultural sector, Du et al. [20] argue that agricultural carbon reduction policies can significantly reduce carbon emissions from agricultural production by 21reducing ]、经济增长[financial 22support. ]、产业集聚、能源需求、研发创新[For 23the ]是碳排放的主要原因。明确了碳排放来源后，我们面临着如何解决减少碳排放问题的挑战。对于农业部门，杜等人。[industrial 24sector, ]认为农业减碳政策可以通过减少财政支持来显着减少农业生产的碳排放。对于工业部门，Li 和and Xu [[21] argue that industries with high-energy consumption and low carbon emissions should adopt a progressive carbon reduction improvement path, industries with low-energy consumption and high carbon emissions should adopt a single breakthrough carbon reduction path; and industries with high-energy consumption and high carbon emissions should adopt a leapfrog carbon reduction path. For the service 25]sector, 认为高能耗、低碳排放行业应采取渐进式碳减排改进路径，低能耗、高碳排放行业应采取单一突破性碳减排路径；高能耗、高碳排放行业应走跨越式减碳道路。对于服务业，Hou 等人。[et al. [22] concluded 26that ]的结论是，中国13%~19%的碳流量是由服务业对其他部门的需求造成的，因此减少服务业碳排放应重点优化上游生产部门的能源使用结构，提高其比重。清洁能源的使用。此外，王等人。[–19% of carbon flows in China are caused by the service sector’s demand for other sectors, so reducing carbon emissions from the service sector should focus on optimizing the energy use structure of the upstream production sector and increasing the proportion of clean energy usage. In addition, Wang et al. [23] found the contribution of renewable energy to carbon reduction using causality tests and scenario analysis methods, 27]分别使用因果检验和情景分析方法发现了可再生能源对碳减排的贡献。respectively.
In addition, the inhibitory effect of carbon quota and carbon emissions trading system on total carbon emissions cannot be ignored, Shi et al. [28][24] argued that the difference in carbon quota allocations resulted in different emission reduction effects, among which the historical method had the strongest effect. The carbon quota price and number of enterprises participating in the carbon trading market were the key factors affecting carbon emission reduction. Zhang et al. [29][25], on the other hand, argued that although carbon emissions trading can substantially reduce carbon emission levels and intensity, it will inhibit the innovation of green technologies in the short term. Zhang et al. [30][26] and Dong et al. [31][27] verified that carbon emissions trading can realize the Porter’s effect, furthermore, Zhang et al. [30][26] also showed that carbon emissions trading can improve the efficiency of regional green development and realize regional carbon equality at the same time, achieving the effect of killing two birds with one stone.
The arrival of the digital economy has further expanded the realization path of carbon emission reduction, and some scholars have begun to explore the impact of digital technology as an emerging productivity on carbon emissions, and their main views can be divided into the following three aspects: The first view is that the digital economy can effectively reduce carbon emissions, and some research findings show that the development of ICT (Information and Communications Technology) and ICT industries can restrain carbon emissions through technical innovation and linkages, industrial transformation, and upgrading channels [32][28]. Jayaprakash and Radhakrishna [33][29] investigated the impact of ICT on national sustainable development in 80 countries, Ulucak et al. [34][30] examined the relationship between ICT and carbon emissions in the BRICS countries with the conclusion that ICT significantly reduced carbon emissions. Maleeki and Moriset [35][31] used a fixed effects panel model and quantile regression model to confirm that European countries with better ICT infrastructure have lower carbon emission levels by constructing a carbon emission analysis framework. The results show that digital technology can effectively reduce carbon emissions’ intensity.
However, the second view is that the digital economy does not significantly reduce carbon emissions, and some studies have found that ICT cannot have a suppressive effect on carbon emissions because the embodied carbon emissions from ICT construction are much higher than the direct carbon emissions, thus creating a “rebound effect” [36,37][32][33]. Furthermore, the development of the digital economy relies on ICT and the Internet, which increases electricity and energy consumption leading to a certain degree of carbon emissions [38][34]. Salahuddin and Alam [39][35] studied the relationship between ICT and electricity consumption in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which showed that the use of ICT stimulates an increase in electricity consumption. The study by Longo and York [40][36] further verified the positive relationship shown by ICT penetration and energy consumption, they concluded that ICT is not effective in improving the environment, and even deteriorates it.
