CO2 EMİSYONU VE EKOLOJİK AYAK İZİ BAĞLAMINDA N-11 ÜLKELERİNDE ÇEVRESEL KUZNETS EĞRİSİNİN TEST EDİLMESİ

Year 2022, Volume: 13 Issue: 26, 915 - 937, 27.12.2022

Ömer Yılmaz Serhat Çamkaya

https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.037

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (EKC) hipotezinin kullanılan çevresel bozulma göstergeleriyle ilişkili olup olmadığına dair literatürde devam eden tartışmalara yeni bir bakış açısı getirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda, ekolojik ayak izi ve CO2 emisyonuna odaklanılmaktadır. CO2 emisyonu bağımlı değişkeni için 1986-2018; ekolojik ayak izi bağımlı değişkeni için 1986-2016 dönem arasındaki yıllık veriler kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada, ilgili dönem aralıklarında, 9 tane N-11 ülkesinde, CO2 emisyonu ve ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde, ekonomik büyüme, enerji tüketimi ve nüfus yoğunluğunun etkisi incelenmiştir. Yöntem olarak kesitsel bağımlılığı dikkate alan CIPS birim kök testi ve Westerlund eşbütünleşme testi kullanılmıştır. Tahmin metodunda ise kesitsel bağımlılığı ve eğim heterojenliğini dikkate alan AMG ve CCEMG yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Ampirik bulgular, N-11 ülkelerinde EKC hipotezinin geçerli olmadığını ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, CO2 emisyonu ve ekolojik ayak izi üzerinde enerji tüketiminin beklendiği gibi pozitif bir etkisinin olduğu, nüfus yoğunluğunun ise istatistiki olarak anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Bu makalede, politika yapıcılara sürdürülebilir çevresel ve ekonomik kalkınma için bir dizi politika önerisinde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

CO2 Emisyonu, Ekolojik Ayak İzi, Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi, CCEMG, AMG

TESTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVE IN N-11 COUNTRIES IN CONTEXT OF CO2 EMISSION AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

Abstract

This study aims to bring a new perspective to the ongoing debate in the literature on whether the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis is related to the environmental degradation indicators used. In this context, the focus is on ecological footprint and CO2 emissions. 1986-2018 for the dependent variable of CO2 emissions; For the ecological footprint dependent variable, annual data for the period 1986-2016 were used. In the study, the effects of economic growth, energy consumption and population density on CO2 emissions and ecological footprints in 9 N-11 countries were investigated during the relevant periods. CIPS unit root test and Westerlund cointegration test were used as methods, which take into account cross-sectional dependence. In the estimation method, the AMG and CCEMG methods, which take into account the cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity, were used. Empirical findings revealed that the EKC hypothesis is not valid in N-11 countries. In addition, it has been determined that energy consumption has a positive effect on CO2 emissions and ecological footprint as expected, while population density does not have a statistically significant effect. In this article, a set of policy recommendations for sustainable environmental and economic development have been made to policy makers.

