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（CO ₂）的释放，被认为是气候变化的主要驱动因素。2021年，全球温室气体排放总量达到惊人的408亿吨CO ₂当量。_{其中，中国的CO 2}排放量为119亿吨，占全球CO ₂排放量的29.2%。美国和欧盟紧随其后，分别占全球CO _{2排放量的11.3%和6.6%[} 1 ]。COVID-19大流行的爆发对全球二氧化碳产生了重大影响₂排放量， 2020年至2021年中国CO 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CO ₂排放量持续上升，到2021年将超过发达经济体和新兴经济体。而中国于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[ 2 ]，但现实是中国的CO 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。

事实上，“碳排放峰值”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CO 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[3 ]。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[ 4]，而且也成为实现碳排放峰值和碳中和的有前途的途径[ 5 ]。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[6 ]。中国信息通信研究院数据显示，2016年至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CO 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。Tapscott[ 8 ]在其著作《数字经济》中首次引入了“数字经济”的概念”于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。Mesenbourg [ 9 ]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。[ 10 ]强调了信息技术的重大发展前景和应用价值。金等人。[ 11 ]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。[ 12] 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[ 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[ 17 ]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[ 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[19 ]。

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[ 21 ]、经济增长[ 22 ]、产业集聚、能源需求、研发创新[ 23 ]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。[ 24 ]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 Xu [ 25] 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。[ 26 ]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。[ 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。

In addition, the inhibitory effect of carbon quota and carbon emissions trading system on total carbon emissions cannot be ignored, Shi et al. [28] 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], 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] and Dong et al. [31] verified that carbon emissions trading can realize the Porter’s effect, furthermore, Zhang et al. [30] 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]. Jayaprakash and Radhakrishna [33] investigated the impact of ICT on national sustainable development in 80 countries, Ulucak et al. [34] 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] 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]. 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]. Salahuddin and Alam [39] 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] 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] and Faisal et al. [42] 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] 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.