This article examined the influence of the energy-consuming rights trading system (ERS) on environmental inequality, discussed the influence mechanism through the lenses of industrial structure upgrading and green technology innovation, and analyzed the possible spatial spillover effect of ERS with panel data at the provincial level in China from 2003 to 2021. The results indicate that ERS can significantly control provincial environmental inequality by advancing industrial upgrades and fostering green technology innovation. The controlling effect of ERS on environmental inequality is more obvious in regions with more serious environmental inequality, and the controlling effect on the old industrial base is also greater than on the non-old industrial base. Additionally, ERS has helped control environmental inequality in surrounding provinces. In light of the research findings, a series of policy recommendations have been put forth with the aim of further developing and enhancing China's energy-consuming trading market. Overall, this article presents new empirical evidence of the interplay between the energy consumption trading market and environmental inequality. In addition, it offers new approaches and references for policymakers to improve the energy-consuming trading market and the environmental inequalities.
ShaoSLiuLTianZ. Does the environmental inequality matter? A literature review. Environ Geochem Health2021: 3133–3156.
3.
CollinsTWGrineskiSENadybalSM. A comparative approach for environmental justice analysis: explaining divergent societal distributions of particulate matter and ozone pollution across US neighborhoods. Ann Am Assoc Geogr2022; 112: 522–541.
4.
ChenYYueWLa RosaD. Which communities have better accessibility to green space? An investigation into environmental inequality using big data. Landsc Urban Plann2020; 204: 103919.
5.
SamourAAdebayoTSAgyekumEB, et al.Insights from BRICS-T economies on the impact of human capital and renewable electricity consumption on environmental quality. Sci Rep2023; 13: 5245.
6.
ZhangYRadmehrRAliEB,et al.Natural resources, financial globalization, renewable energy, and environmental quality: Novel findings from top natural resource abundant countries. Gondwana Res2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.gr.2023.12.016.
7.
BayerPAklinM. The European Union emissions trading system reduced CO2 emissions despite low prices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2020; 117: 8804–8812.
8.
ZhangSWangYHaoY,et al.Shooting two hawks with one arrow: could China's emission trading scheme promote green development efficiency and regional carbon equality?Energy Econ2021; 101: 105412.
9.
PataUKSamourA. Assessing the role of the insurance market and renewable energy in the load capacity factor of OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 48604–48616.
10.
DissanayakeSMahadevanRAsafu-AdjayeJ. Evaluating the efficiency of carbon emissions policies in a large emitting developing country. Energy Policy2020; 136: 111080.
11.
AdebayoTSSamourA. Renewable energy, fiscal policy and load capacity factor in BRICS countries: novel findings from panel nonlinear ARDL model. Environ Dev Sustain2024; 26: 4365–4389.
12.
YangMHouYFangC,et al.Constructing energy-consuming right trading system for China's manufacturing industry in 2025. Energy Policy2020; 144: 111602.
13.
XueGWuCZhangM, et al.Energy-consuming right trading: architectures, practices and challenges. In: 2022 IEEE/IAS industrial and commercial power system Asia (I&CPS Asia), 2022, pp.2107–2112. IEEE.
14.
ChuXDuGGengH,et al.Can energy quota trading reduce carbon intensity in China? A study using a DEA and decomposition approach. Sustain Prod Consum2021; 28: 1275–1285.
15.
ZhangQLiJWangJ. Does energy-consuming right trading have double dividend effect on firm’s economic performance and carbon emission?Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 105595–105613.
16.
LiuYSunHMengB, et al.How to purchase carbon emission right optimally for energy-consuming enterprises? Analysis based on optimal stopping model. Energy Econ2023; 124: 106758.
17.
GuoBHuP. Investigating the relationship between energy-consuming rights trading and urban innovation quality. Sustain Dev2023; 32(4): 3248–3270.
18.
WangSHeYSongM. Global value chains, technological progress, and environmental pollution: inequality towards developing countries. J Environ Manag2021; 277: 110999.
19.
ZhangYGaoQWeiJ, et al.Can China's energy-consuming permit trading scheme achieve the “Porter” effect? Evidence from an estimated DSGE model. Energy Policy2023; 180: 113671.
20.
WangKSuXWangS. How does the energy-consuming rights trading policy affect China's carbon emission intensity?Energy2023; 276: 127579.
21.
YangXLongJLinH, et al.Enhancing efficiency or optimizing industrial structure? A comprehensive assessment of China's energy consumption rights trading system. Energy Sustain Dev2024; 78: 101380.
22.
WangWWangJWuH. The impact of energy-consuming rights trading on green total factor productivity in the context of digital economy: evidence from listed firms in China. Energy Econ2024; 131: 107342.
23.
CheSWangJ. Policy effectiveness of market-oriented energy reform: experience from China energy-consuming permit trading scheme. Energy2022; 261: 125354.
