中国省际节能与环保一致性及影响因素研究

节能和环保是践行绿色发展理念的两个基本立足点,二者是否能够协调一致,事关中国经济的可持续发展。将能源消费的清洁化结构纳入基于环境技术的非径向方向性距离函数（NDDF）,测算全要素的节能效率、环保效率、节能环保效率,据此判定2001—2016年中国省际节能与环保一致性的实现情况,发现不考虑能源消费的清洁化结构会导致以上DEA全要素效率值的低估,节能与环保失衡的现象比高耗能高污染更普遍。Probit模型分析表明,财政节能环保支出比重对节能与环保一致性影响的方向和强度依赖于经济发展水平。相反,经济发展水平提高和环境规制增强却对节能与环保实现一致有负向影响,前者提示以牺牲资源环境换取经济增长现象的存在,后者说明适度环境规制刺激技术创新的“波特效应”还未显现。对外开放水平对节能与环保一致性实现概率的负向影响虽小,却警示“污染天堂”风险的存在。

A study on the consistency and influencing factors of China’s provincial energy saving and environmental protection

Energy conservation and environmental protection are two basic footholds for practicing the concept of green development of China. Whether the two can be coordinated is related to the sustainable development of China's economy. Incorporated the clean structure of energy consumption into the non-radial directional distance function (NDDF) which based on environmental technology, and used it to measure the energy saving efficiency, environmental protection efficiency, energy saving and environmental protection efficiency of total factors, and judged the realization of the consistency of inter-provincial energy conservation and environmental protection in China from 2001 to 2016 according to the calculation results. Found that if the clean structure of energy consumption is not considered, it will lead to the underestimation of the above-mentioned DEA total factor efficiency value. It is also found that the phenomenon of energy saving and environmental imbalance is more common than high energy consumption and high pollution. Probit model regression results show that the direction and intensity of the impact of fiscal energy conservation and environmental protection expenditure on energy conservation and environmental protection consistency depends on the level of economic development. On the contrary, the improvement of economic development level and the enhancement of environmental regulation have a negative impact on the realization of energy conservation and environmental protection consistency. The former suggests the existence of the phenomenon that sacrificing resources and environment to exchange for economic growth, while the latter illustrates that the Potter effect of “appropriate environmental regulation can stimulate technological innovation” has not yet appeared in China. The level of openness has a negative impact on achieving energy conservation and environmental coherence. Although this negative impact is small, it is enough to warn of the existence of “pollution paradise” risk.