Complying with the Kyoto Protocol under Competitive and Environmental Pressure: From the Viewpoints of Industrial Structural Reform and Trade Policy

标准的生态效率分析通常侧重于所调查的生产技术和消费的变化。这些研究传统上审查了生态效率变化的根本原因，以及可取和不可取产出的更有效活动载体，以便最大限度地增加效益，减少坏处。与此相反，本文件侧重于国际生态效率，并在严格的环境限制条件下（京都条例），在国际一级国内最终需求总量最大化的背景下，评价了更有效的活动分布。本文提出了三个主要发现。首先，竞争压力和日本对《京都议定书》的遵守并没有使中国成为污染天堂。由于自由贸易，中国和日本的排放量都有所减少。其次，日本净出口增加10亿美元的同时，日本生态效率下降 ...更多信息 提高中国的生态效率。全球生态效率随着日本净出口的减少而提高。第三，日本生态效率的提高是以中国生态效率的降低为代价的，在要素自由流动和商品自由贸易的情景下，日本生态效率每增加1,000美元/吨碳，中国生态效率每减少223美元/吨碳。第一个发现证实了Dietzenbacher和Mukhopadhyay（2007年）的观点，他们也发现中国在1995年不是污染天堂。此外，这方面的一个重要考虑是，竞争压力和日本遵守议定书并没有使中国成为污染避难所，从环境角度来看，中国和日本都受益于自由贸易。相反，第二和第三个发现意味着，如果我们关注国家的生态效率，中国和日本不能建立一个关系，其中两国的生态效率将提高。少

Standard eco-efficiency analysis has typically focused on changes in the production technologies and consumption in the being investigated. These studies have conventionally examined the reasons underlying changes in eco-efficiencies and more-efficient activity vectors of both desirable and undesirable outputs, such that the goods are maximized and the bads are minimized. In contrast, this paper focused on international eco-efficiencies and evaluated more-efficient activity distributions within the context of total domestic final demand at the international level being maximized under conditions of stringent environmental constraints (Kyoto regulation). This paper presents three major findings. First, competitive pressure and Japanese compliance with the Kyoto Protocol did not turn China into a pollution haven. Emissions decreased in both China and Japan as a result of free trade. Second, a $1 billion increase in net Japanese exports is accompanied by a decrease in Japanese eco-efficie … More ncy and an increase in Chinese eco-efficiency. Global eco-efficiency increases as net exports from Japan decrease. Third, Japanese eco-efficiency improves at the expense of decreased eco-efficiency in China, an increase of $1,000 per ton carbon in Japanese eco-efficiency results in a decrease of $223 per ton carbon in Chinese eco-efficiency under scenarios of free factor mobility and free commodity trade. The first finding corroborates that of Dietzenbacher and Mukhopadhyay (2007), who also found that China was not a pollution haven in 1995. In addition, an important consideration in this regard is that competitive pressure and Japanese compliance with the Protocol did not contribute to turning China into a pollution haven and that, from an environmental perspective, China and Japan both benefit from free trade. Conversely, the second and third findings imply that if we focus on national eco-efficiencies, China and Japan cannot establish a relationship in which the eco-efficiencies of both countries will improve. Less