24.
HanDBiCWuH,et al.Energy and environment: how could energy-consuming transition promote the synergy of pollution reduction and carbon emission reduction in China?Urban Clim2024; 55: 101931.
25.
ZhangYGuoSShiX, et al.A market instrument to achieve carbon neutrality: Is China’s energy-consuming permit trading scheme effective?Appl Energy2021; 299: 117338.
26.
WeiYDuMHuangZ. The effects of energy quota trading on total factor productivity and economic potential in industrial sector: evidence from China. J Cleaner Prod2024; 445: 141227.
27.
LiXYangJYaoY, et al.Boosting green technology innovation in China's construction industry: the power of energy-consuming rights trading policy. Econ Anal Policy2024; 84: 410–423.
28.
MaZZhengYMuC, et al.Optimal trading strategy for integrated energy company based on integrated demand response considering load classifications. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst2021; 128: 106673.
29.
HouJWanMSongM. Carbon emission inequality and fairness from energy consumption by prefecture-level cities in China. Ecol Indic2024; 158: 111364.
30.
YuFXiaoDChangMS. The impact of carbon emission trading schemes on urban-rural income inequality in China: a multi-period difference-in-differences method. Energy Policy2021; 159: 112652.
31.
YinKMiaoYHuangC. Environmental regulation, technological innovation, and industrial structure upgrading. Energy Environ2024; 35: 207–227.
32.
ZangJWanLLiZ, et al.Does emission trading scheme have spillover effect on industrial structure upgrading? Evidence from the EU based on a PSM-DID approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 12345–12357.
33.
ShenBYangXXuY, et al.Can carbon emission trading pilot policy drive industrial structure low-carbon restructuring: new evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 41553–41569.
34.
ZhaoWXSamourAYiK,et al.Do technological innovation, natural resources and stock market development promote environmental sustainability? Novel evidence based on the load capacity factor. Resour Policy2023; 82: 103397.
35.
HuangZDuX. Toward green development? Impact of the carbon emissions trading system on local governments’ land supply in energy-intensive industries in China. Sci Total Environ2020; 738: 139769.
36.
ZhuZLiuG. Fostering enterprise green innovation: an empirical analysis of China’s energy use rights trading system. J Knowl Econ2023: 1–23.
37.
WangYHangYWangQ. Joint or separate? An economic-environmental comparison of energy-consuming and carbon emissions permits trading in China. Energy Econ2022; 109: 105949.
38.
RadmehrRShayanmehrSBabaEA, et al.Spatial spillover effects of green technology innovation and renewable energy on ecological sustainability: new evidence and analysis. Sustain Dev2024; 32: 1743–1761.
39.
BaronRMKennyDA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol1986; 51: 1173–1182.
40.
KolakMAnselinL. A spatial perspective on the econometrics of program evaluation. Int Reg Sci Rev2020; 43: 128–153.
41.
PozoCGalán-MartínACortés-BordaD, et al.Reducing global environmental inequality: determining regional quotas for environmental burdens through systems optimisation. J Cleaner Prod2020; 270: 121828.
42.
ZhuBZhangMZhouY, et al.Exploring the effect of industrial structure adjustment on interprovincial green development efficiency in China: a novel integrated approach. Energy Policy2019; 134: 110946.
43.
YuanSSunXChenW,et al.Study on the measurement of industrial structure “sophistication, rationalization and ecologicalization” based on the dynamic analysis of grey relations—a case study of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei. J Syst Sci Inf2020; 8: 130–147.
44.
ChengZLiLLiuJ. Industrial structure, technical progress and carbon intensity in China's provinces. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2018; 81: 2935–2946.
45.
LiYWangXWangY, et al.How does market-oriented environmental regulation affect carbon emission performance? A quasinatural experiment based on the pilot policy of energy-use rights trading. Int J Energy Res2024; 2024: 1–18.
46.
BeckTLevineRLevkovA. Big bad banks? The winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States. J Finance2010; 65: 1637–1667.
47.
ChettyRLooneyAKroftK. Salience and taxation: theory and evidence. Am Econ Rev2009; 99: 1145–1177.
48.
WilliamsonJG. Regional inequality and the process of national development: a description of the patterns. Econ Dev Cult Change1965; 13: 1–84.
49.
PetriF. Welfare, externalities, public goods and happiness. In: Microeconomics for the critical mind: mainstream and heterodox analyses. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp.1227–1336.
50.
FleurbaeyMKanburRVineyB. Social externalities and economic analysis. Soc Res2021; 88: 171–202.
51.
ZhangYXiangB. Does emissions trading system cause environmental inequality in China?-An analysis based on PSM-DID method. J China Univ Geosci (Soc Sci Ed)2022; 22: 67–82.
