Abstract
Air pollution reduction policies can simultaneously mitigate CO2 emissions in the industrial sector, but the extent of these co-benefits is understudied. We analyse the potential co-benefits for SO2, NOx, particulate matter (PM) and CO2 emission reduction in major industrial sectors in China. We construct and analyse a firm-level database covering nearly 80,000 observations and use scenario simulations to estimate the co-benefits. The findings show that substantial co-benefits could be achieved with three specific interventions. Energy intensity improvement can reduce SO2, NOx, PM and CO2 emissions for non-power sectors by 26–44%, 19–44%, 25–46% and 18–50%, respectively. Reductions from scale structure adjustment such as phasing out small firms and developing large ones can amount to 1–8%, 1–6%, 2–20% and 0.2–3%. Electrification can reduce emissions by 19–25%, 4–28%, 20–29% and 11–12% if the share of electricity generated from non-fossil fuel sources is 70%. Since firm heterogeneity is essential to realize the co-benefits and directly determines the magnitudes of these benefits, stricter and sensible environmental policies targeting industrial firms can accelerate China’s sustainable transformation.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The firm-level emission database that supports the findings of this study is available from H.Q.’s GitHub repository (https://github.com/qianhaoqi/NS-co-benefit). Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
The code that supports the findings of this study is available from H.Q.’s GitHub repository (https://github.com/qianhaoqi/NS-co-benefit).
Change history
15 January 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00683-w
References
He, K., Huo, H. & Zhang, Q. Urban air pollution in China: current status, characteristics, and progress. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 27, 397–431 (2002).
Liu, X. et al. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature 494, 459–462 (2013).
Zhang, Q., He, K. & Huo, H. Cleaning China’s air. Nature 484, 161–162 (2012).
Report on the State of the Ecology and Environment in China 2018 (Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, 2019); http://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/sthjzk/zghjzkgb/201905/P020190619587632630618.pdf
2015 Annual Statistic Report on Environment in China (Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China, 2017); https://www.mee.gov.cn/hjzl/sthjzk/sthjtjnb/201702/P020170223595802837498.pdf
Shan, Y. et al. China CO2 emission accounts 1997–2015. Sci. Data 5, 170201 (2018).
Bollen, J., van der Zwaan, B., Brink, C. & Eerens, H. Local air pollution and global climate change: a combined cost–benefit analysis. Resour. Energy Econ. 31, 161–181 (2009).
Schreifels, J. J., Fu, Y. & Wilson, E. J. Sulfur dioxide control in China: policy evolution during the 10th and 11th Five-Year Plans and lessons for the future. Energy Policy 48, 779–789 (2012).
Gu, A., Teng, F. & Feng, X. Effects of pollution control measures on carbon emission reduction in China: evidence from the 11th and 12th Five-Year Plans. Clim. Policy 18, 198–209 (2018).
Nam, K.-M., Waugh, C. J., Paltsev, S., Reilly, J. M. & Karplus, V. J. Carbon co-benefits of tighter SO2 and NOx regulations in China. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1648–1661 (2013).
Bollen, J. & Brink, C. Air pollution policy in Europe: quantifying the interaction with greenhouse gases and climate change policies. Energy Econ. 46, 202–215 (2014).
Henneman, L. R., Rafaj, P., Annegarn, H. J. & Klausbruckner, C. Assessing emissions levels and costs associated with climate and air pollution policies in South Africa. Energy Policy 89, 160–170 (2016).
Li, N. et al. Air quality improvement co-benefits of low-carbon pathways toward well below the 2 °C climate target in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 5576–5584 (2019).
Yang, X. & Teng, F. Air quality benefit of China’s mitigation target to peak its emission by 2030. Clim. Policy 18, 99–110 (2018).
Peng, W., Yang, J., Wagner, F. & Mauzerall, D. L. Substantial air quality and climate co-benefits achievable now with sectoral mitigation strategies in China. Sci. Total Environ. 598, 1076–1084 (2017).
Zhang, S., Worrell, E. & Crijns-Graus, W. Evaluating co-benefits of energy efficiency and air pollution abatement in China’s cement industry. Appl. Energy 147, 192–213 (2015).
Vandyck, T. et al. Air quality co-benefits for human health and agriculture counterbalance costs to meet Paris Agreement pledges. Nat. Commun. 9, 4939 (2018).
Zhang, S. et al. Modeling energy efficiency to improve air quality and health effects of China’s cement industry. Appl. Energy 184, 574–593 (2016).
Li, X. & Xu, H. The energy-conservation and emission-reduction paths of industrial sectors: evidence from Chinas 35 industrial sectors. Energy Econ. 86, 104628 (2020).
Yu, Y., Wang, D. D., Li, S. & Shi, Q. Assessment of US firm-level climate change performance and strategy. Energy Policy 92, 432–443 (2016).
Bye, B. & Klemetsen, M. E. The impacts of alternative policy instruments on environmental performance: a firm level study of temporary and persistent effects. Environ. Resour. Econ. 69, 317–341 (2018).
