Carbon Emissions Embodied in India–United Kingdom Trade: A Case Study on North

Abstract

This study is an appraisal of North–South trade and environmental debate on the context of ‘carbon leakage hypothesis’. This article attempts to quantify the CO₂ emissions embodied in the bilateral trade between India and the United Kingdom (hereafter mentioned as the UK) using an input–output model-based analysis for the year 2015. It further proposes a hypothetical situation of no trade between India and UK in order to calculate and analyse the contribution of this bilateral trade in global CO₂ emissions. The results from this study confirm the possibility of ‘carbon leakage’ from Indian commodity production sectors and find that among two trade partners, the UK is able to avoid more carbon emissions than India through trade which helps the UK to reach their carbon emission mitigation targets. On the average, manufacturing of commodities in India those are to be exported to the UK generates 1.053 kilo-tonnes of CO₂ emission per million dollars of export annually and manufacturing of commodities in the UK which are imported to India generates only 0.141 kilo-tonnes of CO₂ emission per million dollars of import from the UK annually for the years 2011, 2013 and 2015. This is because of the proportionately higher consumption of more emission-intensive energy items, like coal, and coal products by India in industrial production than the UK. At the end of the article, this study proposes a few suggestions to ensure a decent level of emission imbalance in the trade flows for the anticipation of increasing India–UK bilateral trade in coming days due to post-BREXIT eventualities to reduce the pressure on the global environment.

JEL Codes: C67, F64, Q37, Q42

Keywords

carbon leakage hypothesis North–South debate input–output model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Banga

(2017). BREXIT: Opportunities for India (Emerging Issues Briefing Paper No. 7). London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved from http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/inline/TCBP_Paper%2001_Brexit%20Opportunities%20for%20India.pdf

Bhattacharyya

S. C.

(2011). Energy data and energy balance. In Energy economics: Concepts, issues, markets and governance (Ch. 2, pp. 9–38). London: Springer.

Branger

Quirion

(2014). Would border carbon adjustments prevent carbon leakage and heavy industry competitiveness losses? Insights from a meta-analysis of recent economic studies. Ecological Economics, 99, 29–39.

Chang

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

Chichilnisky

(1994). North–South trade and the global environment. American Economic Review, 84(4), 851–74.

Copeland

B. R.

Taylor

M. S.

(1994). North–South trade and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(3), 755–87.

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Statistics Division. (2017a). 2015 Energy Balances (4th issue). New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/balance/

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Statistics Division. (2017b). United Nations energy statistics yearbook 2015. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/energy/yearbook/default.htm

Dietzenbacher

Mukhopadhyay

(2007). An empirical examination of the pollution haven hypothesis for India: Towards a green Leontief paradox? Environment and Resource Economics, 36, 427–449.

10.

Guo

Mao

Smith

A. M.

Wang

(2011). CO₂ emissions embodied in China–US trade: Input–output analysis based on the energy/dollar ratio. Energy Policy, 39, 5980–5987.

11.

Frankel

J. A.

Rose

A. K.

(2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87, 85–91.

12.

Hanna

(2010). US environmental regulation and FDI: Evidence from a panel of US based multinational firms. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Economic Policy, 2, 158–189.

13.

Jaffe

A. B.

Peterson

S. R.

Portney

P. R.

Stavins

R. N.

(1995). Environmental regulation and the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing: What does the evidence tell us? Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 132–163.

14.

Jayanthakumaran

Liu

(2016). Bilateral CO₂ emissions in embodied in Australia China trade. Energy Policy, 92, 205–213.

15.

Kallbekken

Flottorp

L. S.

Rive

(2007). CDM baseline approaches and carbon leakage. Energy Policy, 35, 4154–4163.

16.

Kellenberg

(2009). An empirical investigation of the pollution haven effect with strategic environment and trade policy. Journal of International Economics, 78, 242–255.

17.

Kuik

(2002). The effect of trade liberalization on carbon leakage with Kyoto Protocol: Experiments with GTAP-E. Paper presented at the fourth Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, West Lafayette, IN (pp. 1 –19).

18.

Levinson

Taylor

M. S.

(2008). Unmasking the pollution haven effect. International Economic Review, 49, 223–254.

19.

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.

20.

Zhang

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

21.

Liu

Ishikawa

Wang

Dong

Liu

(2010). Analysis of CO₂ emissions embodied in Japan–China trade. Energy Policy, 38, 1510–1518.

22.

Long

Chen

Zhang

(2018). Embodied carbon dioxide flow in international trade: A comparative analysis based on China and Japan. Journal of Environmental Management, 209, 371–381.

23.

Lopez

L. A.

Arce

Zafrilla

J. E.

(2013). Parcelling virtual carbon in the pollution haven hypothesis. Energy Economics, 39, 177–186.

24.

Mani

Wheeler

(1999). In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the world economy, 1960–95. In Fredriksson

Per G.

(Ed.), Trade, global policy, and the environment (World Bank Discussion Paper No. 402; pp. 115–128). Washington, DC: World Bank.

25.

Michida

Nishikimi

(2007). North South trade and industry-specific pollutants. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54, 229–243.

26.

OECD. (2018). Bilateral Trade in Goods by Industry and End Use (BTDIxE), ISIC Revision 4. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/stanstructuralanalysisdatabase.htm

27.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Input–output tables. Paris: Paris. Retrieved from http://oe.cd/i-o

28.

Paltsev

S. V.

(2001). The Kyoto Protocol: Regional and sectoral contributions of the carbon leakage. The Energy Journal, 22(4), 53–80.

29.

Parikh

Panda

Ganesh-Kumar

Singh

(2009). CO₂ emissions structure of Indian economy. Energy, 34, 1024–1031.

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.

31.

Rocchi

Serrano

Roca

Arto

(2018). Border carbon adjustment based on avoided emissions: Addressing the challenge of its design. Ecological Economics, 145, 126–136.

32.

Sun

Ding

Yang

(2017). Estimating the complete CO₂ emissions and the carbon intensity in India: From the carbon transfer perspective. Energy Policy, 109, 418–427.

33.

Tan

Sun

Lau

(2013). CO₂ embodiment in China–Australia trade: The drivers and implications. Energy Policy, 61, 1212–1220.

34.

Geng

Dong

Fujita

Tian

(2016). Changes of CO₂ emissions embodied in China–Japan trade: Drivers and implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4151–4158.

35.

Chen

(2017). Research on carbon emission embodied in trade between China and South Korea. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 8, 56–63.

Carbon Emissions Embodied in India–United Kingdom Trade: A Case Study on North–South Debate

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References