Papermaking! Vol12 Nr1 2026

S.  Hu,  H.  Qi,  Z.  Wang  et  al. 

Environmental  Science  and  Ecotechnology  30  (2026)  100682

Table  3 Comparison  between  ESG-reported  and  surveyed  carbon  emissions  for  representative  PPPs. Plant  type Surveyed  mean  values  (t  CO  2  per  t  paper)

ESG-reported  mean  values  (t  CO  2  per  t  paper)

PFPP RFPP

1.09 0.71 0.52 0.93

1.03 0.78 0.58 0.92

HPPMP LPPMP

SPPMP 0.8 Note:  PFPP,  primary  fiber  pulp  plant;  RFPP,  recovered  fiber  pulp  plant;  HPPMP,  heavyweight  paper  product  manufacturing  plant;  SPPMP,  specialty  paper  product  manufacturing  plant;  LPPMP,  lightweight  paper  product  manufacturing  plant;  ESG,  environmental,  social,  and  governance. 0.81

plants,  in  which  thermal  power  plants  often  occupy  a  large  pro- portion  of  the  total  site  area  and  therefore  exert  a  stronger  influ- ence  on  overall  carbon  emissions.  In  contrast,  for  larger  plants,  such  as  PFPPs  and  RFPPs,  although  thermal  power  plants  remained  an  important  source  of  direct  carbon  emissions,  their  spatial  footprints  typically  accounted  for  smaller  proportions  of  the  total  site  areas.  Consequently,  their  contributions  to  carbon  emissions  were  small  within  the  area-based  model.  Overall,  these  results  highlight  pronounced  heterogeneity  across  functional  zones  shaping  plant-level  carbon  emissions  across  PPP  categories.

Table  4 Carbon  emission  accounting  model  evaluation  indicators. Plant  type R  2

MAPE

PFPP RFPP

0.90 0.96 0.88 0.75

9.95% 8.10%

LPPMP SPPMP

12.68% 19.21%

the  predicted  emissions  agreed  well  with  the  observed  values  for  most  of  the  samples.  Thus,  we  subsequently  applied  the  confirmed  models  to  conduct  plant-level  carbon  accounting  for  720  classified  PPPs.  In  future  work,  we  plan  to  further  improve  model  perfor- mance  by  using  more  balanced  training  samples  and  advanced  feature  engineering  to  better  capture  this  variability. Using  the  confirmed  models,  we  analyzed  the  contributions  of  different  functional  zones  to  plant-level  carbon  emissions  (Table  5).  Across  all  PPP  categories,  wastewater  treatment  areas  consistently  contributed  to  higher  carbon  emissions.  This  pattern  showed  that  increases  in  production  capacity  were  accompanied  by  substantial  growth  in  wastewater  generation,  necessitating  larger  wastewater  treatment  systems  and,  consequently,  gener- ating  higher  carbon  emissions.  This  relationship  was  particularly  pronounced  for  PFPPs,  reflecting  their  high  water  consumption  and  pollution  intensity  during  pulping,  which,  in  turn,  led  to  greater  reliance  on  wastewater  treatment  infrastructure. Beyond  wastewater  treatment  areas,  the  influence  of  different  functional  zones  on  carbon  emissions  varied  markedly  across  plant  types.  The  thermal  power  plant  areas,  for  instance,  were  positively  associated  with  carbon  emissions  only  for  some  plant  categories,  with  the  effect  being  particularly  pronounced  for  SPPMPs.  This  pattern  could  be  attributed  to  the  relatively  small  scale  of  such Table  5 Driving  effects  of  different  functional  area  sizes  on  plant  carbon  emissions. Plant  type a b c d e f ε PFPP −  0.54 0.47 9.70 14.93 −  0.36 −  0.58 50.40 RFPP - 0.24 0.00 1.86 0.00 1.75 −  13.93 LPPMP - - 0.20 5.53 0.00 0.61 7.91 SPPMP - - −  3.76 7.61 14.740 0.83 −  0.41 HPPMP - - 0.24 1.86 0.00 1.74 −  1.74 HPPMP 19.49% Note:  R  2  ,  coefficient  of  determination  with  values  closer  to  1  indicates  better  model  performance;  MAPE ,  mean  absolute  percentage  error;  PFPP,  primary  fiber  pulp  plant;  RFPP,  recovered  fiber  pulp  plant;  HPPMP,  heavyweight  paper  product  manufacturing  plant;  SPPMP,  specialty  paper  product  manufacturing  plant;  LPPMP,  lightweight  paper  product  manufacturing  plant. 0.76 Note:  a ,  b ,  c ,  d ,  e ,  and  f  denote  the  regression  coefficients  corresponding  to  the  primary  fiber  stacking  area,  recovered  fiber  stacking  area,  other  stacking  areas,  wastewater  treatment  area,  thermal  power  plant  area,  and  other  built-up  areas,  respectively,  indicating  their  contributions  to  overall  carbon  emissions.  ε  denotes  the  error  term.  PFPP,  primary  fiber  pulp  plant;  RFPP,  recovered  fiber  pulp  plant;  HPPMP,  heavyweight  paper  product  manufacturing  plant;  SPPMP,  specialty  paper  product  manufacturing  plant;  LPPMP,  lightweight  paper  product  manufacturing  plant.