Dong, H. et al. Pursuing air pollutant co-benefits of CO2 mitigation in China: a provincial leveled analysis. Appl. Energy 144, 165–174 (2015).
Tong, D. et al. Targeted emission reductions from global super-polluting power plant units. Nat. Sustain. 1, 59–68 (2018).
Jorgenson, A., Longhofer, W. & Grant, D. Disproportionality in power plants’ carbon emissions: a cross-national study. Sci. Rep. 6, 28661 (2016).
Grant, D., Jorgenson, A. & Longhofer, W. Targeting electricity’s extreme polluters to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 3, 376–380 (2013).
Jiang, L., Lin, C. & Lin, P. The determinants of pollution levels: firm-level evidence from Chinese manufacturing. J. Comp. Econ. 42, 118–142 (2014).
Du, L., Hanley, A. & Zhang, N. Environmental technical efficiency, technology gap and shadow price of coal-fuelled power plants in China: a parametric meta-frontier analysis. Resour. Energy Econ. 43, 14–32 (2016).
Sun, K. & Wu, L. Efficiency distortion of the power generation sector under the dual regulation of price and quantity in China. Energy Econ. 86, 104675 (2020).
Gibson, M. Regulation-induced pollution substitution. Rev. Econ. Stat. 101, 827–840 (2019).
Novan, K. Overlapping environmental policies and the impact on pollution. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4, S153–S199 (2017).
Ang, B. W. Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: which is the preferred method? Energy Policy 32, 1131–1139 (2004).
Ang, B. W. LMDI decomposition approach: a guide for implementation. Energy Policy 86, 233–238 (2015).
Liu, Q. & Wang, Q. How China achieved its 11th Five-Year Plan emissions reduction target: a structural decomposition analysis of industrial SO2 and chemical oxygen demand. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 1104–1116 (2017).
Von Stechow, C. et al. Integrating global Climate Change mitigation goals with other sustainability objectives: a synthesis. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40, 363–394 (2015).
Thompson, T. M., Rausch, S., Saari, R. K. & Selin, N. E. A systems approach to evaluating the air quality co-benefits of US carbon policies. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 917–923 (2014).
Shi, X. & Xu, Z. Environmental regulation and firm exports: evidence from the eleventh Five-Year Plan in China. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 89, 187–200 (2018).
Zhao, X., Liu, C., Sun, C. & Yang, M. Does stringent environmental regulation lead to a carbon haven effect? Evidence from carbon-intensive industries in China. Energy Econ. 86, 104631 (2020).
Wu, H., Guo, H., Zhang, B. & Bu, M. Westward movement of new polluting firms in China: pollution reduction mandates and location choice. J. Comp. Econ. 45, 119–138 (2017).
Energy Supply and Consumption Revolution Strategy (2016-2030) (National Development and Reform Commission of China and National Energy Administration of China, 2016); https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/fggz/zcssfz/zcgh/201704/W020190910670685518802.pdf
Report on the Work of the Government 2020 (State Council of China, 2020); http://english.www.gov.cn/premier/news/202005/30/content_WS5ed197f3c6d0b3f0e94990da.html
The Action Plan on Prevention and Control of Air Pollution (State Council of China, 2013); http://english.mee.gov.cn/News_service/infocus/201309/t20130924_260707.shtml
Upgrade and Retrofit Plan for Coal-Fired Power Plants Aiming at Energy Savings and Emissions Reduction for 2014–2020 (National Development and Reform Commission of China, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China and National Energy Administration of China, 2014); http://www.mee.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/gwy/201409/W020140925407622627853.pdf
Lo, K., Li, H. & Wang, M. Energy conservation in China’s energy-intensive enterprises: an empirical study of the Ten-Thousand Enterprises Program. Energy Sustain. Dev. 27, 105–111 (2015).
Zhang, B., Chen, X. & Guo, H. Does central supervision enhance local environmental enforcement? Quasi-experimental evidence from China. J. Public Econ. 164, 70–90 (2018).
Kaneko, S., Fujii, H., Sawazu, N. & Fujikura, R. Financial allocation strategy for the regional pollution abatement cost of reducing sulfur dioxide emissions in the thermal power sector in China. Energy Policy 38, 2131–2141 (2010).
Guidelines for Preparation of Provincial GHG (National Development and Reform Commission of China, 2011); http://www.cbcsd.org.cn/sjk/nengyuan/standard/home/20140113/download/shengjiwenshiqiti.pdf
Holz, C. A. Chinese statistics: classification systems and data sources. Eurasian Geogr. Econ. 54, 532–571 (2013).
Hang, Y., Wang, Q., Wang, Y., Su, B. & Zhou, D. Industrial SO2 emissions treatment in China: a temporal–spatial whole process decomposition analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 243, 419–434 (2019).
Fujii, H., Okamoto, S., Kagawa, S. & Managi, S. Decomposition of toxicity emission changes on the demand and supply sides: empirical study of the US industrial sector. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 124008 (2017).
Qian, Y., Cao, H. & Huang, S. Decoupling and decomposition analysis of industrial sulfur dioxide emissions from the industrial economy in 30 Chinese provinces. J. Environ. Manage. 260, 110142 (2020).
Yang, X., Wang, S., Zhang, W., Li, J. & Zou, Y. Impacts of energy consumption, energy structure, and treatment technology on SO2 emissions: a multi-scale LMDI decomposition analysis in China. Appl. Energy 184, 714–726 (2016).
Rafaj, P. & Amann, M. Decomposing air pollutant emissions in Asia: determinants and projections. Energies 11, 1299 (2018).
Rafaj, P., Amann, M., Siri, J. & Wuester, H. Changes in European greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions 1960–2010: decomposition of determining factors. Clim. Change 124, 477–504 (2014).
Hoekstra, R. & Van den Bergh, J. C. Comparing structural decomposition analysis and index. Energy Econ. 25, 39–64 (2003).
Aström, S. et al. The impact of Swedish SO2 policy instruments on SO2 emissions 1990–2012. Environ. Sci. Policy 77, 32–39 (2017).
Fujii, H., Managi, S. & Kaneko, S. Decomposition analysis of air pollution abatement in China: empirical study for ten industrial sectors from 1998 to 2009. J. Clean. Prod. 59, 22–31 (2013).
Tong, D. et al. Current emissions and future mitigation pathways of coal-fired power plants in China from 2010 to 2030. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 12905–12914 (2018).
Sahin, S. Firm-Level Decomposition of Energy Consumption in Turkish Manufacturing Industry (World Bank, 2017).
First National Pollution Census Data Compilation Committee. Pollution Census Data Collection 66–69 (China Environ. Sci. Press, 2011).
Thirteenth Five-Year Plan for Energy Development (National Development and Reform Commission of China and National Energy Administration of China, 2016); http://fjb.nea.gov.cn/news_view.aspx?id=27538
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos 71925010, 71703027, 71904125, 72088101 and 71690244), the National Key R&D Program of China (grant nos 2018YFC1509007 and 2016YFA0602604) and the Shanghai Sailing Program (grant no. 18YF1417500).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
H.Q., W.W., J.M. and L.W. conceived the study. J.C. and F.R. provided the energy and emission data. H.Q. and S.X. performed the analysis. All authors (H.Q., S.X., J.C., F.R., W.W., J.M. and L.W.) interpreted the data. H.Q. and S.X. prepared the manuscript. W.W., J.M. and L.W. revised the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Hidemichi Fujii and Shaohui Zhang for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Each factor’s contribution to pollutant emission for each industrial sector based on LMDI decompositions (between 2011 and 2014).
A red block indicates the emission increase caused by each factor; a blue block shows the emission decrease caused by each factor. a, Drivers for SO2 emission reduction. b, Drivers for NOx emission reduction. c, Drivers for PM emission reduction.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Comparison of the estimated direct co-benefits by using different benchmarks.
a, SO2 emissions reduction. b, NOx emissions reduction. c, PM emissions reduction. d, CO2 emissions reduction. Different markers stand for different setting up for benchmarks.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Indirect co-benefits through electrification (setting the ratio of non-fossil fuel generation as 0.3).
a, SO2 emissions reduction. b, NOx emissions reduction. c, PM emissions reduction. d, CO2 emissions reduction. The horizontal axes are percentages of the fossil fuels that are assumed to be replaced by electricity. Percentages are from 5 to 30, with an interval of 5. This figure provides co-benefits estimations for the assumption that ratio of non-fossil fuel in electricity generation structure is 30%.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Indirect co-benefits through electrification (setting the ratio of non-fossil fuel generation as 0.5).
a, SO2 emissions reduction. b, NOx emissions reduction. c, PM emissions reduction. d, CO2 emissions reduction. The horizontal axes are percentages of the fossil fuels that are assumed to be replaced by electricity. Percentages are from 5 to 30, with an interval of 5. This figure provides co-benefits estimations for the assumption that ratio of non-fossil fuel in electricity generation structure is 50%.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–25, Tables 1–6 and Notes 1–4.
Supplementary Data 1
The firm-level emission database that supports the findings of this study. This database is also available from H.Q.’s GitHub repository (https://github.com/qianhaoqi/NS-co-benefit).
Source data
Source Data Fig. 1
Data for the plots in Fig. 1.
Source Data Fig. 2
Data for the plots in Fig. 2.
Source Data Fig. 3
Data for the plots in Fig. 3.
Source Data Fig. 4
Data for the plots in Fig. 4.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1
Data for the plots in Extended Data Fig. 1.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2
Data for the plots in Extended Data Fig. 2.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3
Data for the plots in Extended Data Fig. 3.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4
Data for the plots in Extended Data Fig. 4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Qian, H., Xu, S., Cao, J. et al. Air pollution reduction and climate co-benefits in China’s industries. Nat Sustain 4, 417–425 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00669-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00669-0