Addressing the carbon emissions embodied in India’s bilateral trade with two eminent Annex-II parties: with input–output and spatial decomposition analysis

Abstract

This paper quantifies the carbon emissions embodied in the bilateral trade between India from the non-Annex-I country list under the Kyoto Protocol (1997) with two of its biggest trade partners from the Annex-II country list, the USA and the UK, by applying the input–output modelling during the years of 2011 to 2014, to evaluate and analyse the conjecture around the carbon leakage. After the calculation of the embodied carbon in these bilateral exports and imports, the study further inspects the roles of important drivers those are influencing the calculated emission imbalances in trade. This study addresses a high emission-intensive energy consumption pattern of India relative to both the USA and the UK which is confirming the possibility of carbon leakage from Indian commodity production sectors and inducing a huge contribution from these bilateral trades into the global emissions. Finally, this study provides evidence from a spatial decomposition analysis that the differences among the emission-intensity of output between India and its major developed country trade partners create the maximum impact on the implied emission imbalances in the bilateral trades. With the anticipation of increased India–USA and the India–UK bilateral trade, this study proposes suggestion to reduce India’s emission intensity of output through fuel switching to the less emission-intensive energy options and relieve the pressure on the global environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Note: The volumes of export are measured in US$ Millions for the year 2016.

Fig. 2

Note: Carbon emissions measured in Kilo-Tonne unit.

Fig. 3

Note: Emission surplus is measure in Kilo-Tonnes, trade surplus is measure in million dollars.

Fig. 4

Source: United Nations Energy Statistics Yearbook 2015

Fig. 5

Note: Emissions measured in Mt.

Fig. 6

Note: Emissions measured in Mt.

Fig. 7

Note: Emissions measured in Mt.

Fig. 8

Source: Author’s Own Elaboration

Notes

  1. 1.

    The targets of the Kyoto Protocol during its first commitment period for 2008 to 2012 covered emissions of six main GHGs, namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro-fluorocarbons, per-fluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride.

  2. 2.

    These assigned amounts are calculated based on a Party’s quantified emission limits and reduction commitments over a commitment period recorded in Annex-B of the Protocol based on their corresponding emission levels in the year 1990 (UNFCCC).

  3. 3.

    Besides all the mitigation initiatives, one important economic argument behind this break in the pattern of US emission trend may be due to the subprime mortgage financial crisis which slowed down the US economy since 2007 and caused a fall in aggregate demand.

  4. 4.

    Appendix B.1”, “B.2” and “B.3” elaborates the calculation of weights associated with each energy items in the broad energy groups for India, the USA and the UK, respectively. In “Appendix B.4.1”, the elaboration of carbon emission factors of electricity for India, the USA and the UK is shown. “Appendix B.4.2” shows the proportions of different sources as contributors in the electricity generation for the three countries. “Appendix B.4.3” elaborates on the calculation of the emission factor of heat for the USA and the UK.

References

  1. Aichele, R., & Felbermyr, G. (2015). Kyoto and carbon leakage: An empirical analysis of the carbon content of bilateral trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics,97(1), 104–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ang, B. W. (2004). Decomposition analysis for policymaking in energy: Which is the preferred method? Energy Policy,32(9), 1131–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ang, B. W., Huan, H. C., & Mu, A. R. (2009). Properties and linkages of some index decomposition analysis methods. Energy Policy,37(11), 4624–4632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ang, B. W., Xu, X. Y., & Su, B. (2015). Multi-country comparisons of energy performance: The Index decomposition analysis approach. Energy Economics,47, 68–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Antimiani, A., Costantini, V., Martini, C., Salvatici, L., & Tommasino, L. C. (2013). Assessing alternative solutions to carbon leakage. Energy Economics,36, 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Banerjee, S. (2019). Addressing the drivers of carbon emissions embodied in Indian exports: An index decomposition analysis. Foreign Trade Review,54(4), 300–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Banga, R. (2016). BREXIT: Opportunities for India. Emerging Issues Briefing Paper (7), the Commonwealth Secretariat. London, United Kingdom, http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/inline/TCBP_Paper%2001_Brexit%20Opportunities%20for%20India.pdf

  8. Bohringer, C., Bye, B., Faehn, T., & Rosendahl, K. E. (2017). Targeted carbon tariffs: Export response, leakage and welfare. Resource and Energy Economics,50, 51–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Branger, F., & Quirion, P. (2014). Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecological Economics,99, 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang, N. (2013). Sharing responsibilities for carbon dioxide emissions: A perspective on border tax adjustments. Energy Policy,59, 850–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, Y. (2009). Does a regional greenhouse gas policy makes sense? A case study of carbon leakage and emission spillover. Energy Economics,31, 667–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen, L., & Yang, Z. (2015). A spatio-temporal decomposition analysis of energy-related CO2 emission growth in China. Journal of Cleaner Production,103, 49–60.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Du, H., Guo, J., Mao, G., Smith, A. M., Wang, X., & Wang, Y. (2011). CO2 emissions embodied in China-US trade: Input-output analysis based on the emergy/dollar ratio. Energy Policy.,39, 5980–5987.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guo, J., Zou, L. L., & Wei, Y. M. (2010). Impact of inter-sectoral trade on national and global CO2 emissions: An empirical analysis of China and US. Energy Policy,38, 1389–1397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jayanthakumaran, K., & Liu, Y. (2016). Bilateral CO2 emissions in embodied in Australia China trade. Energy Policy,92, 205–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ji, X., Liu, Y., Han, M., & Meng, J. (2020). The mutual benefits from Sino-Africa trade: Evidence on emission transfer along the global supply chain. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kallbekken, S., Flottorp, L. S., & Rive, N. (2007). CDM baseline approaches and carbon leakage. Energy Policy,35, 4154–4163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuik, O. (2002). The Effect of Trade Liberalization on Carbon Leakage with Kyoto Protocol: Experiments with GTAP-E. Paper prepared for the 4th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis. West Lafayette, Purdue University. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dbf5/bd71ed0f79c77e66c11d27dc417bcc152fdf.pdf