The third view is that the impact of the digital economy on carbon emissions is uncertain, Higón et al. [41][37] and Faisal et al. [42][38] summarizes the “inverted U-shaped” relationship between ICT and carbon emissions using unbalanced panel data for 142 countries and robust least squares estimation, respectively. Among them, Higón et al. [41][37] argue that ICT in developing countries brings a higher threshold of carbon emissions than in developed countries but developing countries do not enjoy the same environmental bonus as ICT in developed countries.
In summary, existing studies have explored the digital economy and carbon emission reduction in depth, but the relationship between the two has not yet reached a definite conclusion. The reason for the controversy may be that CO2 is an environmental variable that can move across time and space, which may not necessarily conform to the assumption of “independent homogeneous distribution” in traditional econometric models. Secondly, many scholars only focus on the direct impact of digital technology and the digital industry on carbon emissions but lack the examination of their indirect impact and the interpretation of theoretical mechanisms, while the discussion of the role of mediating variables is also lacking.

References

  1. International Energy Agency (IEA). Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2 (accessed on 6 March 2023).
  2. Xinhua News Agency, China-US Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s. Available online: https://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-11/11/content_5650318.htm (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  3. Li, Y.; Yang, X.D.; Ran, Q.Y.; Wu, H.T.; Irfan, M.; Ahmad, M. Energy structure, digital economy, and carbon emissions: Evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 64606–64629.
  4. She, Q.Z.; Wu, L.; Zheng, J. Digital economy, economic aggregation and carbon emissions. Stat. Decis. Mak. 2022, 38, 5–10. (In Chinese)
  5. Li, Z.G.; Wang, J. The dynamic impact of digital economy on carbon emission reduction: Evidence city-level empirical data in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 351, 131570.
  6. Han, J.; Chen, X.; Feng, X.H. Realistic challenges and path options of digital economy-enabled green development. Reform 2022, 9, 11–23. (In Chinese)
  7. China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT), China Digital Economy Development Research Report (2023). Available online: http://www.caict.ac.cn/kxyj/qwfb/bps/202304/t20230427_419051.htm (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  8. Tapscott, D. The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
  9. Mesenbourg, T.L. Measuring the Digital Economy; US Bureau of the Census: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; Volume 1, pp. 1–19.
  10. Negroponte, N.; Harrington, R.; McKay, S.R.; Christian, W. Being digital. Comput. Phys. 1997, 11, 261–262.
  11. Kim, B.; Barua, A.; Whinston, A.B. Virtual field experiments for a digital economy: A new research methodology for exploring an information economy. Decis. Support Syst. 2002, 32, 215–231.
  12. Knickrehm, M.; Berthon, B.; Daugherty, P. Digital disruption: The growth Multiplier, Accenture, Dublin. Available online: https://www.accenture.com/_acnmedia/PDF-4/Accenture-Strategy-Digital-Disruption-Growth-Multiplier.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2023).
  13. Carlsson, B. The Digital Economy: What is new and what is not? Struct. Chang. Econ. Dynam. 2004, 15, 245–264.
  14. Kristoffersen, E.; Blomsma, F.; Mikalef, P.; Li, J. The smart circular economy: A digital-enabled circular strategies framework for manufacturing companies. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 120, 241–261.
  15. Yi, M.; Liu, Y.F.; Sheng, M.S.; Wen, L. Effects of digital economy on carbon emission reduction: New evidence from China. Energy Policy 2022, 171, 113271.
  16. Wang, L.L.; Chen, L.Y.; Li, Y.S. Digital economy and urban low-carbon sustainable development: The role of innovation factor mobility in China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 48539–48557.
  17. Fan, J.; Wang, J.; Qiu, J.; Li, N. Stage effects of energy consumption and carbon emissions in the process of urbanization: Evidence from 30 provinces in China. Energy 2023, 276, 127655.
