G20 Ülkelerinde Fosil Yakıt Sübvansiyonlarının Ekolojik Ayak İzi (EF) ve Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisinin Ampirik Bir Araştırması

Öz

Çevresel sorunlarının üstesinden gelmek, sürdürülebilir kalkınmayı sağlamak ve ekonomik büyüme için dünya çapında farklı politika önlemleri alınmaktadır. Diğer taraftan fosil yakıtlar üretimde ve tüketimde hala önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Mevcut literatürde birçok farklı değişken çevresel bozulmayı ve ekonomik büyümeyi belirlemektedir. Bu çalışma fosil yakıt sübvansiyonlarının hem çevresel bozulma hem de ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu çalışma 2010-2017 döneminde G20 ülkelerinden oluşan dengeli bir paneli ele almaktadır. Çalışmada ampirik analiz için Driscoll ve Kraay (1998) standart hata metodolojisi kullanılmıştır. Sonuç, fosil yakıt sübvansiyonlarının çevresel bozulmayı önemli ölçüde artırdığını, buna karşın kişi başına gelir, yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı, çevre ile ilgili teknolojiler ve ticari açıklığın çevresel bozulmayı azalttığını ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca sonuç, fosil yakıt sübvansiyonlarının ekonomik büyümeyi önemli ölçüde azalttığını, buna karşın yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı, çevre ile ilgili teknolojilerin ekonomik büyümeyi artırdığını ortaya koymaktadır. Bu çalışma fosil yakıt sübvansiyonlarının çevresel bozulma ve ekonomik büyüme üzerindeki etkisini ele alması açısından önem taşımaktadır. Politika yapıcılar fosil yakıtlara sağlamış oldukları sübvansiyonları yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına, sağlık, eğitim vb. alanlara kaydırarak hem çevresel sorunların üstesinden gelmiş olacaklardır hem de ekonominin üzerindeki mali yük hafiflemiş olacaklardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çevresel bozulma
• fosil yakıt sübvansiyonları
• ekonomik büyüme
• yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı

An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of Fossil Fuel Subsidies on Ecological Footprint (EF) and Growth in G20 Countries

Öz

Different policy measures are taken around the world to overcome environmental problems, ensure sustainable development and economic growth. On the other hand, fossil fuels still have an important input in production and consumption. In the current literature, many different variables determine environmental degradation and economic growth. This study aims to examine the impact of fossil fuel subsidies on both environmental degradation and economic growth. This study considers a balanced panel of G20 countries in the period 2010-2017. Driscoll and Kraay (1998) standard error methodology is used for empirical analysis in the study. The result reveals that fossil fuel subsidies significantly increase environmental degradation, whereas per capita income, renewable energy use, environmental technologies and trade openness reduce environmental degradation. Moreover, the result reveals that fossil fuel subsidies significantly reduce economic growth, whereas renewable energy use, environmental related technologies increase economic growth. This study is important in terms of addressing the impact of fossil fuel subsidies on environmental degradation and economic growth. By shifting the subsidies they have provided to fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, health, education and infrastructure investments, policy makers will both overcome environmental problems and alleviate the financial burden on the economy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• environmental degradation
• fossil fuel subsidies
• economic growth
• renewable energy use

Kaynakça

1. Abouleinein, S., El Laithy, H., & Al-Dīn, H.K. (2009). The impact of phasing out subsidies of petroleum energy products in Egypt. Egyptian Center for Economic Studies.
2. Acheampong, A.O. (2018). Economic growth, CO2 emissions and energy consumption: what causes what and where?. Energy Economics, 74, 677-692.
3. Adekunle, I. A., & Oseni, I. O. (2021). Fuel subsidies and Carbon Emission: Evidence from asymmetric modelling. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(18), 22729-22741.
4. Adetutu, M.O., & Weyman-Jones, T.G. (2019). Fuel subsidies versus market power: is there a countervailing second-best optimum?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 74(4), 1619-1646.
5. Akinyemi, O., Alege, P.O., Ajayi, O.O. & Amaghionyeodiwe, L.A. (2015). Fuel subsidy reform and environmental quality in Nigeria. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(2), 540-549.
6. Alola, A.A., & Donve, U.T. (2021). Environmental implication of coal and oil energy utilization in Turkey: is the EKC hypothesis related to energy?. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MEQ-10-2020-0220/full/pdf
7. Anderson, K., & McKibbin, W.J. (1997). Reducing coal subsidies and trade barriers: their contribution to greenhouse gas abatement. Papers 135, Brookings Institution - Working Papers.
8. Apergis, N., & Payne, J.E. (2010). Renewable energy consumption and growth in Eurasia. Energy Economics, 32(6), 1392-1397.

