| Literature DB >> 33782633 |
Muddassar Sarfraz1, Muhammad Mohsin2, Sobia Naseem3, Amit Kumar4.
Abstract
The study aims to examine the CO2 emissions by considering the implication of COVID-19 under strict lockdown in India. The nonlinear (asymmetric) relationship is investigated between CO2 emission and COVID-19 with its specific determinants. The positive and negative asymmetries of COVID-19 determinants are also captured by using econometric techniques. The daily data series of CO2 emission, new confirmed cases, confirmed deaths, and lockdown as dummy variables from January 30, 2020, to December 1, 2020, for India is analyzed by employing the nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag model. This research revealed a significant nonlinear relationship between CO2 emission and COVID-19. The bound test and asymmetric coefficients are confirmed by the variables' long- and short-run relationships. The dynamic multiplier graphs present that India's strict lockdown due to the rapid increase in COVID-19 patients significantly reduces toxic gas emissions, especially CO2 emissions. This asymmetric relationship has been proficiently declared that unhealthy public routine, extra traffic, and unhygienic gases released in the air become the reason for environmental destruction. The lockdown is practically imposed for specific periods and reasons, contributing to reducing toxic emissions, but it is not a permanent solution for environmental sustainability. The government of India, policymakers, and environmentalists should make people aware of unhealthy and environmentally envying activities and policies and long-term applicable strategies should be designed to upgrade the environment's quality.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 emission; COVID-19; Lockdown; NARDL; Sustainable Development
Year: 2021 PMID: 33782633 PMCID: PMC7989717 DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01324-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Dev Sustain ISSN: 1387-585X Impact factor: 3.219
Fig. 1Biweekly COVID-19 daily-confirmed cases
Fig. 2Daily confirmed cases and deaths in India
Fig. 3CO2 emission in India during pandemic (COVID-19)
Descriptive statistics
| CO2 | NC | ND | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 6.127 | 30,924.210 | 449.745 |
| Median | 6.320 | 19,682.500 | 438.500 |
| Maximum | 8.580 | 97,894.000 | 2003.000 |
| Minimum | 3.630 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Std. Dev | 1.057 | 30,921.330 | 405.705 |
| Skewness | −0.465 | 0.556 | 0.513 |
| Kurtosis | 2.996 | 1.929 | 2.328 |
| Jarque–Bera | 11.041* | 30.416* | 19.182* |
| Probability | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Observations | 306 | 306 | 306 |
*, **, and *** represent 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance, respectively
Unit root test
| Variables | ADF | PP | Order of cointegration | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | First difference | Level | First difference | ||
| CO2 | −2.28218 | −9.979* | −2.434 | −19.523* | I(1) |
| 0.1785 | 0.000 | 0.133 | 0.000 | ||
| NC | −1.02597 | −14.215* | −1.366 | −19.177* | I(1) |
| 0.7447 | 0.000 | 0.599 | 0.000 | ||
| ND | −1.31653 | −13.303* | −2.554 | −49.982* | I(1) |
| 0.6226 | 0.000 | 0.104 | 0.000 | ||
| LD | −1.71519 | −7.668* | −1.724 | −17.378* | I(1) |
| 0.4226 | 0.000 | 0.418 | 0.000 | ||
*, **, and *** represent 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance, respectively
The result of bound tests for cointegration test
| 10% | 5% | 2.50% | 1% | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-statistics | I(0) | I(1) | I(0) | I(1) | I(0) | I(1) | I(0) | I(1) |
| 3.993 | 1.99 | 2.94 | 2.27 | 3.28 | 2.55 | 3.61 | 2.88 | 3.99 |
Fig. 4AIC top 20 models
Dynamic asymmetric estimation of CO2 emission
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Prob |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO2(−1) | 0.87225* | 0.02977 | 29.29808 | 0.00000 |
| NC+ | 0.00001*** | 0.00001 | 1.83384 | 0.06770 |
| NC+ (−1) | −0.00002* | 0.00001 | −3.14186 | 0.00190 |
| NC− | −0.00002* | 0.00001 | −2.99747 | 0.00300 |
| NC− (−1) | 0.00001 | 0.00001 | 1.94004 | 0.05330 |
| ND+ | 0.00011 | 0.00015 | 0.72058 | 0.47170 |
| ND+ (−1) | 0.00061 | 0.00037 | 1.64726 | 0.10060 |
| ND− | 0.00070** | 0.00034 | 2.03899 | 0.04240 |
| LD+ | −0.31990* | 0.09516 | −3.36185 | 0.00090 |
| LD− | −0.79436* | 0.26400 | −3.00894 | 0.00290 |
| LD− (−1) | 0.75017* | 0.27074 | 2.77077 | 0.00600 |
| C | 0.86460* | 0.21884 | 3.95087 | 0.00010 |
*, **, and *** represent 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance, respectively
Result of asymmetric short run
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. error | t-Statistic | Prob |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D( | 1.19E-05** | 5.14E-06 | 2.3208 | 0.0210 |
| D( | −2.36E-05* | 5.98E-06 | −3.9457 | 0.0001 |
| D( | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.7603 | 0.4477 |
| D( | −0.7944* | 0.2577 | −3.0824 | 0.0022 |
| ECTt−1 | −0.1278* | 0.0223 | −5.7190 | 0.0000 |
Result of asymmetric long-run coefficients
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. Error | t-Statistic | Prob |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| −7.06E-05** | 3.41E-05 | -2.0711 | 0.0392 | |
| −7.42E-05** | 3.56E-05 | -2.0842 | 0.0380 | |
| 0.0056*** | 0.0029 | 1.9576 | 0.0512 | |
| 0.0055*** | 0.0029 | 1.8932 | 0.0593 | |
| −2.5040* | 0.3937 | −6.3594 | 0.0000 | |
| −0.3459 | 0.7250 | −0.4771 | 0.6337 | |
| C | 6.7677* | 0.3021 | 22.3990 | 0.0000 |
*, **, and *** represent 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance, respectively
Fig. 5CO2 and NC dynamic multiplier
Fig. 6CO2 and ND dynamic multiplier
Fig. 7CO2 and LD dynamic multiplier
Diagnostic test
| Test description | Problem | Decision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breusch–Godfrey serial correlation LM test | Serial correlation | 1.301 | 0.273 | No serial correlation |
| Jarque–Bera | Normality | 1.524 | 0.354 | Residuals are normal distributed |
| Heteroskedasticity test: ARCH | Heteroskedasticity | 1.734 | 0.142 | No heteroskedasticity |
| Ramsey RESET test | Model specification | 0.511 | 0.475 | Model is stable |
| CUSUM | Stability | – | – | Model is stable |
| CUSUM-SQ | Stability | – | – |
Fig. 8CUSUM for CO2 emission
Fig. 9CUSUM2 for CO2 emission