4.5 Article

Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Case of Central Europe

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 14, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en14123415

关键词

environmental Kuznets curve; CO2 emissions; environmental degradation; ARDL; time series; Central Europe

资金

  1. John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin [1/6-20-20-05-0501-0002-0431]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that energy consumption leads to increased CO2 emissions in Central European countries, with Poland being the only country that confirmed the EKC hypothesis. The long-run elasticity values vary between 1.5 and 2.0 in the nine countries, with Estonia showing exceptionally low long-run elasticity at 0.49.
The rapid economic growth observed in Central European countries in the last thirty years has been the result of profound political changes and economic liberalization. This growth is partly connected with reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. However, the problem of CO2 emissions seems to remain unresolved. The aim of this paper is to test whether the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis holds true for Central European countries in an annual sample data that covers 1995-2016 in most countries. We examine cointegration by applying the Autoregressive Distributed Lag bound testing. This is the first study examining the relationship between CO2 emissions and economic growth in individual Central European countries from a long-run perspective, which allows the results to be compared. We confirmed the cointegration, but our estimates confirmed the EKC hypothesis only in Poland. It should also be noted that in all nine countries, energy consumption leads to increased CO2 emissions. The long-run elasticity ranges between 1.5 in Bulgaria and 2.0 in Croatia. We observed exceptionally low long-run elasticity in Estonia (0.49). Our findings suggest that to solve the environmental degradation problem in Central Europe, it is necessary to individualize the policies implemented in the European Union.

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

4.5
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