Türkiye İmalat Sanayisinde Seragazı Emisyonları ve Çevresel Vergiler Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırma, Türkiye'nin imalat sanayisinde 2008-2021 dönemi sektörel verilerini kullanarak çevresel vergiler ile seragazı emisyonları arasındaki neden-sonuç ilişkisini incelemiştir. Çalışma, paneller arasında önemli bir yatay kesit bağımlılığı olduğunu ve çevresel vergilerin birinci farkta, seragazı emisyonlarının ise düzeyde durağan olduğunu belirlemiştir. Yapılan heterojen panel Granger nedensellik testi sonuçlarına göre, çevresel vergilerden seragazı emisyonlarına doğru istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir nedensellik ilişkisi tespit edilememiştir. Bu bulgu, Türkiye imalat sanayisindeki örtülü çevresel vergi uygulamalarının emisyonları azaltmada etkili olmadığını göstermektedir. Ancak, seragazı emisyonlarından çevresel vergilere doğru tek yönlü ve anlamlı bir Granger neden-sonuç ilişkisi bulunmuştur. Bu durum, Türkiye'deki çevresel vergi politikalarının genellikle mevcut emisyon seviyelerindeki artışlara reaktif bir yaklaşımla şekillendiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırma, Türkiye'deki mevcut çevresel vergi sisteminin gözden geçirilmesi, proaktif ve etkin politikaların oluşturulması gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu çerçevede, çevresel vergi politikalarının sürdürülebilir çevre hedeflerine ulaşabilmesi için sadece emisyon artışlarına tepki vermekten ziyade, uzun vadeli planlama ve önleyici tedbirlerle desteklenmesi gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Çevresel Vergiler
• Seragazı Emisyonları
• İmalat Sanayi
• Panel Nedensellik Testi

Ethical Statement

“Türkiye İmalat Sanayisinde Seragazı Emisyonları ve Çevresel Vergiler Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi” başlıklı çalışmanın yazım sürecinde bilimsel kurallara, etik ve alıntı kurallarına uyulmuş; toplanan veriler üzerinde herhangi bir tahrifat yapılmamış ve bu çalışma herhangi başka bir akademik yayın ortamına değerlendirme için gönderilmemiştir.

The Causal Relationship Between Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Environmental Taxes in the Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Abstract

This study examined the causal relationship between environmental taxes and greenhouse gas emissions using sectoral data from Turkey's manufacturing industry for the period 2008-2021. The study found that there was significant cross-sectional dependence between panels and that environmental taxes were stationary in the first difference, while greenhouse gas emissions were stationary in level. According to the results of the heterogeneous panel Granger causality test, no statistically significant causality relationship was found from environmental taxes to greenhouse gas emissions. This finding indicates that implicit environmental tax policies in Turkey's manufacturing industry are not effective in reducing emissions. However, a one-way and significant Granger causality relationship was found from greenhouse gas emissions to environmental taxes. This situation reveals that environmental tax policies in Turkey are generally shaped by a reactive approach to increases in current emission levels. The study emphasizes the need to review the current environmental tax system in Turkey and to develop proactive and effective policies. In this context, it has been concluded that environmental tax policies need to be supported by long-term planning and preventive measures rather than merely responding to increases in emissions in order to achieve sustainable environmental goals.

Keywords

• Environmental Taxes
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Manufacturing Industry
• Panel Causality Test

Ethical Statement

During the writing process of the study “The Causal Relationship Between Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Environmental Taxes in the Turkish Manufacturing Industry” scientific rules, ethical and citation rules were followed. No falsification was made on the collected data and this study was not sent to any other academic publication medium for evaluation.

