4.7 Article

Modelling coal rent, economic growth and CO2 emissions: Does regulatory quality matter in BRICS economies?

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 710, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136284

关键词

CO2 emissions; Coal rents; Energy consumption; BRICS; Regulatory quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Global warming issues have been on the front burner of most economies and Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa countries (BRICS) are no exception. The region has joined the rest of the world on the global strides to mitigate against global warming in terms of decoupling carbon dioxide emissions fiurn economic growth. This is the motivation for the present study to consider the interaction between economic growth, pollutant emissions, coal rent while accounting for the role of other covaliates like regulatory quality. The study is conducted in a balanced panel setting over annual frequency data from 1990 to 2014. To this end, Pooled mean group with dynamic autoregressive distributed lag [PMG-ARDL (1,1,1,1,1)] was conducted to explore the coal-rents-energy nexus. The empirical study shows that for BRICS countries, unlike coal consumption, coal rents have a significant but negative impact on CO2 emissions. Also, in contrast to expectation, regulations on coal rents in form of carbon damage costs have a significant but positive impact on CO2 emissions. This suggest that in line with the drive for growth by BRICS countries, and to achieve a reduction in the levels of CO2 emissions for green growth and sustainable development, more stringent environmental-energy-related regulations are inevitable. Thus, for policymakers it is vital to reinforce the use of stringent regulations as these economies opens up to more use of coal energy. However, the need to shill, the energy mix in BRICS to renewables is pertinent in a time of global environmental consciousness for cleaner energy sources and environmentally friendly ecosystem. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据