Regional dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions in russia, 2017–2023: structure and drivers

Victoria R. Bityukova; Ivan A. Shampurov

doi:10.24057/2071-9388-2026-4569

Regional dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions in russia, 2017–2023: structure and drivers

Victoria R. Bityukova, Ivan A. Shampurov

https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2026-4569

Full Text:

PDF (Eng)

Generate QR code

Abstract

This article analyzes greenhouse gas emission trends in Russian Federation regions from 2017 to 2023, calculated using the author’s methodology. The methodological approach combined a sectoral decomposition of regional changes (identifying the leading driver and assessing the concentration of changes in one or two sectors), measuring structural shifts in the sectoral structure of emissions (the Gatev index), and testing the dynamic factors using a logarithmic change model. The national emission trajectory over the study period was undulating. Emissions declined in 2017–2020 and recovered in 2020–2023, with fuel combustion representing the dominant driver at both stages. However, structural adjustments in most regions were limited, and notable structural shifts were driven by changes in non-fuel sectors, i.e., fugitive emissions from mining, industrial processes, and agriculture. This highlighted the importance of sectoral specialization and local intrasector factors in interpreting regional dynamics. The regression model for the full period 2017–2023 revealed a statistically significant relationship between emission dynamics and changes in economic activity and energy intensity, while for shorter subintervals, the robust relationships are weaker, reflecting the impact of shocks and high sectoral heterogeneity. The analysis also reveals differentiated decoupling patterns between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions across Russian regions, with 29 regions (approximately 35%) demonstrating absolute decoupling effects. The results demonstrated that the analysis of subnational trajectories requires a combination of aggregated estimates and sectoral interpretation, taking into account differences in emission generation mechanisms when developing low-carbon development policies.

Keywords

low-carbon development, energy intensity, regional analysis, sectoral decomposition, structural shifts, decoupling

About the Authors

Victoria R. Bityukova

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography, Department of Social and Economic Geography
Russian Federation

GSP-1, Leninskie gory, Moscow, 119991

Ivan A. Shampurov

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography, Department of Social and Economic Geography
Russian Federation

GSP-1, Leninskie gory, Moscow, 119991

References

1. Akulov A. O. (2013). The decoupling effect in an industrial region: the case of the Kemerovo Region. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 4(28), 177–185. (in Russian).

2. Albrecht J., François D. and Schoors K. (2002). A Shapley decomposition of carbon emissions without residuals. Energy Policy, 30(9), 727–736. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00131-8.

3. Ang B. W. (2005). The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide. Energy Policy, 33(7), 867–871. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2003.10.010.

4. Anikina I. D. and Anikin A. A. (2019). Assessment of the decoupling effect based on the regions of the Southern Federal District. Regional Economy. South of Russia, 7(4), 138–147. (in Russian). DOI: 10.15688/re.volsu.2019.4.13.

5. Bobylev S. N., Kudryavtseva O. V. and Yakovleva Ye. Yu. (2015). Green Economy: Regional Priorities. R-Economy, 1(2), 268–279. DOI: 10.15826/recon.2015.2.010.

6. Bobylev S. N., Kiryushin P. A. and Kudryavtseva O. V. (eds.) (2019). Green Economy and Sustainable Development Goals for Russia. Moscow: Faculty of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University. 284 p. (in Russian). ISBN 978-5-906932-32-7.

7. Bobylev S. N., Pakina A. A. and Tarasova Yu. A. (2024). Low-carbon agenda in regional and corporate development strategies. Lomonosov Public Administration Journal. Series 21, 21(2), 74–92. (in Russian). DOI: 10.55959/MSU2073-2643-21-2024-2-74-92.

8. Cohen G., Jalles J. T., Loungani P. and Marto R. (2018). The long-run decoupling of emissions and output: Evidence from the largest emitters. Energy Policy, 118, 58–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.03.028.

9. Dechezleprêtre A., Nachtigall D. and Venmans F. (2023). The joint impact of the European Union emissions trading system on carbon emissions and economic performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeem.2022.102758.

10. Dietz T. and Rosa E. A. (1997). Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94(1), 175–179. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.94.1.175.

11. Dinda S. and Coondoo D. (2006). Income and emission: A panel data-based cointegration analysis. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 167– 181. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.028.

12. Fomina V. F. (2022). Identifying the effect of decoupling in major economic sectors of the Komi Republic. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 15(1), 176–193. (in Russian). DOI: 10.15838/esc.2022.1.79.9.

13. Haberl H., Wiedenhofer D., Virág D., Kalt G., Plank B., et al. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), 065003. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a.

14. Hertwich EG and Peters GP (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(16), 6414–6420. DOI: 10.1021/es803496a.

15. Hoekstra R. and van den Bergh J. C. J. M. (2003). Comparing structural decomposition analysis and sector-level index number analysis. Energy Economics, 25(1), 39–64. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-9883(02)00059-2.

