| Literature DB >> 35955115 |
Minglin Wang1, Shaolong Zeng1, Yunzhe Wang1, Zhengxia He1.
Abstract
Increasingly serious energy security and environmental problems have become the main constraints to China's economic development. Therefore, it is critical to explore the threshold effect of clean energy use on China's economic growth. Based on the panel data of 30 Chinese provinces from 2000 to 2019 and using energy intensity (EI) as the threshold variable, this study adopts a panel threshold model to explore the threshold effect of clean energy development on the economy. Empirical results indicate that clean energy has a significant threshold effect on economic development, with the threshold value of EI being 0.7655. When EI is less than 0.7655, clean energy development has a more positive effect on economic growth. When the EI exceeds 0.7655, the impact is significantly positive but with a smaller coefficient. EI weakens the role of clean energy development in promoting economic growth. After 2015, the EI of most provinces in the sample was below the threshold value, which indicates that in recent years, with the economic cost of developing clean energy decreasing, the role of clean energy development in promoting the economy has become more significant. Therefore, we propose policy implications to better promote the effect of clean energy development in promoting economic growth.Entities:
Keywords: clean energy; economic growth; panel threshold model; substitution effect; threshold effects
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35955115 PMCID: PMC9367969 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159757
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Descriptive statistics of variables.
| Variable | Mean | Std. Dev. | Minimum | Maximum | Observations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnY | 9.907 | 0.736 | 7.959 | 11.750 | 600 |
| lnCE | 4.333 | 2.554 | −4.605 | 8.136 | 600 |
| lnK | 2.853 | 1.188 | 1.347 | 8.725 | 600 |
| lnL | 9.248 | 1.349 | 5.975 | 13.828 | 600 |
| lnURB | 3.838 | 0.358 | 2.671 | 4.495 | 600 |
| lnPAT | 8.875 | 1.760 | 3.466 | 13.180 | 600 |
| lnInd | 3.480 | 0.575 | 0.446 | 5.406 | 600 |
| T | 3.176 | 0.687 | 0.989 | 4.956 | 600 |
| EI | 1.231 | 0.833 | 0.208 | 7.962 | 600 |
Threshold effect test results.
| Threshold Variable | Threshold Estimators | F-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EI | 0.7655 ** | 41.94 | 0.0038 |
Note: ** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.05 significance level.
Number of provinces in different EI intervals, 2000–2019.
| Threshold Intervals | 2000 | 2005 | 2010 | 2015 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EI ≤ γ | 0 | 0 | 9 | 22 | 21 |
| EI ≥ γ | 30 | 30 | 21 | 8 | 9 |
Estimation results of the panel threshold model.
| Variable | Coef. | t |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.038 *** | 2.96 |
|
| 0.021 * | 1.90 |
| lnK | 0.071 ** | 2.64 |
| lnL | 0.184 *** | 8.74 |
| lnPAT | 0.095 *** | 4.67 |
| lnURB | 0.319 *** | 3.38 |
| lnIndu | 0.180 *** | 2.89 |
| T | 0.355 *** | 6.65 |
| Constant | 4.052 *** | 12.14 |
| Observations | 600 | / |
Notes: *** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.01 significance level. ** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.05 significance level. * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.1 significance level.
Regression results of 27 provinces after excluding special samples.
| Variable | Coef. | t-Statistic |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.036 *** | 3.03 |
|
| 0.018 * | 1.72 |
| lnK | 0.061 ** | 2.34 |
| lnL | 0.189 *** | 10.20 |
| lnPAT | 0.092 *** | 4.83 |
| lnURB | 0.395 *** | 4.86 |
| lnIndu | 0.180 *** | 2.81 |
| T | 0.333 *** | 6.40 |
| Constant | 3.872 *** | 11.92 |
| Observations | 540 | / |
Notes: *** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.01 significance level. ** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.05 significance level. * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.1 significance level.
Regression results of 24 provinces after excluding special samples.
| Variable | Coefficient | t-Statistic |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.038 *** | 3.21 |
|
| 0.019 * | 1.76 |
| lnK | 0.057 ** | 2.09 |
| lnL | 0.190 *** | 9.66 |
| lnPAT | 0.088 *** | 4.79 |
| lnURB | 0.374 *** | 3.87 |
| lnIndu | 0.174 ** | 2.70 |
| T | 0.350 *** | 6.04 |
| Constant | 3.953 *** | 10.72 |
| Observations | 480 | / |
Notes: *** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.01 significance level. ** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.05 significance level. * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.1 significance level.
Robustness Testing Results using EI2 as the threshold variable.
| Variable | Coefficient | t-Statistic |
|---|---|---|
|
| 0.039 ** | 3.45 |
|
| 0.018 * | 1.72 |
| lnK | 0.065 ** | 2.55 |
| lnL | 0.184 *** | 10.38 |
| lnPAT | 0.096 *** | 5.11 |
| lnURB | 0.352 *** | 4.07 |
| lnIndu | 0.186 *** | 3.09 |
| T | 0.340 *** | 6.34 |
| Constant | 3.967 *** | 12.80 |
| Observations | 600 | / |
Notes: *** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.01 significance level. ** denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.05 significance level. * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at a 0.1 significance level.