3.3.  PPP  carbon  emission  inventory

In  2022,  total  carbon  emissions  from  China’s  PPI  were  approxi- mately  163.6  million  tons  of  CO  2  ,  with  a  heterogeneous  spatial  distribution  across  720  PPPs  (Supplementary  Fig.  S4).  Overall,  720  PPPs  were  distributed  across  28  Chinese  provinces  and  municipal- ities,  with  pronounced  regional  disparities  in  carbon  emissions  generated  by  the  PPI  (Fig.  6a).  From  a  regional  perspective,  China’s  PPPs  are  mainly  concentrated  in  coastal  provinces.  The  10  coastal  regions  (Guangdong,  Shandong,  Jiangsu,  Zhejiang,  Hainan,  Fujian,  Shanghai,  Guangxi,  Liaoning,  and  Tianjin)  collectively  contributed  102.3  million  tons  of  CO  2  to  PPI  carbon  emissions,  accounting  for  62.3%  of  the  national  total  (Fig.  6b).  Only  Guangdong  and  Shandong  reported  carbon  emissions  exceeding  20  million  tons  of  CO  2  (Fig.  6a).  Combined,  they  generated  more  than  one-quarter  of  China’s  total  PPI  carbon  emissions.  In  contrast,  most  inland  prov- inces  reported  emissions  below  5  million  tons  of  CO  2  . Total  emissions  from  PFPPs,  RFPPs,  and  HPPMPs  amounted  to  80.4,  30.9,  and  37.4  million  tons  of  CO  2  ,  respectively,  accounting  for  90.4%  of  national  PPI  emissions  (Fig.  6c).  Carbon  emissions  from  PFPPs  and  RFPPs  displayed  strongly  right-skewed  distributions  (Fig.  7),  with  maximum  values  far  exceeding  those  for  the  other  categories.  This  indicates  the  presence  of  extremely  high-emission  individual  plants,  which  significantly  elevates  the  overall  carbon  emission  levels  of  the  sector.  In  contrast,  carbon  emissions  from  LPPMPs  and  SPPMPs  exhibited  more  concentrated  distributions,  with  lower  mean  values  and  reduced  extremes.  This  suggests  relatively  smaller  disparities  in  carbon  emissions  among  enter- prises  within  these  plant  categories. There  was  also  considerable  variation  in  carbon  emissions  among  plants  that  produced  similar  products.  Taking  PFPPs  as  an  example,  individual  plant  emissions  ranged  from  43,600  to  450,700  tons  of  CO  2  ,  representing  a  difference  of  more  than  two  orders  of  magnitude.  This  pronounced  skewness  indicates  that  a  small  number  of  large,  high-emission  plants  contribute  dispro- portionately  to  total  sectoral  emissions,  resulting  in  a  strongly  nonlinear  emissions  structure.  For  instance,  the  Jinhai  Pulping  and  Papermaking  Plant  in  Hainan  emitted  450,700  tons  of  CO  2  — approximately  five  times  the  PFPP  category  average  (87,350  tons  of  CO  2  ) — and  accounted  for  5.6%  of  total  PFPP  emissions.  Further  statistical  analysis  revealed  that  approximately  5%  of  high-emission  PPPs  accounted  for  approximately  43%  of  total  PPI

8

Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator