[Analyzing the "Chain" Structure of Decoupling Carbon Emissions from Economic Development in China's Provinces from the Perspective of Crisis Transformation].

Decoupling carbon emissions from economic development is a critical strategy for achieving dual-carbon goals. However， the instability of decoupling states can easily trap regions into a "double crisis" characterized by both increased carbon emissions and reduced economic effectiveness （strong negative decoupling） and high carbon growth with low effectiveness gains （growth-negative decoupling）. In this study， spatio-temporal evolution characteristics of the carbon emission decoupling status of China's 30 provinces （municipalities， autonomous regions） were analyzed from 2010 to 2021 by using the Tapio model. An evaluation model was constructed for the transformation of carbon emission decoupling crises and chain reaction features of improvements in the decoupling state were analyzed. The findings revealed that： ① Although China's overall decoupling process showed improvement， it exposed systemic risks associated with high-carbon dependency models. Some regions had successfully broken through path lock-ins via crisis-driven mechanisms， creating demonstrative effects of "low-carbon breakthroughs" and validating the feasibility of crisis-driven transformations. ② The effectiveness of transforming carbon emission decoupling crises faces a "halfway dilemma" （40%-50% conversion rate）， reflecting persistent resistance from traditional developmental inertia as well as policy response disparities underlying regional differentiation. ③ The "chain leapfrogging" characteristic of decoupling states indicates that crisis transformation possesses dynamic cumulative effects of "risk deconstruction-element repositioning-development transition." ④ The core driving role of energy intensity and the positive role of carbon emissions of per energy consumption highlight the dual path of driving crisis transformation， short-term dependence on intensity regulation may exacerbate volatility risks， and efficiency improvement is the systematic solution to resolve the "emission-growth" contradiction. Short-term reliance on intensity control may exacerbate volatility risks； however， enhancing efficiency remains the systematic solution for resolving the contradiction between emission reduction and growth.