Keywords

CO2 Emission, Ecological Footprint, Environmental Kuznets Curve, CCEMG, AMG

References

• Akın, C. S. (2014). Kurumsal kalitenin çevre üzerine olan etkileri: BRICS ülkeleri üzerine bir uygulama. Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 1-8.
• Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., & Mohammed, A. H. (2015). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecological Indicators, 48, 315-323.
• Altıntaş, H., & Kassouri, Y. (2020). Is the environmental Kuznets Curve in Europe related to the per-capita ecological footprint or CO2 emissions?. Ecological Indicators, 113, 106187.
• Ang, J. B. (2007). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy, 35(10), 4772-4778.
• Ansari, M. A., Haider, S., & Khan, N. A. (2020). Environmental Kuznets curve revisited: An analysis using ecological and material footprint. Ecological Indicators, 115, 106416.
• Apergis, N., & Payne, J. E. (2010). The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: evidence from the commonwealth of independent states. Energy Policy, 38(1), 650-655.
• Aslan, A., Altinoz, B., & Atay Polat, M. (2021). The nexus among climate change, economic growth, foreign direct investments, and financial development: New evidence from N‐11 countries. Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy, 40(3), e13585.
• Aşıcı, A. A., & Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint?. Ecological Indicators, 61, 707-714.
• Aytun, C. (2014a). Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi: Panel veri analizi. Akademik Bakış Uluslararası Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (44), 1-14.
• Aytun, C. (2014b). Gelişen ekonomilerde karbondioksit emisyonu, ekonomik büyüme ve eğitim arasındaki ilişki: Panel veri analizi. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, (27), 349-362.
• Aytun, C., Akın, C. S., & Algan, N. (2017). Gelişen ülkelerde çevresel bozulma, gelir ve enerji tüketimi ilişkisi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 1-11.
• Begum, R. A., Sohag, K., Abdullah, S. M. S., & Jaafar, M. (2015). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 594-601.
• Bento, J. P. C., & Moutinho, V. (2016). CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 142-155.
• Bozkurt, C., & Okumuş, İ. (2015). Türkiye’de ekonomik büyüme, enerji tüketimi, ticari serbestleşme ve nüfus yoğunluğunun CO2 emisyonu üzerindeki etkileri: Yapısal kırılmalı eşbütünleşme analizi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(32), 23-35.
• British Petroleum. (2020). British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy.
• Charfeddine, L., & Mrabet, Z. (2017). The impact of economic development and social-political factors on ecological footprint: A panel data analysis for 15 MENA countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 138-154.
• Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological economics, 49(4), 431-455.
• Dinda, S., Coondoo, D., & Pal, M. (2000). Air quality and economic growth: An empirical study. Ecological Economics, 34(3), 409-423.
• Dong, K., Sun, R., Li, H., & Liao, H. (2018). Does natural gas consumption mitigate CO2 emissions: testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for 14 Asia-Pacific countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 94, 419-429.
• Eberhardt, M., & F. Teal. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. economics series working papers no.515. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
• Erataş, F. & Uysal, D. (2014). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi yaklaşımının BRICT Ülkeleri kapsamında değerlendirilmesi. İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 64(1), 1-25.
• Galeotti, M., & Lanza, A. (2005). Desperately seeking environmental Kuznets. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(11), 1379-1388.
• Global Footprint Network. (2019). Global Footprint Network.
• Granger, C.W.J. & Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regression in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2(2), 111-120.
• Grossman M. G. & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. Working Paper No. 3914. National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
• Guloglu, B., & Bayar, G. (2016). Sectoral exports dynamics of Turkey: Evidence from panel data estimators. The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 25(7), 959-977.
• Guven, M., Calik, E., Cetinguc, B., Guloglu, B., & Calisir, F. (2019). Assessing the effects of flight delays, distance, number of passengers and seasonality on revenue. Kybernetes, 48(9), 2138-2149.
• Holtz-Eakin, D. & Selden, T. M. (1995). Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic growth. Journal of Public Economics, 57(1), 85–101.
• Jalil, A., & Mahmud, S. F. (2009). Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: A cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5167-5172.
• Kaufmann, R. K., Davidsdottir, B., Garnham, S., & Pauly, P. (1998). The determinants of atmospheric SO2 concentrations: Reconsidering the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological economics, 25(2), 209-220.
• Koçak, E. (2014). Türkiye'de Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği: ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 62-73.
• Kuepper, J. (2019). Next 11 Economies Poised for Growth - Goldman Sachs’ List of 11 Future Economic Giants. The Balance, International Investing [Çevrimiçi]. Erişim Tarihi:20.11.2021. https://www.thebalance.com/what-are-the-next-eleven-1978980.
• Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1), 1-28.
• Lean, H. H., & Smyth, R. (2010). CO2 emissions, electricity consumption and output in ASEAN. Applied Energy, 87(6), 1858-1864.
• Li, X., Yan, X., An, Q., Chen, K., & Shen, Z. (2016). The coordination between China’s economic growth and environmental emission from the Environmental Kuznets Curve viewpoint. Natural Hazards, 83(1), 233-252.
• Munir, Q., Lean, H. H., & Smyth, R. (2020). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in the ASEAN-5 countries: A cross-sectional dependence approach. Energy Economics, 85, 1-35.
• Narayan, P. K., & Narayan, S. (2010). Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy policy, 38(1), 661-666.
• Nathaniel, S. P., Murshed, M., & Bassim, M. (2021). The nexus between economic growth, energy use, international trade and ecological footprints: the role of environmental regulations in N11 countries. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 1-17.
• Nathaniel, S., & Khan, S. A. R. (2020). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 272, 122709.
• O'Connell, P. G. (1998). The overvaluation of purchasing power parity. Journal of International Economics, 44(1), 1-19.
• Ozcan, B. (2013). The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Middle East countries: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 62, 1138-1147.
• Ozturk, I., Al-Mulali, U., & Saboori, B. (2016). Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23(2), 1916-1928.
• Pablo-Romero, M. D. P., & Sánchez-Braza, A. (2017). The changing of the relationships between carbon footprints and final demand: Panel data evidence for 40 major countries. Energy Economics, 61, 8-20.
• Panayotou, T. (1997). Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: Turning a black box into a policy tool. Environment and Development Economics, 2(4), 465-484.
• Pao, H. T., Yu, H. C., & Yang, Y. H. (2011). Modeling the CO2 emissions, energy use, and economic growth in Russia. Energy, 36(8), 5094-5100.
• Pata, U. K., & Caglar, A. E. (2021). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: Evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy, 216, 119220.
• Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74(4), 967-1012.
• Pesaran, M.H. (2007), A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
• Pesaran, M.H., Ullah, A. & Yamagata, T. (2008), A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence, The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
• Richmond, A. K., & Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics, 56(2), 176-189.
• Robalino-López, A., Mena-Nieto, Á., García-Ramos, J. E., & Golpe, A. A. (2015). Studying the relationship between economic growth, CO2 emissions, and the environmental Kuznets curve in Venezuela (1980–2025). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 602-614.
• Shi, J. (2004). Tests of the EKC hypothesis using CO2 panel data, Department of Economics University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis (REPA) Research Group Working Paper 2004-03, 1-42.
• Stern, D. I., & Common, M. S. (2001). Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur?. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 41(2), 162-178.
• Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2),311-323.
• Topal, M. H. (2017). Vergi yapısının ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisi: OECD ülkelerinden ampirik bir kanıt. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 183-206.
• Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144-157.
• Uzar, U., & Eyuboglu, K. (2019). The nexus between income inequality and CO2 emissions in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 149-157.
• Wang, S. S., Zhou, D. Q., Zhou, P., & Wang, Q. W. (2011). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 39(9), 4870-4875.
• Westerlund, J. (2008). Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(2), 193-233.
• World Bank. (2021). World Development Indicators.
• Yavapolkul, N. (2005). Environmental Kuznet Curve: Empirical Investigation Using Non- parametric Approach. Department of Agricultural and resource Economics, University of California, 1-9.