2011 5 5 (278 ) China Industrial Economics May 2011 No.5 1 12 (1. 100005; 2. 066004) [ ] : ; ; : ; ; [ ] ; ; ; [ ]F290 [ ]A [ ]1006-480X(2011)05-0047-11 2008 CO 2 ( ) (2009) (GDP) (Binhocker et al. 2008) GDP ( 2010) ( 2010) [ ] 2011-04-15 [ ] ( 20100470492);2010 ( SZ2010530) [ ] (1957 ) ; (1969 ) 47
1. 8 2006 IPCC CO 2 3 1 (IPCC2006) 1 : = ( 1) 1 (kj/kg) (kgc/gj) (tc/t) 20908 25.8 1 0.5394 28435 29.2 1 0.8303 41816 20.0 1 0.8363 43070 18.9 1 0.8140 42652 20.2 1 0.8616 41816 21.1 1 0.8823 38931(kJ/m 3 ) 15.3 1 0.4478 43070 19.5 1 0.8399 : 2. 11 ; 8 ; 12 1995 2008 30 8 1 ( ) 1995 2008 1995 2008 ( 2) 1995 2008 ; 14 18.3% 12.8% 11.4% 10.7% 10.5% 10.2%; 5% : 4.9% 4.2% 3.8% 2.5% 1.9% 48
2 1995 2008 ( ) ( /) ( ) ( /) ( ) ( /) 1995 48995.36 1.08 36328.31 0.89 24531.49 0.72 1996 50071.93 1.09 37188.94 0.91 26278.13 0.77 1997 50476.05 1.09 36670.71 0.89 24994.52 0.72 1998 50420.65 1.08 36550.67 0.88 25048.66 0.72 1999 52080.96 1.11 35686.92 0.85 24141.41 0.69 2000 55975.52 1.16 36756.18 0.87 24759.63 0.70 2001 58244.03 1.20 38668.77 0.91 25820.23 0.72 2002 62263.91 1.27 42368.69 1.00 28381.42 0.79 2003 70848.93 1.44 47600.74 1.11 33703.70 0.93 2004 83063.01 1.67 53635.67 1.25 40628.16 1.12 2005 99843.85 1.99 61871.85 1.43 45951.59 1.29 2006 109051.00 2.16 67974.13 1.56 52304.89 1.46 2007 119302.00 2.33 73375.58 1.68 57931.48 1.61 2008 125058.10 2.42 75696.06 1.72 63870.83 1.76 (%) 155.24 124.07 108.37 93.26 160.36 144.44 (%) 7.47 6.40 5.81 5.19 7.64 7.12 : ; 2 2008 47.3% 28.6% 24.1% 2008 1.7 2 10 1995 2008 7.47% 5.81% 7.64% 1995 2008 1995 1 / 2002 2004 1 / 1995 2008 7.12% 6.40% 5.19%2008 :1995 2000 6 0.23% 0.19% 2001 2008 10.57% 9.45% 12.58% 49
1. 1995 GDP 1 1995 2008 ( 3) 2008 2.0048 0.2324 0.9123 1995 2008 4.91% 4.30% 3.31% 1995 2002 2003 2005 2006 3 1995 2008 : / 1995 0.6662 0.3968 0.4250 0.5232 1996 0.7291 0.4352 0.4378 0.5654 1997 0.8060 0.4893 0.5052 0.6354 1998 0.8907 0.5329 0.5517 0.6982 1999 0.9474 0.5899 0.6179 0.7623 2000 0.9742 0.6231 0.6554 0.7972 2001 1.0305 0.6462 0.6847 0.8367 2002 1.0748 0.6477 0.6872 0.8561 2003 1.0697 0.6378 0.6452 0.8406 2004 1.0425 0.6383 0.6043 0.8199 2005 0.9839 0.6222 0.6044 0.7921 2006 1.0283 0.6403 0.6017 0.8160 2007 1.0757 0.6769 0.6226 0.8542 2008 1.1512 0.7399 0.6490 0.9123 : 2. (1) SPSS 5 : 7 ; 4 ; 8 ; 5 ; 6 (2) (TheilH19671972) 1 4 ( 1) 1997 1 1995 50
2004 2004 1995 2008 41.2% 60% 27.1% 23.9% 31.7% 16.1% 1 4 (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 1995 0.1379 0.1078 78.21 0.0301 21.79 45.50 22.28 10.43 1996 0.1382 0.1054 76.31 0.0328 23.69 42.04 22.88 11.39 1997 0.1427 0.1133 79.40 0.0294 20.60 42.57 22.91 13.92 1998 0.1388 0.1078 77.66 0.0310 22.34 40.76 22.99 13.91 1999 0.1290 0.1033 80.06 0.0257 19.94 41.55 22.82 15.69 2000 0.1279 0.1053 82.34 0.0226 17.66 42.85 23.37 16.12 2001 0.1316 0.1071 81.43 0.0244 18.57 40.73 23.86 16.84 2002 0.1394 0.1105 79.28 0.0289 20.72 37.65 26.29 15.34 2003 0.1406 0.1082 76.98 0.0324 23.02 36.12 25.06 15.8 2004 0.1303 0.0976 74.93 0.0327 25.07 37.14 22.05 15.74 2005 0.1276 0.1004 78.64 0.0273 21.36 42.12 19.52 17.00 2006 0.1319 0.1010 76.54 0.0309 23.46 40.00 19.39 17.15 2007 0.1304 0.0995 76.26 0.0310 23.74 41.58 17.50 17.18 2008 0.1301 0.0986 75.79 0.0315 24.21 40.70 17.53 17.56 : 4 2008 ; 40% 20% 1 1995 2008 GDP 51