9. Aslam, B., Hu, J., Hafeez, M., Ma, D., AlGarni, T. S., Saeed, M., ... & Hussain, S. (2021). Applying environmental Kuznets curve framework to assess the nexus of industry, globalization, and CO2 emission. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 101377.
10. Baloch, M.A., Khan, S.U.D., & Ulucak, Z.Ş. (2020a). Poverty and vulnerability of environmental degradation in Sub-Saharan African countries: what causes what?. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 54, 143-149.
11. Baloch, M.A., Khan, S.U.D., Ulucak, Z.Ş., & Ahmad, A. (2020b). Analyzing the relationship between poverty, income inequality, and CO2 emission in Sub-Saharan African countries. Science of The Total Environment, 740, 139867.
12. Bazilian, M., & Onyeji, I. (2012). Fossil fuel subsidy removal and inadequate public power supply: Implications for businesses. Energy Policy, 45, 1-5.
13. Bhattacharya, M., Paramati, S.R., Ozturk, I., & Bhattacharya, S. (2016). The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Evidence from top 38 countries. Applied Energy, 162, 733-741.
14. Bilgili, F., Kuşkaya, S., Toğuç, N., Muğaloğlu, E., Kocak, E., Bulut, Ü., & Bağlıtaş, H.H. (2019). A revisited renewable consumption-growth nexus: A continuous wavelet approach through disaggregated data. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 107, 1-19.
15. Bilgili, F., Nathaniel, S.P., Kuşkaya, S., Kassouri, Y. (2021). Environmental pollution and energy research and development: an Environmental Kuznets Curve model through quantile simulation approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14506-0
16. Bresciani, S., Puertas, R., Ferraris, A., & Santoro, G. (2021). Innovation, environmental sustainability and economic development: DEA-Bootstrap and multilevel analysis to compare two regions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 121040.
17. Carrasco, C.A., & Tovar-García, E.D. (2021). Trade and growth in developing countries: the role of export composition, import composition and export diversification. Economic Change and Restructuring, 54(4), 919-941.
18. Chang, R., Kaltani, L., & Loayza, N.V. (2009). Openness can be good for growth: The role of policy complementarities. Journal of Development Economics, 90(1), 33-49.
19. Chebbi, H.E., Olarreaga, M., & Zitouna, H. (2011). Trade openness and CO 2 emissions in Tunisia. Middle East Development Journal, 3(01), 29-53.
20. Clements, B.D., Coady, S., Fabrizio, S., Gupta, T., Alleyne, and C. Sdralevich (eds.) (2013). Energy Subsidy Reform: Lessons and Implications (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
21. Cobey, E. (2020). Assessment of the Environmental and Economic Impacts of Fossil Fuel Subsidies. https://digitalshowcase.lynchburg.edu/utcp/?utm_source=digitalshowcase.lynchburg.edu%2Futcp%2F162&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
22. Danish, -, & Ulucak, R. (2021). Renewable energy, technological innovation and the environment: a novel dynamic auto-regressive distributive lag simulation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150, 111433.
23. Danish, -, Ulucak, R., & Erdogan, S. (2021). The effect of nuclear energy on the environment in the context of globalization: Consumption vs production-based CO2 emissions. Nuclear Engineering and Technology.
24. Doğan, B., Ghosh, S., Hoang, D.P., & Chu, L.K. (2022). Are economic complexity and eco-innovation mutually exclusive to control energy demand and environmental quality in E7 and G7 countries?. Technology in Society, 101867.
25. Dollar, D., & Kraay, A. (2003). Institutions, trade, and growth. Journal of monetary economics, 50(1), 133-162.
26. Driscoll, J. C., & Kraay, A. C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549-560.
27. Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2001). Technology, trade, and growth: A unified framework. European Economic Review, 45(4-6), 742-755.
28. Ellis, J. (2010). The effects of fossil-fuel subsidy reform: A review of modelling and empirical studies. Available at SSRN 1572397.
29. Eriṣ, M. N., & Ulaṣan, B. (2013). Trade openness and economic growth: Bayesian model averaging estimate of cross-country growth regressions. Economic Modelling, 33, 867-883.
30. European Environment Agency (2014). Environmental impact of energy. https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/glossary/eea-glossary/environmental-impact-of-energy.
31. European Environment Agency (2015). Increasing environmental pollution (GMT 10), https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/2015/global/pollution
32. Fang, J., Gozgor, G., Lu, Z., & Wu, W. (2019). Effects of the export product quality on carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from developing economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(12), 12181-12193.
33. Ferreira, J.J., Fernandes, C.I., & Ferreira, F.A. (2020). Technology transfer, climate change mitigation, and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: A comparison of European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119770.