  18. Zaidi, S.A.H.; Zafar, M.W.; Shahbaz, M.; Hou, F. Dynamic linkages between globalization, financial development and carbon emissions: Evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 533–543.
  19. Wang, Q.; Wang, S. Decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions growth in the United States: The role of research and development. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 702–713.
  20. Du, Y.; Liu, H.; Huang, H.; Li, X. The carbon emission reduction effect of agricultural policy—Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 406, 137005.
  21. Li, X.; Xu, H. The Energy-conservation and Emission-reduction Paths of Industrial sectors: Evidence from Chinas 35 industrial sectors. Energy Econ. 2019, 86, 104628.
  22. Hou, H.; Wang, J.; Yuan, M.; Liang, S.; Liu, T.; Wang, H.; Bai, H.; Xu, H. Estimating the mitigation potential of the Chinese service sector using embodied carbon emissions accounting. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 86, 106510.
  23. Wang, R.; Liu, W.; Xiao, L.; Liu, J.; Kao, W. Path towards achieving of China’s 2020 carbon emission reduction target—A discussion of low-carbon energy policies at province level. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2740–2747.
  24. Shi, B.B.; Li, N.; Gao, Q.; Li, G.Q. Market incentives, carbon quota allocation and carbon emission reduction: Evidence from China’s carbon trading pilot policy. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 319, 115650.
  25. Zhang, W.; Li, G.X.; Guo, F.Y. Does carbon emissions trading promote green technology innovation in China? Appl. Energy 2022, 315, 119012.
  26. Zhang, S.L.; Wang, Y.; Hao, Y.; Liu, Z.W. Shooting two hawks with one arrow: Could China’s emission trading scheme promote green development efficiency and regional carbon equality? Energy Econ. 2021, 101, 105412.
  27. Dong, F.; Dai, Y.J.; Zhang, S.N.; Zhang, X.Y.; Long, R.Y. Can a carbon emission trading scheme generate the Porter effect? Evidence from pilot areas in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 565–577.
  28. Haseeb, A.; Xia, E.; Saud, S.; Ahmad, A.; Khurshid, H. Does information and communication technologies improve environmental quality in the era of globalization? An empirical analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 8594–8608.
  29. Jayaprakash, P.; Radhakrishna, R.P. The role of ICT for sustainable development: A cross-country analysis. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2022, 34, 225–247.
  30. Ulucak, R.; Danish; Khan, S.U.D. Does information and communication technology affect CO2 mitigation under the pathway of sustainable development during the mode of globalization? Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 857–867.
  31. Malecki, E.J.; Moriset, B. Splintering the economic space: The offshoring of corporate services. In The Digital Economy; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2020; pp. 137–167.
  32. Avom, D.; Nkengfack, H.; Fotio, H.K.; Totouom, A. ICT and environmental quality in Sub-Saharan Africa: Effects and transmission channels. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 155, 120028–120040.
  33. Zhou, X.; Zhou, D.; Wang, Q.; Su, B. How information and communication technology drives carbon emissions: A sec-tor-level analysis for China. Energy Econ. 2018, 81, 380–392.
  34. Hamdi, H.; Sbia, R.; Shahbaz, M. The nexus between electricity consumption and economic growth in Bahrain. Econ. Model. 2014, 38, 227–237.
  35. Salahuddin, M.; Alam, K. Internet usage, electricity consumption and economic growth in Australia: A time series evidence. Telemat. Inform. 2015, 32, 862–878.
  36. Longo, S.B.; York, R. How does information communication technology affect energy use? Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2015, 22, 55–72. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24875148 (accessed on 6 May 2023).
  37. Higón, D.A.; Gholami, R.; Shirazi, F. ICT and environmental sustainability: A global perspective. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 85–95.
  38. Faisal, F.; Azizullah, T.T.; Pervaiz, R. Does ICT lessen CO2 emissions for fast-emerging economies? An application of the heterogeneous panel estimations. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 10778–10789.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback