首页> 外文期刊>Environmental science & policy >Comment on 'Consumption-based versus production-based accounting of CO2 emissions: Is there evidence for carbon leakage?'
【24h】

Comment on 'Consumption-based versus production-based accounting of CO2 emissions: Is there evidence for carbon leakage?'

机译:评论“基于消费的基于CO2排放量的基于生产的会计:有碳泄漏有证据?”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The authors should realize that the mixture of two incompatible databases Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) and Global Carbon Atlas (GCA) for production-based accounting (PBA) and consumption-based accounting (CBA), respectively, fails to examine carbon leakage from developed to developing countries in a meaningful way. By the authors' definition of carbon leakage, we calculate the ratio of CBA to PBA and the inconsistency index of national ranking where the data comes solely from GCA, and further compare the results with those provided by the authors. A striking difference has been witnessed not only in the ratio but also in the inconsistency index of national ranking. Our reanalysis of the data demonstrates that the ratio is an inherently poor measure of carbon leakage and that taking into account the distance between CBA and PBA can provide a more complete picture of carbon leakage that has become ubiquitous due to international trade.
机译:作者应该认识到,对于全球大气研究(EDGAR)和全球碳纳特(GCA)的两个不相容数据库排放数据库的混合分别用于生产的核算(PBA)和基于消费的核算(CBA),不能检查碳 以有意义的方式向发展中国家发达的泄漏。 通过作者对碳泄漏的定义,我们计算CBA与PBA的比率以及数据排名的不一致指数,其中数据排名来自GCA,并进一步将结果与作者提供的结果进行比较。 不仅在该比例中得到了引人注目的差异,而且在国家排名的不一致指数中得到了见证。 我们对数据的再分析表明,该比例是一种固有的碳泄漏量度,考虑到CBA和PBA之间的距离可以提供更完整的碳泄漏图像,由于国际贸易而变得无处不在。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号