ÇEVRE VERGİLERİNİN KARBON EMİSYONLARI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİLERİ: SEÇİLMİŞ AB ÜYE ÜLKELERİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2024, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 128 - 138, 31.07.2024

Buket Aydın

https://doi.org/10.33416/baybem.1498838

Abstract

Bu çalışma, milli gelir, kamu harcamaları, araştırma ve geliştirme (Ar-Ge) yatırımları ve çevre vergilerinin (ET) karbon emisyonları üzerindeki etkilerini araştırmaktadır. Analiz için milli gelir, milli gelirin karesi, kamu harcamaları, Ar-Ge, toplam ET, ulaşım vergileri ve enerji vergileri değişkenleri karbon emisyonu verileri ile birlikte kullanılmıştır. Burada üç farklı model kullanılmaktadır: Model 1 toplam ET'yi, model 2 ulaştırma vergilerini ve model 3 enerji vergilerini kullanmaktadır. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek için Dumitrescu-Hurlin nedensellik analizi kullanılmış ve milli gelir, milli gelirin karesi ve kamu harcamalarından karbon emisyonlarına doğru bir Granger nedenselliği olduğu görülmüştür. Ancak, Ar-Ge harcamalarından karbon emisyonlarına doğru bir Granger nedenselliği bulunmamıştır. Son olarak, toplam ET, ulaştırma vergileri ve ET olarak kullanılan enerji vergilerinden karbon emisyonlarına doğru tek yönlü bir Granger nedensellik ilişkisi bulunmuştur. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, Ar-Ge yatırımlarının çevre dostu üretim yapılarının geliştirilmesi ve bu yapıların ekonomideki öneminin artırılması için önemli olduğu sonucuna varmaktadır. Son olarak, bulgular özellikle ET'nin Kyoto Protokolü ve Paris Anlaşması çerçevesinde karbon emisyonlarının azaltılmasında etkili olabileceğini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

Environmental Taxes, Energy Economy, Economic Growth, Panel Data Analysis

THE EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES ON CARBON EMISSIONS: A STUDY ON SELECT EU MEMBER STATES

Abstract

This study investigates the effects that national income, public expenditures, research and development (R&D) investments, and environmental taxes (ET) have on carbon emissions. The variables of national income, the square of national income, public expenditures, R&D, total ET, transport taxes, and energy taxes are used in conjunction with carbon emission data for this analysis. Three distinct models are used herein: Model 1 employs the total ET, model 2 utilises transport taxes, and model 3 makes use of energy taxes. A Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality analysis was employed to investigate the relationship between the variables, which demonstrates that there was a Granger causality from national income, the square of national income, and public expenditures to carbon emissions. However, there was no Granger causality from R&D expenditures to carbon emissions. Finally, there was a one-way Granger causality relationship from total ET, transport taxes, and energy taxes used as ET to carbon emissions. Therefore, this study concludes that R&D investments are important for the development of environmentally friendly production structures and for increasing the importance of these structures in the economy. Finally, the findings emphasise that ET in particular can be effective in reducing carbon emissions within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement

