| Literature DB >> 35742348 |
Youxue Jiang1, Zakia Batool2, Syed Muhammad Faraz Raza3,4, Mohammad Haseeb3,4, Sajjad Ali5, Syed Zain Ul Abidin3,4.
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the asymmetric relation between renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in China using the STIRPAT-Kaya-EKC framework. To delve into the asymmetric effect of renewable energy consumption on the environment, the non-linear ARDL model is used. The results of this study confirm the asymmetric impact of renewable energy on the environment in the long run as well as in the short run. However, the negative shocks to renewable energy have a greater detrimental influence on the environment than the benign effect due to the positive shock to renewable energy. Population growth affects the environment in the short run, whereas technology only affects environment quality in the long run. Moreover, the study supports the EKC theory in China. This research emphasizes that the administration can improve the economy's lifespan by allocating substantial funds to establish legislation to maintain a clean environment by subsidizing renewable energy infrastructure and research and innovations for low-carbon projects.Entities:
Keywords: CO2 emissions; EKC; GDP growth; NARDL; population; renewable energy; technology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35742348 PMCID: PMC9222283 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19127100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1CO2 Emissions in China (1990–2020).
Figure 2Economic Growth in China (1990–2020).
Figure 3Renewable Energy Consumption in China (1990–2020).
Descriptive Statistics.
| ED | REC | GDP | T | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MEAN | 4.628 | 21.144 | 27,631.479 | 363,389.1 | 1.29 × 109 |
| S.D. | 2.147 | 8.679 | 19,062.425 | 481,685.4 | 81,136,228 |
| MIN | 1.914 | 11.338 | 5636.079 | 5832 | 1.14 × 109 |
| MAX | 7.538 | 34.083 | 64,581.412 | 1,393,815 | 1.41 × 109 |
| SKEW | 0.134 | 0.212 | 0.618 | 1.173 | −0.343 |
| KURT | 1.228 | 1.165 | 2.010 | 2.807 | 2.088 |
Results of Unit Root Tests.
| Variable | Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test | Phillips-Perron Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | 1st Difference | Level | 1st Difference | |
| ED | −2.012 | −3.328 * | −1.447 | −3.531 ** |
| GDP | −2.857 | −4.529 *** | −2.034 | −3.498 ** |
| GDP2 | −1.836 | −3.894 ** | −1.723 | −3.277 * |
| P | −0.463 | −4.552 *** | −0.439 | −4.430 *** |
| T | −1.264 | −3.291 * | 0.012 | −3.016 * |
| RE | −0.344 | −4.967 *** | −0.773 | −5.309 *** |
Note: *, **, and *** show statistical significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels.
Result of NARDL Bound Test.
| F-Statistics (PSS) | 5.792 | |
|---|---|---|
| Critical-Values | ||
| Significance Levels | I (0) | I (1) |
| 10% | 2.977 | 4.260 |
| 5% | 3.576 | 5.065 |
| 1% | 5.046 | 6.930 |
Note: Narayan [48] is the source to acquire critical values for the bound test in accordance with k = 6 and N = 30 with no trend and unrestricted intercept.
Short-run and Long-run Asymmetry Statistics.
| Short-Run Asymmetry | ||
|---|---|---|
| Variable | F-Statistic | |
| RE | 9.764 *** | 0.008 |
|
| ||
| RE | 17.098 *** | 0.000 |
Note: *** shows that values are meaningful at a 1% significance level.
The Short-run and Long-run Estimates of the NARDL Model.
| Dependent Variable: ED | ||
|---|---|---|
| Variables | Coefficient Value | |
|
| ||
| D (RE_NEG) | −0.660 | 0.118 |
| D (RE_NEG (−1)) | 0.007 | 0.192 |
| D (RE_NEG (−2)) | 1.291 *** | 0.016 |
| D (RE_POS) | −0.283 | 0.355 |
| D (RE_POS (−1)) | −0.506 * | 0.092 |
| D (GDP) | 2.155 *** | 0.001 |
| D (GDP2) | −1.893 *** | 0.008 |
| D (P) | 0.003 | 0.235 |
| D (P (−1)) | 0.722 * | 0.067 |
| D (ED) | 0.4776 ** | 0.034 |
| ECT | −0.548 ** | 0.017 |
| Constant | 0.0118 | 0.776 |
|
| ||
| RE_NEG | 2.897 ** | 0.041 |
| RE_POS | −0.762 * | 0.081 |
| GDP | 2.314 *** | 0.000 |
| GDP2 | −0.809 * | 0.086 |
| P | 0.068 | 0.215 |
| T | −1.205 ** | 0.013 |
|
| ||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.687 | |
| F-Stat ( | 18.390 *** (0.000) | |
| Portmanteau test (10) | 1.347 (0.265) | |
| JB Stat | 3.722 (0.144) | |
| Ramsey RESET | 1.794 (0.187) | |
Note: *, **, and *** illustrate significance correspondingly at 10%, 5%, and 1%.
Estimates of QARDL Model.
| Parameters | Quantile v = 0.25 | Quantile v = 0.50 | Quantile v = 0.75 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | Coefficient | Coefficient | ||||
|
| 0.113 | 0.746 | 0.299 | 0.289 | 0.099 | 0.762 |
|
| −0.913 *** | 0.000 | −1.046 *** | 0.000 | −0.990 *** | 0.000 |
|
| 0.014 | 0.842 | 0.031 | 0.357 | 0.000 | 0.980 |
|
| −0.692 *** | 0.000 | −0.526 *** | 0.000 | −0.535 *** | 0.001 |
|
| −1.328 | 0.681 | −4.155 | 0.149 | −4.227 | 0.144 |
Note: *** indicates the significance level at 1 percent.
Figure 4CUSUM.
Figure 5CUSUM of Squares.