MAJOR SOURCES OF CARBON EMISSIONS IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY: A SECTORAL ANALYSIS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
carbon emissions; greenhouse gases; national economy; sectoral analysis; decarbonization; fossil fuels; input-output analysis; climate policy; emission accountingAbstract
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from national economic activities represent one of the most consequential challenges of contemporary environmental governance. Despite growing scholarly attention to climate mitigation, a systematic understanding of the sectoral architecture of national carbon emissions—particularly in transitional and emerging economies—remains incomplete. This paper conducts a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis of the principal sources of carbon emissions within national economic frameworks, drawing upon empirical data, input-output modeling, and a systematic review of 98 peer-reviewed studies and institutional reports published between 2012 and 2024. The analysis identifies six dominant emission sectors: energy generation and fossil fuel combustion, industrial manufacturing and heavy industry, transport and logistics infrastructure, agriculture and land use change, waste management systems, and building and construction activities. The study further examines sector-specific emission drivers, including technological lock-in, structural economic factors, and institutional barriers to decarbonization. Findings indicate that energy and industrial sectors collectively account for approximately 62–68% of national GHG emissions across the reviewed economies, yet exhibit the greatest abatement potential through technological substitution and regulatory intervention. The paper concludes with a discussion of sector-differentiated policy instruments and proposes a national carbon accounting framework that integrates production-based and consumption-based emission perspectives.
Downloads
References
1.Davis, S. J., Lewis, N. S., Shaner, M., Aggarwal, S., Arent, D., Azevedo, I. L., Benson, S. M., Bradley, T., Brouwer, J., Chiang, Y. M., Clack, C. T. M., Cohen, A., Doig, S., Edmonds, J., Fennell, P., Field, C. B., Hannegan, B., Hodge, B. M., Hoffert, M. I., … Caldeira, K. (2018). Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science, 360(6396), eaas9793. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9793
2.FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2023). FAOSTAT emissions — Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data
3.Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., … Zheng, B. (2022). Global Carbon Budget 2022. Earth System Science Data, 14(11), 4811–4900. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022
4.Goulder, L. H., & Schein, A. R. (2013). Carbon taxes versus cap and trade: A critical review. Climate Change Economics, 4(3), 1350010. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007813500103
5.Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., De Bruin, S., Farina, M., Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M. C., Herold, M., Houghton, R. A., Potapov, P. V., Suarez, D. R., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Saatchi, S. S., Slay, C. M., Turubanova, S. A., & Tyukavina, A. (2021). Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change, 11(3), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6
6.ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization). (2022). Report on the feasibility of a long-term aspirational goal (LTAG) for international civil aviation CO2 emission reductions. ICAO.
7.IEA (International Energy Agency). (2023). CO2 emissions in 2022. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/co2-emissions-in-2022
8.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2022). Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926
9.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2023). AR6 synthesis report: Climate change 2023. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
10.Kanemoto, K., Moran, D., Lenzen, M., & Geschke, A. (2016). International trade undermines national emission reduction targets: New evidence from air pollution. Global Environmental Change, 24, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.008
11.Kaya, Y., & Yokoburi, K. (1997). Environment, energy, and economy: Strategies for sustainability. United Nations University Press.
12.Lucon, O., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Zain Ahmed, A., Akbari, H., Bertoldi, P., Cabeza, L. F., Eyre, N., Gadgil, A., Harvey, L. D. D., Jiang, Y., Liphoto, E., Mirasgedis, S., Mochida, S., Namaganda, J. E., Ogden, H., Ozturk, I. C., Patwardhan, A., Schwer, F., Szabolcs, M., … Vengosh, A. (2014). Buildings. In O. Edenhofer et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. IPCC / Cambridge University Press.
13.Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
14.Peters, G. P., Davis, S. J., & Andrew, R. (2012). A synthesis of carbon in international trade. Biogeosciences, 9(8), 3247–3276. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-3247-2012
15.Sims, R., Schaeffer, R., Creutzig, F., Cruz-Núñez, X., D'Agosto, M., Dimitriu, D., Figueroa Meza, M. J., Fulton, L., Kobayashi, S., Lah, O., McKinnon, A., Newman, P., Ouyang, M., Schauer, J. J., Sperling, D., & Tiwari, G. (2014). Transport. In O. Edenhofer et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. IPCC / Cambridge University Press.
16.Steininger, K., Lininger, C., Droege, S., Roser, D., Tomlinson, L., & Meyer, L. (2014). Justice and cost effectiveness of consumption-based versus production-based approaches in the case of unilateral climate policies. Global Environmental Change, 24, 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.10.005
17.Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.

Germany
United States of America
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Uzbekistan
Japan
Republic of Korea
Australia
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
China
India