References

1. Abbas, Q., Imran, M., & Sattar, A. (2025). From linear to circular: the impact of economic policies and technological innovations on greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands. Carbon Balance and Management, 20(1), 11.
2. Albrizio, S., Kozluk, T., & Zipperer, V. (2017). Environmental policies and productivity growth: Evidence across industries and firms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 81, 209-226.
3. Bashir, M. F., 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.
4. Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge university press.
5. Bekmez, S., & Nakıpoğlu, F. (2012). Çevre Vergisi-Ekonomik Büyüme İkilemi. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3).
6. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
7. Ediger, V. Ş., & Huvaz, O. (2006). Examining the sectoral energy use in Turkish economy (1980–2000) with the help of decomposition analysis. Energy Conversion and Management, 47(6), 732-745..
8. Ertekin, Ş., & Dam, M. (2020). Türkiye’de çevre vergilerinin çevresel etkileri üzerine bir değerlendirme. Yaşar Üniversitesi E-Dergisi, 15, 66-87.

9. Firtescu, B. N., Brinza, F., Grosu, M., Doaca, E. M., & Siriteanu, A. A. (2023). The effects of energy taxes level on greenhouse gas emissions in the environmental policy measures framework. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 965841.
10. Goulder, L. H. (1995). Environmental taxation and the double dividend: a reader's guide. International tax and public finance, 2, 157-183.
11. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 424-438.
12. Hsiao, C. (2022). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge university press.
13. IPCC., (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
14. Jiang, P., Li, M., Zhao, Y., Gong, X., Jin, R., Zhang, Y., ... & Liu, L. (2022). Does environmental regulation improve carbon emission efficiency? Inspection of panel data from inter-provincial provinces in China. Sustainability, 14(16), 10448.
15. Koçak, E., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2018). The impact of foreign direct investment on CO 2 emissions in Turkey: new evidence from cointegration and bootstrap causality analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 790-804.
16. Kumbhakar, S. C., Badunenko, O., & Willox, M. (2022). Do carbon taxes affect economic and environmental efficiency? The case of British Columbia’s manufacturing plants. Energy Economics, 115, 106359.
17. Nordhaus, W. (2017). Integrated assessment models of climate change. NBER Reporter, (3), 16-20.
18. OECD., (2010). Taxation, innovation and the environment. OECD.
19. Pearce, D. W., & Turner, R. K. (1990). Economics of natural resources and the environment. Johns Hopkins University Press.
20. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers. Economics, 1240(1), 1.
21. 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.
22. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
23. Pigou, A. (1920). The economics of welfare. The Macmillan and Co, London.
24. Shahzad, U., Fareed, Z., Shahzad, F., & Shahzad, K. (2021). Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: New insights from quantile methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123806.
25. Stern, N. (2008). The economics of climate change. American Economic Review, 98(2), 1-37.
26. T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı. (2024). Türkiye'nin Güncellenmiş Birinci Ulusal Belirlenen Katkısı. Ankara: T.C. Çevre, Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı.
27. Tietenberg, T., & Lewis, L. (2023). Environmental and natural resource economics. Routledge.
28. TÜİK. (2024). Ekonomik Faaliyetlere Göre Hava Emisyon Hesapları, Ankara, Türkiye, Erişim adresi: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/DownloadIstatistikselTablo? p=HIT8LF7cxmHDztNYgw4zdcdCqLCLtQAKP4wd6pandSgD6vFitVQnfHJzrTLmTMsX
29. TÜİK. (2025). Sera Gazı Emisyon İstatistikleri, 1990-2023, Ankara, Türkiye, Erişim adresi: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Sera-Gazi-Emisyon-Istatistikleri-1990-2023-53974
30. Ülger, M., & Kasap, A. (2025). Calculation of sustainable development index and empirical analysis: the case of BRICS-T countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-27.
31. Wang, X., Khurshid, A., Qayyum, S., & Calin, A. C. (2022). The role of green innovations, environmental policies and carbon taxes in achieving the sustainable development goals of carbon neutrality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-15.
32. Wen, L., & Sun, S. (2023). Can environmental protection tax drive manufacturing carbon unlocking? Empirical evidence from China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 1274785.