回复张和方(2019)关于基于消费与基于生产的二氧化碳排放核算的评论

Axel Franzen, S. Mader
{"title":"回复张和方(2019)关于基于消费与基于生产的二氧化碳排放核算的评论","authors":"Axel Franzen, S. Mader","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3496792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Zhang and Fang (2019) criticize our finding (Franzen and Mader, 2018) that there is (on average) no carbon leakage from developed to developing countries. In the paper we show that countries’ GDP per capita is statistically not related to the ratio of consumptionbased (CBA) to production-based (PBA) accounting of CO2 emissions. Hence, the ratio of the two accounting schemes does not differ between richer and poorer countries or, put differently, does not depend on a country’s GDP per capita. Zhang and Fang (2019) have two concerns with our paper: First, they believe that we should have used the Global Carbon Atlas (GCA) for both CBA and PBA and should not have mixed the data with the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR); we used the EDGAR to obtain countries’ PBA and the GCA to obtain their CBA. Second, the authors argue that we should not have used the ratio of CBA to PBA but the difference of CBA – PBA for our analyses. In what follows, we respond to both concerns.","PeriodicalId":254923,"journal":{"name":"SRPN: Sustainable Growth (Topic)","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reply to the Comment by Zhang and Fang (2019) on Consumption-Based versus Production-Based Accounting of CO2 Emissions\",\"authors\":\"Axel Franzen, S. Mader\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3496792\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Zhang and Fang (2019) criticize our finding (Franzen and Mader, 2018) that there is (on average) no carbon leakage from developed to developing countries. In the paper we show that countries’ GDP per capita is statistically not related to the ratio of consumptionbased (CBA) to production-based (PBA) accounting of CO2 emissions. Hence, the ratio of the two accounting schemes does not differ between richer and poorer countries or, put differently, does not depend on a country’s GDP per capita. Zhang and Fang (2019) have two concerns with our paper: First, they believe that we should have used the Global Carbon Atlas (GCA) for both CBA and PBA and should not have mixed the data with the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR); we used the EDGAR to obtain countries’ PBA and the GCA to obtain their CBA. Second, the authors argue that we should not have used the ratio of CBA to PBA but the difference of CBA – PBA for our analyses. In what follows, we respond to both concerns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":254923,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SRPN: Sustainable Growth (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SRPN: Sustainable Growth (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3496792\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SRPN: Sustainable Growth (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3496792","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

Zhang和Fang(2019)批评了我们的发现(Franzen和Mader, 2018),即发达国家(平均而言)没有碳泄漏到发展中国家。在本文中,我们表明各国的人均GDP在统计上与以消费为基础(CBA)与以生产为基础(PBA)的二氧化碳排放核算比例无关。因此,这两种核算方案的比例在富国和穷国之间没有差异,换句话说,不取决于一个国家的人均国内生产总值。Zhang和Fang(2019)对我们的论文有两个担忧:首先,他们认为我们应该将全球碳图集(GCA)用于CBA和PBA,而不应该将数据与全球大气研究排放数据库(EDGAR)混合;我们使用EDGAR获得各国的PBA,使用GCA获得各国的CBA。其次,作者认为我们不应该使用CBA与PBA的比率,而应该使用CBA - PBA的差异来进行分析。在下文中,我们对这两方面的关切作出回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reply to the Comment by Zhang and Fang (2019) on Consumption-Based versus Production-Based Accounting of CO2 Emissions
Zhang and Fang (2019) criticize our finding (Franzen and Mader, 2018) that there is (on average) no carbon leakage from developed to developing countries. In the paper we show that countries’ GDP per capita is statistically not related to the ratio of consumptionbased (CBA) to production-based (PBA) accounting of CO2 emissions. Hence, the ratio of the two accounting schemes does not differ between richer and poorer countries or, put differently, does not depend on a country’s GDP per capita. Zhang and Fang (2019) have two concerns with our paper: First, they believe that we should have used the Global Carbon Atlas (GCA) for both CBA and PBA and should not have mixed the data with the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR); we used the EDGAR to obtain countries’ PBA and the GCA to obtain their CBA. Second, the authors argue that we should not have used the ratio of CBA to PBA but the difference of CBA – PBA for our analyses. In what follows, we respond to both concerns.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信