## 4 Conclusions and Discussions
### Conclusions  
The main results show as following:  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & _InY(1)_ & _InY(2)_ & _InY(3)_ & _InG(1)_ & _InG(2)_ & _InS_ \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Column1** & **Column2** & **Column3** & **Column4** & **Column5** & **Column6** \\ \hline lnG & & & & 0.084 & & & \\  & & & & [0] *** & & & \\ InP & 0.899 & 0.899 & 0.819 & 0.362 & 0.354 & 0.083 \\  & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0.467] \\ InU & 0.038 & 0.034 & 0.042 & 0.243 & 0.219 & 0.427 \\  & [0.060] * & [0.089] * & [0.021] ** & [0] *** & [0.002] *** & [0] *** \\ InT & 0.781 & 0.052 & 0.827 & 0.657 & 0.664 & \\  & [0] *** & [0.048] ** & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0] *** & \\ InS & & 0.011 & 0.006 & & 0.098 & \\  & & [0.247] & [0.494] & & [0.054] * & \\ W*InG & & & 0.015 & 0.341 & 0.332 & \\  & & & [0.323] & [0] *** & [0] *** & \\ W*InP & 0.569 & 0.578 & 0.374 & 0.451 & 0.489 & \(-\)0.490 \\  & [0.003] *** & [0.003] *** & [0.024] ** & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0.441] \\  & \(-\)0.066 & \(-\)0.070 & \(-\)0.085 & 0.447 & 0.531 & 0.304 \\ W*InU & [0.237] & [0.215] & [0.093] * & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0.050] * \\  & \(-\)0.436 & \(-\)0.427 & \(-\)0.266 & 0.391 & 0.384 & \\ W*InT & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0] *** & \\ W*InS & & 0.0147 & \(-\)0.005 & & 0.162 & 0.044 \\  & & [0.462] & [0.778] & & [0.113] & [0.444] \\ W*InY & 0.513 & 0.503 & 0.414 & & & \\  & [0] *** & [0] *** & [0] *** & & & \\ R2 & 99.58\% & 99.68\% & 99.66\% & 96.75\% & 97.72\% & 71.92\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Inside of the [ ] is the p-value; *, **, *** indicate statistically significant differences at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.  
\end{table}
Table 8: The chain for intermediary test results of Urbanization (_lnU_) \(\rightarrow\) Social Employment Level (_InS_) \(\rightarrow\) Economic Development Level (_lnG_) \(\rightarrow\) Carbon Emission (_lnY_).  
Figure 4: The significant impact path of urbanization on carbon emissions.  
(1) There is a positive spatial correlation of carbon emissions in the Yangtze River Delta. In some cities, there is a phenomenon of \"being a neighbor\" when laying out high-energy enterprises.  
(2) The scale effect of urbanization on carbon emissions has not yet appeared. Urbanization has significantly affected the industrial structure of the region, and of the pathway of urbanization \(\rightarrow\) the proportion of second industry (the proportion of third industry, economic development level) \(\rightarrow\) carbon emissions play a significant role, but there is no mechanism for the economic development level to adversely affect the level of urbanization and thus affect carbon emissions.  
(3) The increase in urbanization rate has provided more employment opportunities for the society, but the promotion of social employment level has not promoted the development of regional economic development. From the urbanization level to the employment level, to the economic development level, to the carbon emission linkage path, is not significant. However, there is no mechanism for the economic development level to adversely affect the level of urbanization and thus affect carbon emissions.