TÜRKİYE’DE BİRİNCİL ENERJİ TÜKETİMİ, KARBONDİOKSİT EMİSYONU VE EKONOMİK BÜYÜME İLİŞKİSİ: EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME VE NEDENSELLİK ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu çalışma 1970-2008 dönemi için Türkiye’de karbondioksit emisyonu, fert başına gelir, birincil enerji tüketimi ve yatırımlar arasındaki ilişkiyi eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik testleriyle araştırmaktadır. Ampirik sonuçlarda, değişkenler arasında bir eşbütünleşme ilişkisinin mevcut olduğu gözlenmiştir. Test sonuçlarında ekonomik büyüme ve birincil enerji tüketiminden karbondioksit emisyonuna doğru kısa dönem tek yönlü nedensel ilişkiye rastlanmıştır. Ayrıca enerji tüketimi, ekonomik büyüme ve yatırımların uzun dönemde karbondioksit emisyonunun Granger nedeni olduğu ortaya konmuştur. Bu sonuçlardan Türkiye’de enerji tüketimi ve yatırımların ekonomik büyümede en önemli faktör olduğu söylenebilir. Dolayısıyla artan enerji tüketiminin uzun dönemde daha fazla kirlenmeye yol açacağından politika yapıcılarının artan enerji talebini karşılamak için alternatif enerji kaynaklarını teşvik etmeleri gerekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Enerji Tüketimi
• Karbondioksit Emisyonu
• Ekonomik Büyüme
• Türkiye

The Relationships Between Primary Energy Consumption, Carbon Dioxide Emission And Economic Growth in Turkey: An Analysis Of Cointegration And Causality

Öz

The study investigates cointegration and causality between primary energy consumption, CO emis- sions, per capita gross domestic product and investments for Turkey using ARDL bounds testing approach complemented by Johansen–Juselius cointegration framework for time span 1970-2008. Empirical results indicate that there is an evidence of a long-run relationship between the variables in Turkey. The results indicate that uni-directional causality exists from economic growth and primary energy consumption to carbon dioxide emission both in the short-run. It has also been found that energy consumption, economic growth and investment are the long-run causes for CO emissions. An important policy implication is that energy consumption can be considered as an important factor for the economic growth and investment in Turkey. Moreover, as higher energy consumption also means higher pollution in the long-run, policy makers should stimulate alternative energy sources for meeting up the increasing energy demand.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Energy Consumption
• Carbon Dioxide Emissions Economic Growth
• Turkey.

Kaynakça

1. Akbostancı, E, Türüt-Asik S ve Tunç, G. İ. (2009), “The Relationship Between Income and Environment in Turkey: is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve?”, Energy Policy, 37:861-867.
2. Alam, M. J., Begum, I. A., Buysse, J., Rahman, S. ve Huylenbroeck, G. V. (2011), ”Guido Van Huylenbroeckd Dynamic Modeling of Causal Relationship Between Energy Consumption, CO 2 Emissions And Economic Growth in India”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 243– 3251.
3. Altınay, G. ve Karagol, E., (2004) “Structural Break, Unit Root, and The Causality Between Energy Consumption and GDP in Turkey”, Energy Economics, 26, 985– 9
4. Ang, James B., (2007), “CO 2 Emissions, Energy Consumption, And Output in France”, Energy Policy 35 (10), 4772–4778.
5. Ang, James B. (2008), “Economic “Development, Pollutant Emissions and Energy Consumption In Malaysia” , Journal of Policy Modeling, 30, 271–278.
6. Apergis, N. ve Payne E. J. (2010), “The Emissions, Energy Consumption, and Growth Nexus: Evidence from The Commonwealth of Independent States”, Energy Policy, 38, 650–655.
7. Apergis, N. ve Payne, J.E., (2009), ”CO 2 Emissions, Energy Usage, and Output in Central America”, Energy Policy, 37, 3282–3286.
8. Apergis, N., Payne, J. E., Menyah, K. ve Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2010), “On The Casual Dynamics Beetween Emissions, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy, and Economic Growth”, Ecological Economics, 69, 2255-2260.

9. Beckerman, W., (1992), “Economic Growth and the Environment: Whose Growth? Whose Environment?”, World Development 20, 481–496.
10. Beltratti, A., (1997), Models of Economic Growth with Environmental Assets, Kluwer Academic, London.
11. BP (British Petroleum) (2012), Historical Statistical Data from 1965-2011, http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle800.do?categoryId=9037130&contentId =7068669, (Erişim Tarihi 21.09.2012).
12. Brown, S.P A. ve Yücel, M. K.,(2002), “Energy Prices and Aggregate Economic Activity: an Interpretative Survey”, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 42, 193–208.
13. Bakanlığı (2012), Enerji. http://www.enerji.gov.tr/index.php?dil=tr&sf=webpages&b=enerji&bn=215&hn= 12&nm=384&id=384 (Erişim 23.09.2012)
14. Engle, R.F. ve Granger, C.W., (1987), “Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing”, Econometrica, 55, 251–276.
15. Erol, U. ve Yu, E.S.H., (1987), “On The Causal Relationship Between Energy and Income for Industrialized Countries”, Journal of Energy and Development 13, 1131
16. Dickey, David ve Wayne A Fuller; (1981), “Likelihood Ratio Statistics For Autoregressive Time Series With A Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49(4), 1057-1072.
17. Fodha, M. ve Zaghdoud, O. (2010), “Economic Growth And Pollutant Emissions in Tunisia: An Empirical Analysis of The Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Energy Policy 38, 1150–1156.
18. Friedl, B. ve Getzner, M. (2003), “Determinations of CO 2 Emissions in a Small Open Economy”, Ecological Economics, 45, pp.133-148.