0.68% 0.35% (3) (Tapio P.2005) GDP 5 1996 2008 GDP 5 1996 2008 1996 0.19 0.19 0.68 1997 0.08-0.13-0.50 1998-0.02-0.04 0.02 1999 0.34-0.29-0.46 2000 0.72 0.34 0.29 2001 0.41 0.57 0.48 2002 0.61 0.97 0.96 2003 1.05 1.20 1.63 2004 1.21 0.99 1.59 2005 1.50 1.23 1.00 2006 0.65 0.75 1.04 2007 0.65 0.56 0.74 2008 0.40 0.24 0.69 : <0GDP 0 0; 0< <0.8; 0.8< <1.2; 1.2< 5 1997 1999 1998 GDP 1998 0.02 0.1% 1998 1997 1997 1999 1997 1999 1.4% 0.3% 2.4%1997 1996 1995 1999 1998 1997 1997 1999 4.9%3.6%1997 1996 1995 1999 1998 2002 2005 GDP 52
GDP GDP 2003 2005 GDP 2002 2006 2002 2005 GDP 1980 2000 GDP 1996 2000 2001 2004 2004 2010 2005 GDP 20% 2006 1996 2000 1996 2000 : (1) 9.5% 1 2005 55.58%2009 53.84%; 2005 27.49%2009 27.83%; 2005 16.93%2009 18.33% 2005 23768 2009 40800 ; 2005 11830 2009 21863 ; 2005 9338 2009 18286 GDP (2) 2010 92% 70% 2 3 70% 60% (3) 6 1 2 3 2006 2010 2010 53
( 7) 55% 40% ; 55% ; 2000 82% 6 2005 2009 :% 2005 2008 2009 2005 2008 2009 2005 2008 2009 7.9 6.8 6.5 15.4 13.7 12.9 17.7 15.6 13.7 51.6 51.7 50.2 47.7 51.6 49.3 42.8 48.1 47.5 46.5 47.0 44.1 41.3 45.6 43.4 35.3 41.1 39.7 40.5 41.5 44.2 36.9 34.7 36.9 39.5 36.3 38.8 :2006 2010 7 2005 2009 :% 2005 2008 2009 2005 2008 2009 2005 2008 2009 37.7 36.0 36.5 36.5 37.1 37.4 25.8 26.9 26.1 58.5 55.0 53.9 26.8 28.3 28.4 14.8 16.8 17.7 59.8 55.9 55.0 26.3 28.0 28.1 13.9 16.1 16.9 57.2 58.2 57.8 25.8 25.1 25.0 17.0 16.7 17.3 45.1 42.2 41.1 30.4 29.8 29.7 24.4 28.0 29.1 55.2 55.2 55.5 31.9 32.0 31.5 12.9 12.8 13.0 51.6 45.0 42.0 27.8 31.9 32.7 20.6 23.0 25.3 :2006 2010 (4) 8 GDP 2002 2004 2002 2006 8 1995 2008 GDP :/ 1995 1.8170 2.7882 2.8001 2002 1.2937 1.7317 2.0074 1996 1.6686 2.5219 2.6550 2003 1.2842 1.7391 2.1210 1997 1.5029 2.2624 2.5552 2004 1.2896 1.7944 2.2419 1998 1.4043 2.0858 2.3611 2005 1.3190 1.7687 2.2618 1999 1.3095 1.8527 2.1705 2006 1.2765 1.7036 2.2304 2000 1.3515 1.7736 2.0900 2007 1.2199 1.6257 2.0115 2001 1.3143 1.7448 2.0507 2008 1.1443 1.5244 2.0074 54 : GDP 1995
(5) 2009 1 10 9 10 12988.59 1821.07 ( 9 10) 9 2005 2009 2005 2008 2009 2005 2008 2009 2005 2008 2009 () 40.11 52.56 57.75 34.51 65.11 84.04 10.55 21.14 27.53 () 18.71 29.77 34.26 3.89 9.33 11.88 0.81 2.00 2.77 () 6.20 12.15 15.66 2.14 6.42 10.55 0.42 1.45 2.49 :2006 2010 10 2005 2009 2005 2008 2009 2005 2008 2009 2005 2008 2009 () 6.11 14.35 17.33 2.52 7.84 10.72 2.57 6.06 7.47 () 57.31 74.86 82.19 62.53 93.94 105.48 32.28 48.31 54.51 () 122.99 145.69 152.92 89.6 110.85 117.99 55.41 62.55 70.01 :2006 2010 30 1995 2008 : 2008 47.3% 28.6% 24.1% 7.47% 5.81% 7.64% 4.91% 4.30% 3.31% : 1 2010 55
