| Literature DB >> 33840031 |
Tomiwa Sunday Adebayo1, Edmund Ntom Udemba2, Zahoor Ahmed3, Dervis Kirikkaleli4.
Abstract
In recent years, a growing number of scholars have employed various proxies of environmental degradation to understand the reasons behind rising environmental degradation. However, very few studies have considered consumption-based carbon emissions, even though a clear understanding of the impact of consumption patterns is essential for redirecting the pattern to more sustainable consumption. Thus, this study takes a step forward by using consumption-based carbon emissions (CCO2) as a proxy of environmental degradation using the novel non-linear ARDL technique for Chilefrom 1990 to 2018. To the best understanding of the investigators, no prior studies have investigated the drivers of consumption-based carbon emissions utilizing non-linear ARDL. The study employed ADF and KSS (non-linear) tests to check the data series' stationary level. Additionally, the symmetric and asymmetric ARDL approaches are utilized to explore cointegration and long-run linkages. According to the results, there is no symmetric cointegration among the variables; however, the empirical estimates reveal a long-run asymmetric connection between the indicators and CCO2 emissions. The novel results from the asymmetric ARDL indicate that negative and positive changes in economic growth deteriorate the quality of the environment. Interestingly, a reduction in economic growth makes a more dominant contribution to environmental degradation. Moreover, positive changes in renewable energy usage improve the quality of Chile's environment, inferring that the country can achieve a reduction in environmental degradation by boosting renewable energy consumption. Surprisingly, the study found that technological innovation is ineffective in reducing consumption-based carbon emissions, which implies that Chile's technological innovation is not directed towards manufacturing green technology. Finally, the policy implications are discussed with respect to reducing consumption-based carbon emissions.Entities:
Keywords: Consumption-based carbon emissions; Economic growth; NARDL; Renewable energy consumption; Technological innovation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33840031 PMCID: PMC8036165 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13830-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Variables units and sources
| Variable | Description | Units | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| CCO2 | Consumption-based carbon emissions | Million tons of CO2 emissions | GCA by Peters et al. ( |
| GDP | Economic growth | GDP per capita constant $US, 2010 | WDI ( |
| TI | Technological innovation | Measured as the addition of patent applications, residents and patent applications, non-residents | |
| REN | Renewable energy | Renewables per capita (kWh) | BP ( |
Source: Authors compilation
Fig. 1Flow chart
Descriptive statistics
| CCO2 | GDP | REN | TI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 63.85005 | 10890.70 | 3973.883 | 2494.000 |
| Median | 60.12730 | 10726.64 | 3930.835 | 2792.000 |
| Maximum | 93.43620 | 15111.70 | 5471.402 | 3952.000 |
| Minimum | 31.13620 | 5933.207 | 2072.491 | 811.0000 |
| Std. dev. | 20.10264 | 2886.701 | 677.5301 | 853.1786 |
| Skewness | − 0.029779 | − 0.046307 | − 0.574684 | − 0.540442 |
| Kurtosis | 1.867291 | 1.744942 | 4.177907 | 2.288933 |
| Jarque-Bera | 1.554613 | 1.913696 | 3.272786 | 2.022660 |
| Probability | 0.459642 | 0.384102 | 0.194681 | 0.363735 |
| Observations | 29 | 29 | 29 | 29 |
BDS test to inspect non-linearity
| BDS stat | |||||
| CCO2 | 0.1844* | 0.3106* | 0.4017* | 0.4661 | 0.5107* |
| GDP | 0.1918* | 0.3197* | 0.4119* | 0.4795* | 0.5293* |
| REN | 0.1400* | 0.2303* | 0.2891* | 0.3141* | 0.3306* |
| TI | 0.1753* | 0.2908* | 0.3732* | 0.4234* | 0.4522* |
Note: * refers 1% level of significance. Residual values computed from the BDS test with m dimensions show the presence of non-linearities in variables
ADF and KSS tests