34. Frankel, J.A., & Romer, D.H. (1999). Does trade cause growth?. American Economic Review, 89(3), 379-399.
35. Gozgor, G. (2017). Does trade matter for carbon emissions in OECD countries? Evidence from a new trade openness measure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(36), 27813-27821.
36. Grafton, R.Q., Kompas, T., Van Long, N., & To, H. (2014). US biofuels subsidies and CO2 emissions: An empirical test for a weak and a strong green paradox. Energy Policy, 68, 550-555.
37. Gyamfi, B.A., Onifade, S.T., Nwani, C., & Bekun, F.V. (2021). Accounting for the combined impacts of natural resources rent, income level, and energy consumption on environmental quality of G7 economies: a panel quantile regression approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-13.
38. Herzer, D. (2013). Cross-country heterogeneity and the trade-income relationship. World Development, 44, 194-211.
39. Huang, Y., Haseeb, M., Usman, M., & Ozturk, I. (2022). Dynamic association between ICT, renewable energy, economic complexity and ecological footprint: Is there any difference between E-7 (developing) and G-7 (developed) countries?. Technology in Society, 68, 101853.
40. International Energy Agency (2020). Energy subsidies, Tracking the impact of fossil-fuel subsidies. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies (16.11.2021).
41. International Monetary Found (2021). Fossil Fuel Subsidies. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies (16.11.2021)
42. Iqbal, A., Tang, X., & Rasool, S. F. (2022). Investigating the nexus between CO2 emissions, renewable energy consumption, FDI, exports and economic growth: evidence from BRICS countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-30.
43. Ivanovski, K., Hailemariam, A., & Smyth, R. (2021). The effect of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on economic growth: Non-parametric evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124956.
44. Jahanger, A., Usman, M., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovations. Resources Policy, 76, 102569.
45. Jiang, Z., & Lin, B. (2014). The perverse fossil fuel subsidies in China—The scale and effects. Energy, 70, 411-419.
46. Kheiravar, K.H., & Lawell, C.Y.L. (2020). The effects of fuel subsidies on air quality: Evidence from the Iranian subsidy reform. Working paper, Cornell University.
47. Kim, D. H., & Lin, S. C. (2009). Trade and growth at different stages of economic development. Journal of Development Studies, 45(8), 1211-1224.
48. Kocoglu, M., Awan, A., Tunç, A., & Aslan, A. (2021). The nonlinear links between urbanization and CO2 in 15 emerging countries: Evidence from unconditional quantile and threshold regression. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-12.
49. Krueger, A.O. (1990). Asian trade and growth lessons. The American Economic Review, 80(2), 108-112.
50. Li, Y., Shi, X., & Su, B. (2017). Economic, social and environmental impacts of fuel subsidies: A revisit of Malaysia. Energy Policy, 110, 51-61.
51. Lin, B., & Jiang, Z. (2011). Estimates of energy subsidies in China and impact of energy subsidy reform. Energy Economics, 33(2), 273-283.
52. Liu, Y., Sadiq, F., Ali, W., & Kumail, T. (2022). Does tourism development, energy consumption, trade openness and economic growth matters for ecological footprint: Testing the Environmental Kuznets Curve and pollution haven hypothesis for Pakistan. Energy, 123208.
53. Mundaca, G. (2017a). How much can CO2 emissions be reduced if fossil fuel subsidies are removed?. Energy Economics, 64, 91-104.
54. Mundaca, G. (2017b). Energy subsidies, public investment and endogenous growth. Energy Policy, 110, 693-709.
55. Nguyen, M.L.T., & Bui, T.N. (2021). Trade openness and economic growth: A study on Asean-6. Economies, 9(3), 113.
56. OECD (2005). Environmentally harmful subsidies-challenges for reform. OECD, Paris. (Erişim: 22.12.2021)
57. OECD (2019). OECD Inventory of Support Measures for Fossil Fuels. http://oe.cd/fossil-fuels (Erişim: 22.12.2021)
58. OECD (2021). OECD work on support for fossil fuels, https://www.oecd.org/fossil-fuels/ (Erişim: 22.12.2021)
59. OECD/IEA (2021). “Update on recent progress in reform of inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption”, www.oecd.org/fossil-fuels/publicationsandfurtherreading/OECD-IEA-G20-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Reform-Update-2021.pdf. (Erişim: 22.12.2021)
60. Pata, U.K. (2021). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO 2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 846-861.
61. Rasheed, M.Q., Haseeb, A., Adebayo, T.S., Ahmed, Z., & Ahmad, M. (2021). The long-run relationship between energy consumption, oil prices, and carbon dioxide emissions in European countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