20% 2020 ; (1) (2) GDP ; GDP ; (3) ; ; ; 56
(4) (5) 1 Beinhocker et al. The Carbon Productivity Challenge: Curbing Climate Change and Sustaining Economic Growth [R]. McKinsey Global Institute June 2008. 2 IPCC. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories [M]. Japan: IGES2006. 3 TheilH. Economics and Information Theory[M]. Amsterdam:North Holland Publishing Co. 1967. 4 Theil H. Statistical Decomposition Analysis[M]. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co. 1972. 5 Tapio P. Towards a Theory of Decoupling: Degrees of Decoupling in the EU and the Case of Road Traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001[J]. Transport Policy2005(12). 6. [J]. 2009(3). 7. [J]. 201020(5). 8. [J]. 200818(3). 9. [J]. 2010(4). 10. [J]. 201032(2). 11. [J]. 2010(4). 12. [J]. 2010(11). 13. [J]. 2009(10). Research on the Regional Variation of Carbon Productivity in China PAN Jia-hua 1 ZHANG Li-feng 12 (1. Research Institute for Urban Development and Environment CASS Beijing 100005 China; 2. Northeastern University at Qinhuangdao Qinhuangdao 066004 China) Abstract: How to keep our economic growth in the meanwhile to inhibit the growth of carbon dioxide emissions the key is to improve carbon productivity and this depends on the province abatement action. Therefore this paper calculated regional carbon productivity and analyzed the regional difference using the cluster analysis Theil index and decoupling index and put forward countermeasures of the implementation of carbon emissions reduction targets. Through the analysis there are main conclusions as follows: the carbon productivity of majority provinces has a increasing trend year by year the east middle and west three regions present successively degression pattern but the middle has a fastest growth rate the east follows the west is the slowest. The gross carbon productivity Theil index displays obviously regional diversity. Theil index of three regions show: the eastern internal difference is shrinking gradually the middle is big first and then is small but the west presents the expanding tendency. Regional carbon productivity general distribution difference is mainly caused by the district difference which is mainly from the eastern the contribution between regions shows ascendant trend in recent years. Decoupling index has different state during different economic development stage carbon productivity also represents different characteristics even in the same decoupling condition carbon productivity of three regions exist differences eastern carbon productivity is bigger than the midwest. Key Words: carbon productivity; regional differences; Theil index; decoupling index : 57