  19. Li, Y., & Hewitt, C. N. (2008). The effect of trade between China and the UK on national and global carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Policy.,36, 1907–1914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Li, A., & Zhang, A. (2012). Will carbon motivated border tax adjustment function as a threat? Energy Policy,47, 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu, X., Ishikawa, M., Wang, C., Dong, Y., & Liu, W. (2010). Analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in Japan-China trade. Energy Policy,38, 1510–1518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu, Z., Mao, X., & Song, P. (2016). GHGs and Air pollutants embodied in China’s international trade: Temporal and spatial index decomposition analysis. PLoS ONE,12(4), e0176089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176089.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu, Z., Mao, X., & Song, P. (2017). GHGs and Air pollutants embodied in China’s international trade: Temporal and spatial index decomposition analysis. PLoS ONE,12(4), e0176089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176089.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Long, R., Li, J., Chen, H., Zhang, L., & Li, Q. (2018). Embodied carbon dioxide flow in International trade: A comparative analysis based on China and Japan. Journal of Environmental Management,209, 371–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lopez, L. A., Arce, G., & Zafrilla, J. E. (2013). Parcelling virtual carbon in the pollution haven hypothesis. Energy Economics,39, 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Machado, G., Schaeffer, R., & Worrell, E. (2001). Energy and carbon emission embodied in international trade of Brazil: An input-output approach. Ecological Economics,39, 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahony, T. O. (2013). Decomposition of Ireland’s carbon emission from 1990 to 2010: An extended Kaya identity. Energy Policy,59, 573–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moutinho, V., Moreira, A. C., & Silva, P. M. (2015). The driving forces of change in energy-related CO2 emissions in Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern Europe: The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,50, 1485–1499.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Peters, G. P. (2008). From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecological Economics,65, 13–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Peters, G. P., & Hertwich, E. G. (2008). CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environmental Science Technology,42(2), 1401–1407.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peters, G. P., Minx, J. C., Weber, C. L., & Edenhofer, O. (2011). Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America,108, 8903–8908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006388108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rocchi, P., Serrano, M., Roca, J., & Arto, I. (2018). Border carbon adjustment based on avoided emissions: Addressing the challenge of its design. Ecological Economics,145, 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shahiduzzaman, M. D., Layton, A., & Alam, K. (2015). Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emissions in Australia: Challenges and policy implications. Economic Analysis and Policy,45, 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shui, B., & Harriss, R. C. (2006). The role of CO2 embodiement in US-China trade. Energy Policy.,34(18), 4063–4068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Su, B., Huang, H. C., Ang, B. W., & Zhou, P. (2010). Input-output analysis of CO2 emissions embodied in trade: The effects of sector aggregation. Energy Economics,32(1), 166–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tan, H., Sun, A., & Lau, H. (2013). CO2 embodiment in China-Australia trade: The drivers and implications. Energy Policy.,61, 1212–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Weidmann, T., Lenzen, M., Turner, K., & Barett, J. (2007). Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities—Part 2: Review of input–output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade. Ecological Economics,61(1), 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Wu, R., Geng, Y., Dong, H., Fujita, T., & Tian, X. (2016). Changes of CO2 emissions embodied in China-Japan trade: drivers and implications. Journal of Cleaner Production,112, 4151–4158.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wyckoff, A. W., & Roop, J. M. (1994). The embodiment of carbon in imports of manufacturing products: Implications for international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy,22(3), 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yu, Y., & Chen, F. (2017). Research on carbon emission embodied in trade between China and South Korea. Atmospheric Pollution Research,8, 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang, W., Li, K., Zhou, D., Zhang, W., & Gao, H. (2016). Decomposition of intensity of energy-related CO2 emission in Chinese provinces using LMDI method. Energy Policy,92, 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suvajit Banerjee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table 8.

Table 8 Concordance between the sectors of modified input–output tables to the original tables

Appendix B

Appendix B.1

See Table 9.

Table 9 Carbon emission factor of energy groups for India

Appendix B.2

See Table 10.

Table 10 Carbon Emission Factor of Energy Groups for US

Appendix B.3

See Table 11.

Table 11 Carbon Emission Factor of Energy Groups for UK

Appendix B.4

Appendix B.4.1

See Table 12.

Table 12 Carbon Emission Factor of Electricity for India, UK and US
Appendix B.4.2

See Table 13.

Table 13 Electricity Production by Type (In Gigawatt-hours)
Appendix B.4.3

See Table 14.

Table 14 Carbon Emission Factor of Heat Production for UK and US (In Terajoules)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Banerjee, S. Addressing the carbon emissions embodied in India’s bilateral trade with two eminent Annex-II parties: with input–output and spatial decomposition analysis. Environ Dev Sustain (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00824-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Emission embodied in bilateral trade
  • Carbon leakage
  • Input–output model
  • Spatial decomposition analysis
  • India
  • USA
  • UK
  • Emission intensity of output