Research on the Relationship between Economic Growth, Environmental Governance Investment and Carbon Emission--Based on the Time Series Data from 2000 to 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study on the relationship between investment in environmental governance, carbon emission and economic growth is helpful for the relevant government departments to coordinate the influence among them when formulating the policies of reducing emission and conserving energy, so as to take the comparative advantages of various factors and promote the benign interaction between economic development and environmental governance. In this paper, the data of Per capita GDP, per capita investment in environmental governance and per capita CARBON dioxide emissions in China from 2000 to 2019 are selected as the research basis, and variables are studied by means of Granger causality and impulse response function. As shown in the results, there is a single Granger relationship between investment in environmental governance and carbon emissions, that is, the increase of investment in environmental governance leads to the reduction of carbon emissions. The influence of economic growth on environmental governance investment is small, but in the long term, it can restrain the growth of carbon emissions. Investment in environmental governance can promote economic growth and stimulate a reduction in the emissions in the short term; Economic growth was hindered by the emissions in the long term and fail to stimulate increased investment in environmental governance. Based on these findings, this paper proposes policy Suggestions for optimizing the structure of environmental governance investment, improving the carbon emission monitoring and response mechanism, and strengthening the technological level of energy conservation and emission reduction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".