Keywords

Environmental Taxes, Energy Economy, Economic Growth, Panel Data Analysis

References

• Abdullah, S. and Morley, B. (2014). Environmental taxes and economic growth: evidence from panel causality tests. Energy Economics, 42, 27-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.11.013
• Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., & Hémous, D. (2010). The environment and directed technical change. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1668575
• Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., and Hemous, D. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 131–166.
• Adam B. Jaffe, Karen Palmer; Environmental Regulation and Innovation: A Panel Data Study. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1997; 79 (4): 610–619. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/003465397557196
• Ahmad, M. I., Ur Rehman, R., Naseem, M. A., & Ali, R. (2021). Do environmental taxes impede economic growth? A comparison between China and India. International Journal of Financial Engineering, 8(04), 2050023.
• Andrei, J., Mieila, M., Popescu, G. H., Nica, E., & Cristina, M. (2016). The impact and determinants of environmental taxation on economic growth communities in Romania. Energies, 9(11), 902.
• Bai, Y., and Chen, S. (2022). Empirical study on the impact of environmental regulation on enterprise environmental investment. Environ. Resour. Ecol. J. 6 (02).
• Baranzini, A., Goldemberg, J., & Speck, S. (2000). A future for carbon taxes. Ecological economics, 32(3), 395-412.
• Barro, R. 1990. Government expenditures in a simple endogenous growth model OECD, reports for tax revenues. https://doi:10.1086/261726
• Bashir, M., Ma, B., Shahbaz, M., & Jiao, Z. (2020). The nexus between environmental tax and carbon emissions with the roles of environmental technology and financial development. Plos One, 15(11), e0242412. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242412
• Becker, R., Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2006). A stationarity test in the presence of an unknown number of smooth breaks. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 27(3), 381-409.
• Belke, M., & İbrahim, A. L. (2019). Regional Inflation Convergence in Turkey: Evidence from Panel Unit Root Tests. International Journal of Economics and Innovation, 5(2), 301-323.
• Bi, Q., and Yu, C. (2019). Environmental tax and enterprise technological innovation: Promotion or suppression? Sci. Res. Manag. 12, 116–125.
• Bosquet, B. (2000). Environmental tax reform: does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence. Ecological economics, 34(1), 19-32.
• Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The review of economic studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
• Castiglione, C., Infante, D., Minervini, M. T., & Smirnova, J. (2014). Environmental taxation in Europe: What does it depend on?. Cogent Economics & Finance, 2(1), 967362.
• Cesaroni, F., and Arduini, R. (2001). Environmental technologies in the European chemical industry. Pisa, Italy.: Laboratory of Economics and Management. Working Paper. 9.
• Dogan, M. (2023). Environmental Tax Reform and the European Green Deal: Empirical Evidence from Panel Data Analysis. International Journal of Public Finance, 8(2), 335-352.
• Dökmen,G.(2012). Environmental Tax and Economic Growth: A Panel Var Analysıs. Erciyes University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences , 0 (40) , 43-65 .
• Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
• Ekins, P. (2012). Sustainable growth revisited: technology, economics and policy: A contribution to the special section of Mineral Economics ‘Resources, energy and eco-innovation’. Mineral economics, 24, 59-77.
• Eurostat Statistics Expalained, Air Pollution Statistics (2024). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index (access date: 05.03.2024).
• Eurostat Statistics Expalained, Environmental Tax Statistics (2023). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained (access date: 04.03.2024).
• Fan, X., Li, X., & Yin, J. (2019). Impact of environmental tax on green development: a nonlinear dynamical system analysis. Plos One, 14(9), e0221264. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221264
• Frede, E., Dahlyb, B. 2012. The Impact of Tax Cat on Economic Growth: Evidence Form Canadian Province. National Tax Journal, 65(3), 563-594.
• Freire-González, J. (2018). Environmental taxation and the double dividend hypothesis in CGE modelling literature: A critical review. Journal of Policy Modeling, 40(1), 194-223.
• Gashi, B., Asllani, G., & Boqolli, L. (2018). The effect of tax structure in economic growth. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, VI(Issue 2), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.35808/ijeba/157
• Hadri, K., & Rao, Y. (2008). Panel stationarity test with structural breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 70(2), 245-269.
• Hashmi, R., & Alam, K. (2019). Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2 emissions, population, and economic growth in OECD countries: A panel investigation. Journal of cleaner production, 231, 1100-1109.
• Hassan, M., Oueslati, W., & Rousselière, D. (2020). Environmental taxes, reforms and economic growth: an empirical analysis of panel data. Economic Systems, 44(3), 100806.
• He, P., Ya, Q., Chengfeng, L., Yuan, Y., & Xiao, C. (2021). Nexus between environmental tax, economic growth, energy consumption, and carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from china, Finland, and Malaysia based on a Panel-ARDL approach. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 57(3), 698-712.
• He, Y. M., Luo, Q., and Zhu, X. W. (2018). Environmental regulation, ecological innovation and enterprise competitiveness: An analysis based on data of mineral resources enterprises. Commer. Res. 3, 132–137.
• https://data.oecd.org/
• https://data.worldbank.org/
• Idris, M. and Ahmad, T. (2017). Tax revenue and macroeconomic growth in nigeria: a contextual analysis. Asian Journal of Economics Business and Accounting, 3(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajeba/2017/33362
• Khaerul Azis, M., & Widodo, T. (2019). The Impact of Carbon Tax on GDP and Environment.
• Liu, H., Zafar, M., Sinha, A., & Khan, I. (2023). The path to sustainable environment: do environmental taxes and governance matter?. Sustainable Development, 31(4), 2278-2290. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2505
• Mirović, V., Kalaš, B., & Andrašić, J. (2022). Taxation and environmental protection in the function of sustainable growth: the case of serbia. Ecologica, 29(108), 647-652. https://doi.org/10.18485/ecologica.2022.29.108.23
• Mirović, V., Kalaš, B., & Milenković, N. (2021). Panel Cointegration Analysis of Total Environmental Taxes and Economic Growth in EU Countries. Economic Analysis, 54(1), 92-103.
• Nazlioglu, S., Payne, J. E., Lee, J., Rayos-Velazquez, M., & Karul, C. (2021). Convergence in OPEC carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence from new panel stationarity tests with factors and breaks. Economic Modelling, 100, 105498.
• Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers. Economics, 1240(1), 1.
• Rafique, M. Z., Fareed, Z., Ferraz, D., Ikram, M., & Huang, S. (2022). Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: an empirical assessment from developed economies. Energy, 238, 121753.
• Ren, G., & Chen, Y. (2023). Is the impact of environmental regulation on enterprise green technology innovation incentives or inhibitions? A re-examination based on the China meta-analysis. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 2705.
• Ricci, F., 2007. Channels of transmission of environmental policy to economic growth. Ecol. Econ. 60, 688-69. Romero, D., Strauch, R. 2008. Publice Finance on long-term growth in Europe: Evidence from panel data analysis. Europen Journal of Political Economy, 24, 172-191.
• Sinn, H. W. (2008). Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. International tax and public finance, 15, 360-394.
• Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2017). Panel time series analysis. İstanbul: Beta Publishing, (s 352).
• Tingbani, I., Salia, S., Hussain, J. G., & Alhassan, Y. (2021). Environmental tax, SME financing constraint, and innovation: evidence from OECD countries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
• Wang, Z., Zhu, N., Wang, J., Hu, Y., & Nkana, M. (2022). The impact of environmental taxes on economic benefits and technology innovation input of heavily polluting industries in china. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.959939
• Widmalm, F. (1999). Tax structure and growth. Are some tax better than other? Public choice, Working paper 107, IMF. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30026199
• Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2017). Panel Time Series Analysis with Stata Application. Beta Publishing. İstanbul. ss. 356. (3. Baskı 2020).