62. Redding, S. (1999). Dynamic comparative advantage and the welfare effects of trade. Oxford Economic Papers, 51(1), 15-39.
63. Roser, M. (2021). Fossil fuel subsidies: If we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions we should not pay people to burn fossil-fuels. https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies (16.11.2021).
64. Sarkodie, S.A., & Strezov, V. (2019). Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Science of the Total Environment, 646, 862-871.
65. Sasana, H., & Aminata, J. (2019). Energy subsidy, energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission: Indonesian case studies. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(2), 117.
66. Sasana, H., Setiawan, A.H., Ariyanti, F. and Ghozal, I (2017). The Effect of Energy Subsidy on the Environmental Quality in Indonesia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7(5), 245-249
67. Schröder, E., & Storm, S. (2020). Economic Growth and Carbon Emissions: The Road to “Hothouse Earth” is Paved with Good Intentions. International Journal of Political Economy, 49(2), 153-173.
68. Shahbaz, M., Solarin, S.A., & Öztürk, I. (2016). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and the role of globalization in selected African countries. Ecological Indicators, 67, 623-636.
69. Shahbaz, M., Tiwari, A.K., & Nasir, M. (2013). The effects of financial development, economic growth, coal consumption and trade openness on CO2 emissions in South Africa. Energy Policy, 61, 1452-1459.
70. Shahzad, S.J.H., Kumar, R.R., Zakaria, M., & Hurr, M. (2017). Carbon emission, energy consumption, trade openness and financial development in Pakistan: a revisit. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70, 185-192.
71. Sheraz, M., Deyi, X., Ahmed, J., Ullah, S., & Ullah, A. (2021). Moderating the effect of globalization on financial development, energy consumption, human capital, and carbon emissions: evidence from G20 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-19.
72. Solarin, S.A. (2020). An environmental impact assessment of fossil fuel subsidies in emerging and developing economies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 85, 106443.
73. Sovacool, B. (2017) Reviewing, and Rethinking global energy subsidies: Towards a political economy research agenda. Ecological Economics, 135, 150-163.
74. Sulistiowati, E. (2015). The impact of fossil fuel subsidies on growth. Economics of Development (ECD). Retrieved from https://thesis. eur. nl/pub/33406.
75. Ulaşan, B. (2015). Trade openness and economic growth: panel evidence. Applied Economics Letters, 22(2), 163-167.
76. Ulucak, R., Erdogan, F., & Bostanci, S. H. (2021). A STIRPAT-based investigation on the role of economic growth, urbanization, and energy consumption in shaping a sustainable environment in the Mediterranean region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-12.
77. United Nations (2019). Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal12 (Erişişm: 16.11.2021)
78. United Nations (2019). Measurıng Fossil Fuel Subsidies in The Context Of The Sustainable Development Goals. (Erişişm: 16.11.2021)
79. United Nations, Environment Programme (2021). Fossil fuel subsidy reform. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/green-economy/what-we-do/economic-and-fiscal-policy/fiscal-policy/policy-analysis-3 (Erişişm: 16.11.2021)
80. Usman, M., Kousar, R., Makhdum, M.S.A., Yaseen, M.R., & Nadeem, A.M. (2022). Do financial development, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness contribute to increase carbon emission in Pakistan? An insight based on ARDL bound testing approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-30.
81. Usman, M., Makhdum, M.S.A., & Kousar, R. (2021). Does financial inclusion, renewable and non-renewable energy utilization accelerate ecological footprints and economic growth? Fresh evidence from 15 highest emitting countries. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102590.
82. Wang, Q., Dong, Z., Li, R., & Wang, L. (2022). Renewable energy and economic growth: new insight from country risks. Energy, 238, 122018.
83. Xie, Y., Wu, D., & Zhu, S. (2021). Can new energy vehicles subsidy curb the urban air pollution? Empirical evidence from pilot cities in China. Science of The Total Environment, 754, 142232.
84. Yasmeen, R., Zhaohui, C., Shah, W.U.H., Kamal, M.A., & Khan, A. (2021). Exploring the role of biomass energy consumption, ecological footprint through FDI and technological innovation in B&R economies: A simultaneous equation approach. Energy, 122703.
85. Zeren, F., & Ari, A. (2013). Trade openness and economic growth: A panel causality test. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(9).
86. Zhang, S., Liu, X., & Bae, J. (2017). Does trade openness affect CO 2 emissions: evidence from ten newly industrialized countries?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(21), 17616-17625.