| Variables | ADF | KSS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | Difference | Level | Difference | |||||
| KSS stat | KSS stat | |||||||
| CCO2 | − 0.4154 | 0.8963 | − 4.3225* | 0.0015 | − 1.230 | 0.735 | − 4.169* | 0.002 |
| GDP | -0.0958 | 0.9247 | − 4.1227* | 0.0027 | − 0.806 | 0.858 | − 2.960** | 0.052 |
| REN | − 1.6674 | 0.4392 | − 5.9644* | 0.0000 | − 2.199 | 0.244 | − 2.697*** | 0.093 |
| TI | − 1.3173 | 0.6116 | − 6.1135* | 0.0000 | − 1.210 | 0.752 | − 3.904* | 0.005 |
Note: *, **, and *** refer 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance
ZA unit root test
| Level | Difference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Break-year | Break-year | ||
| CCO2 | − 4.1594 | 2001 | − 6.1824* | 2011 |
| GDP | − 3.7471 | 2012 | − 4.9262*** | 2001 |
| REN | − 4.8174 | 2010 | − 6.4442* | 2000 |
| TI | − 5.4373** | 2009 | − 6.8565* | 2011 |
Note: Critical values: 10%, 5%, and 1% level of significance is depicted by ***, **, and * respectively
ARDL and NARDL cointegration
| Models estimated | Break-year | AIC Lags | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (CCO2/GDP, REN, TI) | 1.6416 | 2011 | [1,1,1,0] | |
| (CCO2/GDP+, GDP−, REN+, REN−, TI+, TI− ) | 6.2017* | 2011 | [1,0,0,0, 1,1, 0] | |
| Model 2 Robustness tests | ||||
| 0.807 | 0.457 | |||
| 0.112 | 0.739 | |||
| 2.683 | 0.113 | |||
Note: * refers to a significance level of 1%. Optimum lag length 1 under AIC is used. Robustness tests are not computed for model 1 as there is no cointegration in that
Non-linear ARDL long and short-run results
| Long-run estimation | Short-run estimation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Coefficients | Variables | Coefficients | ||||
| GDP+ | 2.103* | 3.9705 | 0.000 | GDP+ | 0.1564 | 0.898 | 0.377 |
| GDP− | − 3.283** | − 2.0995 | 0.045 | GDP− | − 0.2378** | − 2.250 | 0.033 |
| REN+ | − 0.419** | − 2.4286 | 0.022 | REN+ | − 0.1051 | − 1.062 | 0.297 |
| REN− | 0.354 | 1.1977 | 0.241 | REN− | − 0.2114 | − 1.215 | 0.235 |
| TI+ | 0.061 | 0.7357 | 0.468 | 0.1269** | 2.584 | 0.015 | |
| TI− | 0.160* | 3.3137 | 0.002 | 0.0165 | 0.819 | 0.420 | |
| DYa | 0.005 | 0.0847 | 0.933 | DY | 0.0683 | 1.256 | 0.220 |
| C | 2.377* | 7.7934 | 0.000 | ECT(−) | − 0.3323* | − 5.485 | 0.000 |
| Diagnostic tests | |||||||
| | 0.99 | ||||||
| Adj | 0.99 | ||||||
| DW statistics | 2.28 | ||||||
| | 625.7 [0.000] | ||||||
| J-B normality | 0.009 [0.995] | ||||||
| | 0.807 [0.457] | ||||||
| | 0.112 [0.739] | ||||||
| | 2.683 [0.113] | ||||||
Note: *, and ** mirror 1% and 5% level of significance. aDY is a dummy variable included for a break in CCO2
Fig. 2CUSUM
Fig. 3CUSUMSQ
Long-run asymmetries (WALD test)
| Variables | |
|---|---|
| GDP | 19.5374* [0.0002] |
| REN | 11.9595* [0.0019] |
| TI | 1.8399 [0.1866] |
Note: * indicates 1% significance level
Asymmetric causality test
| Path of causality | W.stat | CV (1%) | CV (5%) | CV (10%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GDP+➔ | 1.858 | 12.031 | 7.317 | 4.902 |
| GDP−➔ | 0.703 | 7.431 | 4.580 | 2.965 |
| 0.385 | 11.244 | 5.083 | 3.296 | |
| 0.003 | 20.467 | 4.443 | 2.387 | |
| 3.718*** | 14.150 | 5.582 | 3.453 | |
| REN−➔ | 0.682 | 12.724 | 5.034 | 3.220 |
| 0.273 | 10.859 | 5.068 | 3.275 | |
| 0.002 | 8.716 | 4.071 | 2.850 | |
| TI+➔ | 0.250 | 10.337 | 5.308 | 3.246 |
| TI−➔ | 11.292* | 9.238 | 4.922 | 3.360 |
| 0.068 | 13.827 | 5.559 | 3.979 | |
| 1.114 | 9.420 | 4.535 | 3.051 | |
| GDP+➔ REN+ | 0.985 | 9.371 | 4.772 | 3.270 |
| GDP−➔ REN− | 0.079 | 13.856 | 4.873 | 2.198 |
| REN+➔ GDP+ | 0.652 | 10.854 | 5.046 | 3.233 |
| REN−➔ GDP− | 0.862 | 10.637 | 4.461 | 2.485 |
| GDP+➔ TI+ | 0.216 | 10.890 | 5.112 | 3.400 |
| GDP−➔ TI− | 6.065** | 44.598 | 5.436 | 3.251 |
| TI+➔ GDP+ | 0.422 | 9.022 | 4.893 | 3.132 |
| TI−➔ GDP− | 0.007 | 103.345 | 3.792 | 1.888 |
| TI+➔ REN+ | 0.003 | 11.711 | 5.309 | 3.509 |
| TI− ➔ REN− | 0.157 | 9.016 | 5.192 | 2.963 |
| REN+➔ TI+ | 2.233 | 11.746 | 4.876 | 3.091 |
| REN−➔ TI− | 0.002 | 14.649 | 5.361 | 3.252 |
Note: Significance level of 1%, 5%, and 10% is depicted *, **, and ***
Fig. 4Multiplier for GDP
Fig. 5Multiplier for REN
Fig. 6Multiplier for TI