16. Klimenko, V., Tereshin, A., Mikushina, O. (2026). History versus aspirations: carbon neutrality postponed by several decades. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY, v. 19, n. 2, p. 162-176, https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2026-4059

17. Kumaneeva M. K., Zonova O. V. and Sheveleva O. B. (2026). ESG transformation: decoupling effect in industrial region. Economics and Innovation Management, 1(36), 83–89. (in Russian). DOI: 10.26730/2587-5574-2026-1-83-89.

18. Lamb W. F., Grubb M., Diluiso F. and Minx J. C. (2022). Countries with sustained greenhouse gas emissions reductions: an analysis of trends and progress by sector. Climate Policy, 22(1), 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2021.1990831.

19. Le Quéré C., Jackson RB, Jones MW, et al. (2020). Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nature Climate Change, 10, 647–653. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x.

20. Le Quéré C., Korsbakken J. I., Wilson C., Tosun J., Andrew R., et al. (2019). Drivers of declining CO₂ emissions in 18 developed economies. Nature Climate Change, 9, 213–217. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0419-7.

21. Lopatnikov D.L. (2020). Migration of the world center of environmental trouble and the “geoecological transition”. Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya, 84(5), 728–736. (in Russian). DOI: 10.31857/S2587556620050106.

22. McCurdy J. and Rhodes E. (2023). What drives greenhouse gas emissions? An international scoping review of academic studies in 2010–2019. Climate Resilience and Sustainability, 2(3), e52. DOI: 10.1002/cli2.52.

23. Meyerson F. A. B. (1998). Population, carbon emissions, and global warming: the forgotten relationship at Kyoto. Population and Development Review, 24(1), 115–130.

24. Nikonorov S. M., Khovavko I. Yu. and Caiquan Ch. (2023). Assessment of the environmental and economic efficiency of energy resource use using the decoupling method (the case of Chinese regions). Economics of Sustainable Development, 55(3), 99–104. (in Russian).

25. Schmalensee R., Stoker T. M. and Judson R. A. (1998). World carbon dioxide emissions: 1950–2050. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 15–27.

26. Shampurov I.A. (2024). Greenhouse gas emissions in the regions of Russia: methodology for scale and structure assessing. Regional Studies (Regional’nye issledovaniya), 3(85), 106–124. (in Russian). DOI: 10.5922/1994-5280-2024-3-8.

27. Shi A. (2001). Population growth and global carbon dioxide emissions (Conference paper). IUSSP Conference, Brazil, 2001. World Bank. Available at: https://iussp.org/sites/default/files/Brazil2001/s00/S09_04_Shi.pdf [Accessed 02 March 2026].

28. Shi A. (2003). The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions, 1975–1996: evidence from pooled cross-country data. Ecological Economics, 44(1), 29–42. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00223-9.

29. Song Y., Sun J., Zhang M. and Su B. (2020). Using the Tapio-Z decoupling model to evaluate the decoupling status of China’s CO₂ emissions at provincial level and its dynamic trend. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52, 120–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.strueco.2019.10.004.

30. Svetlov N.M., Kovbashin D.I. and Dronin N.M. (2025). Sustainability of agriculture under greenhouse gas emissions regulation: an economic-geographical perspective. In: Sustainable development of the agro-industrial complex and rural territories of Russia in modern geo-economic conditions: Proceedings of the XVIII International Scientific and Practical Conference (pp. 135–142). Krasnodar, Kuban State Agrarian University. (in Russian). Available at: https://istina.msu.ru/publications/article/730688955/ [Accessed 02 March 2026].

31. Tapio P. (2005). Towards a theory of decoupling: Degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transport Policy, 12(2), 137–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2005.01.001.

32. Vadén T., Lähde V., Majava A., Järvensivu P., Toivanen T., Hakala E. and Eronen J. T. (2020). Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 236–244. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016.

33. Wiedenhofer D., Virág D., Kalt G., Plank B., Streeck J., et al. (2020). A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part I: bibliometric and conceptual mapping. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6), 063002. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab8429.

34. Yashalova N. N. (2014). Analysis of the decoupling effect in ecological and economic activity of a region. Regional Economics: Theory and Practice, 39(366), 54–61. (in Russian).

35. Zabelina I. A. (2019). Decoupling in environmental and economic development of regions-participants of cross-border cooperation. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 12(1), 241–255. (in Russian). DOI: 10.15838/esc.2019.1.61.15.

36. Zhang S., Wang J. and Zheng W. (2018). Decomposition analysis of energy-related CO₂ emissions and decoupling status in China’s logistics industry. Sustainability, 10(5), 1340. DOI: 10.3390/su10051340.

Review

For citations:

Bityukova V.R., Shampurov I.A. Regional dynamics of greenhouse gas emissions in russia, 2017–2023: structure and drivers. GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY. 2026;19(3):112-123. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2026-4569

JATS XML