IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i14p6263-d1697434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the Synergies of Air Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Typical Chemical Enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Qi Gong

    (College of Oceanography and Ecological Science, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yatfei Chan

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yijia Xia

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China)

  • Weiqi Tang

    (Fudan Development Institute, Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Weichun Ma

    (Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China)

Abstract

In this study, we selected the production processes and main products of three typical chemical enterprises in Shanghai, namely SH Petrochemical (part of the oil-refining sector), SK Ethylene, and HS Chlor-Alkali, to quantitatively assess the synergistic effects across technology, policy, and emission mechanisms. The localized air pollutant levels and greenhouse gas emissions of the three enterprises were calculated. The synergistic effects between the end-of-pipe emission reductions for air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions were analyzed using the pollutant reduction synergistic and cross-elasticity coefficients, including technology comparisons (e.g., acrylonitrile gas incineration (AOGI) technology vs. traditional flare). Based on these data, we used the SimaPro software and the CML-IA model to conduct a life cycle environmental impact assessment regarding the production and upstream processes of their unit products. By combining the life cycle method and the scenario simulation method, we predicted the trends in the environmental impacts of the three chemical enterprises after the implementation of low-carbon development policies in the chemical industry in 2030. We also quantified the synergistic effects of localized air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions within the low-carbon development scenario by using cross-elasticity coefficients based on life cycle environmental impacts. The research results show that, for every ton of air pollutant reduced through end-of-pipe treatment measures, the HS Chlor-Alkali enterprise would increase its maximum CO 2 emissions, amounting to about 80 tons. For SK Ethylene, the synergistic coefficient for VOC reduction and CO 2 emissions when using AOGI thermal incineration technology is superior to that for traditional flare thermal incineration. The activities of the three enterprises had an impact on several environmental indicators, particularly the fossil fuel resource depletion potential, accounting for 69.48%, 53.94%, and 34.23% of their total environmental impact loads, respectively. The scenario simulations indicate that, in a low-carbon development scenario, the overall environmental impact loads of SH Petrochemical (refining sector), SK Ethylene, and HS Chlor-Alkali would decrease by 3~5%. This result suggests that optimizing the upstream power structure, using “green hydrogen” instead of “grey hydrogen” in hydrogenation units within refining enterprises, and reducing the consumption of electricity and steam in the production processes of ethylene and chlor-alkali are effective measures in reducing carbon emissions in the chemical industry. The quantification of the synergies based on life cycle environmental impacts revealed that there are relatively strong synergies for air pollutant and GHG emission reductions in the oil-refining industry, while the chlor-alkali industry has the weakest synergies.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi Gong & Yatfei Chan & Yijia Xia & Weiqi Tang & Weichun Ma, 2025. "Analysis of the Synergies of Air Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Typical Chemical Enterprises," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-35, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6263-:d:1697434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6263/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6263/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Brendemoen & Haakon Vennemo, 1994. "A Climate Treaty and the Norwegian Economy: A CGE Assessment," The Energy Journal, , vol. 15(1), pages 77-93, January.
    2. Letitia Petrescu & Dora-Andreea Chisalita & Calin-Cristian Cormos & Giampaolo Manzolini & Paul Cobden & H. A. J. van Dijk, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of SEWGS Technology Applied to Integrated Steel Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Bollen, Johannes & Brink, Corjan, 2014. "Air pollution policy in Europe: Quantifying the interaction with greenhouse gases and climate change policies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 202-215.
    4. Yatfei Chan & Haoyue Tang & Xiao Li & Weichun Ma & Weiqi Tang, 2025. "Correction: Chan et al. Analysis of the Synergies of Cutting Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in an Integrated Iron and Steel Enterprise in China. Sustainability 2023, 15 , 13231," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-2, March.
    5. Arrow Kenneth J, 2007. "Global Climate Change: A Challenge to Policy," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 1-5, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Newbold, Stephen & Griffiths, Charles & Moore, Chris & Wolverton, Ann & Kopits. Elizabeth, 2010. "The “Social Cost of Carbon” Made Simple," National Center for Environmental Economics-NCEE Working Papers 280887, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    2. Richard Tol, 2011. "Regulating knowledge monopolies: the case of the IPCC," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 827-839, October.
    3. Lanzi, Elisa & Dellink, Rob & Chateau, Jean, 2018. "The sectoral and regional economic consequences of outdoor air pollution to 2060," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 89-113.
    4. Newbery, David, 2018. "Policies for decarbonizing a liberalized power sector," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-24.
    5. Parkinson, Aidan & Guthrie, Peter, 2014. "Evaluating the energy performance of buildings within a value at risk framework with demonstration on UK offices," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 40-55.
    6. Xu, Hao & Xu, Jingxuan & Wang, Jie & Hou, Xiang, 2023. "Reduce production or increase efficiency? Hazardous air pollutants regulation, energy use, and the synergistic effect on industrial enterprises' carbon emission," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    7. Bollen, Johannes, 2015. "The value of air pollution co-benefits of climate policies: Analysis with a global sector-trade CGE model called WorldScan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 178-191.
    8. Özge .Ic{s}legen & Stefan Reichelstein, 2011. "Carbon Capture by Fossil Fuel Power Plants: An Economic Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 21-39, January.
    9. Xiaopeng Guo & Xiaodan Guo & Jiahai Yuan, 2014. "Impact Analysis of Air Pollutant Emission Policies on Thermal Coal Supply Chain Enterprises in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, December.
    10. David J. Frame & Cameron J. Hepburn, 2011. "Emerging markets and climate change: Mexican standoff or low-carbon race?," GRI Working Papers 46, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    11. Rick van der Ploeg, 2020. "Discounting and Climate Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 8441, CESifo.
    12. David Anthoff & Richard Tol, 2009. "The Impact of Climate Change on the Balanced Growth Equivalent: An Application of FUND," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 43(3), pages 351-367, July.
    13. Yacov Tsur & Amos Zemel, 2009. "Endogenous Discounting and Climate Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 507-520, December.
    14. Mertens, Jean-François & Rubinchik, Anna, 2012. "Intergenerational Equity And The Discount Rate For Policy Analysis," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 61-93, February.
    15. Tamma Carleton & Michael Greenstone, 2021. "Updating the United States Government's Social Cost of Carbon," Working Papers 2021-04, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    16. Shurojit Chatterji & Sayantan Ghosal & Sean Walsh & John Whalley, 2014. "Unilateral Measures and Emissions Mitigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nicholas Stern & Alex Bowen & John Whalley (ed.), THE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY REGIMES TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE, chapter 8, pages 181-223, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. Milan Ščasný & Emanuele Massetti & Jan Melichar & Samuel Carrara, 2015. "Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 383-415, October.
    18. Orset, Caroline, 2019. "How Do Travellers Respond to Health and Environmental Policies to Reduce Air Pollution?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 68-82.
    19. Halkos, George, 2014. "The Economics of Climate Change Policy: Critical review and future policy directions," MPRA Paper 56841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Jiehui Yuan & Xunmin Ou & Gehua Wang, 2017. "Establishing a Framework to Evaluate the Effect of Energy Countermeasures Tackling Climate Change and Air Pollution: The Example of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-23, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6263-:d:1697434. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.