| Literature DB >> 34008064 |
Abdulrasheed Zakari1,2, Festus Fatai Adedoyin3, Festus Victor Bekun4.
Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the impact of energy use and economic policy uncertainties on the environment. To achieve this objective, we use the pooled mean group-autoregressive distributed lag methodology (PMG-ARDL) and Dumitrescu and Hurlin causality test on 22 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries between 1985 and 2017. The PMG-ARDL estimation shows that energy use and economic policy uncertainties have a positive relationship with carbon dioxide emission (CO2) emission, while a negative relationship is confirmed between renewable and CO2 emissions in the long run. The short-run estimation shows a positive relationship between energy use, real gross domestic product, and per capita on CO2 emissions. The Dumitrescu and Hurlin causality results highlight a unidirectional running from real GDP and GDP per capita square to CO2 emissions. Furthermore, one-way causality exists between CO2 emissions to economic policy uncertainties. These results have policy implications on the macroeconomy which are discussed in detail in the concluding section.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 emissions. Environmental sustainability; Economic policy uncertainties; Energy consumption; OECD countries
Year: 2021 PMID: 34008064 PMCID: PMC8130785 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-14463-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Summary statistics (1985–2017)
| Variables | OBS | Mean | Std. Dev | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 | 717 | 2.1433 | 0.7365 | 0.2726 | 3.7679 |
| ENU | 717 | 1.8260 | 0.6902 | 0.1695 | 3.3644 |
| EPU | 717 | −1.4513 | 0.4041 | −3.3685 | −0.5199 |
| EPU*ENU | 717 | −2.6249 | 1.2284 | −7.7627 | −0.2798 |
| RGDP | 717 | 11.7159 | 0.7049 | 9.8467 | 13.2393 |
| RGDP2 | 717 | 4.5041 | 0.2562 | 3.6719 | 5.0491 |
Correlation matrix
| CO2 | RGDP | RGDP2 | EPU | ENU | EPU*ENU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO2 | 1.0000 | |||||
| RGDP | 0.9654*** | 1.0000 | ||||
| RGDP2 | −0.1031*** | 0.0513 | 1.0000 | |||
| EPU | 0.0664** | 0.1194*** | 0.1263 | 1.0000 | ||
| ENU | 0.9753* | 0.9733*** | −0.0365 | 0.0906*** | 1.0000 | |
| EPU*ENU | −0.7582 | −0.7263 | 0.0891 | 0.5309 | −0.7669 | 1.0000 |
Notes: The unconditional correlation was estimated using “natural log” data; ***, **, and * show a level of significance 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively
Cross-sectional dependency result
| Test | Statistic | Prob. |
|---|---|---|
| Pesaran’s test of cross-sectional independence | 2.189 | 0.0286** |
Note. Null hypothesis: cross-sectional independence (CD ∼ (0.1). Prob
Results of unit root tests
| Test | IPS | |
|---|---|---|
| Variable | Level | First different |
| CO2 | −1.846 | −5.306*** |
| RGDP | −2.143 | −3.430*** |
| RGDP2 | −2.167 | −3.465*** |
| EPU | −3.670*** | −6.114*** |
| ENU | −1.927 | −5.393*** |
| EPU*ENU | −3.470*** | −5.983*** |
Notes: CIPS (Pesaran, 2007); Methodology; *** and ** show the rejection of the null hypothesis, at 1% and 5% significance levels, respectively
Results of Pedroni and Kao cointegration tests
| Statistic | Statistic | Prob |
|---|---|---|
| Pedroni cointegration test | ||
| Panel v-statistic | −0.1296 | 0.3561 |
| Panel Rho-statistic | 0.1125 | 0.4804 |
| Panel PP-statistic | −3.49 | 0.0000*** |
| Panel ADF-statistic | −4.35 | 0.0050*** |
| Group Rho-statistic | 1.487 | 0.8541 |
| Group PP-statistic | −4.0118 | 0.0289*** |
| Group ADF-statistic | −1.368 | 0.0113*** |
| Kao cointegration test | ||
| t-Stat | Prob. | |
| ADF | 2.6040 | 0.0181*** |
Note: Pedroni (2004, 1999). *** and ** represent a statistical rejection level of the null of no cointegration at a 1% significance level, respectively
Result of PMG-ARDL (1,1,1,1,1)
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Short run | |||
| ECT (−1) | −0.1137*** | −0.0960*** | −0.0759* |
| ENU | 0.7277*** | 0.7513*** | 0.7513*** |
| RGDP | 0.2482*** | −0.2267 | |
| RGDP2 | 0.2368** | 0.4823 | |
| EPU | 0.0003 | 0.0011 | 0.0608 |
| EPU*ENU | 0.0382 | ||
| Long run | |||
| ENU | 1.1843*** | 1.3455*** | 0.8559*** |
| RGDP | −0.2023*** | 0.4469*** | |
| RGDP2 | −0.3640*** | −0.7887*** | |
| EPU | 0.0199** | 0.0142* | −0.0208 |
| EPU*ENU | 0.0094 | ||
Notes: ***, **, and * show the rejection of the null hypothesis at 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively
Result of FMOLS
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ENU | 1.0380*** | 1.0327*** | 1.0196*** |
| RGDP | −0.1842*** | −0.9734*** | |
| EPU | −0.0126*** | −0.0113*** | −0.1880* |
| RGDP2 | −0.2056*** | 1.0548*** | |
| EPU*ENU | 0.0583 |
Results of the Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) panel causality
| Null hypothesis | W-Sat. | P-value | Causality flow |
|---|---|---|---|
| ENU ≠ > CO2 | 3.8054*** | 0.0011 | ENU ↔ CO2 |
| CO2 ≠ > ENU | 3.5114** | 0.0074 | |
| RGDP ≠ > CO2 | 4.1180*** | 0.0001 | RGDP → CO2 |
| CO2 ≠ > ENU | 2.3282 | 0.7477 | |
| RGDP2 ≠ > CO2 | 3.9506*** | 0.0004 | RGDP2 ↔ CO2 |
| CO2 ≠ > RGDP2 | 2.8619* | 0.1662 | |
| EPU ≠ > CO2 | 2.6813 | 0.3100 | CO2 → EPU |
| CO2 ≠ > EPU | 2.6813*** | 0.0092 | |
| RGDP2 ≠ > ENU | 3.8895*** | 0.0006 | RGDP2 ↔ ENU |
| ENU ≠ > RGDP2 | 2.9321* | 0.1274 | |
| EPU ≠ > ENU | 2.3359 | 0.7415 | ENU → EPU |
| ENU ≠ > EPU | 2.8444* | 0.1805 | |
| EPU ≠ > RGDP | 1.6005 | 0.2584 | RGDP → EPU |
| RGDP ≠ > EPU | 3.2182** | 0.0374 | |
| EPU ≠ > RGDP2 | 1.6345 | 0.2879 | RGDP2 → EPU |
| RGDP2 ≠ > EPU | 3.1051** | 0.0634 |
Notes: ***, **, and * show the rejection of the null hypothesis at 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels, respectively