4.8 Article

Can Fintech development pave the way for a transition towards low-carbon economy: A global perspective

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121278

关键词

Fintech; Low-carbon economy; Greenhouse gas emissions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, environmentalists have expressed concerns about the excessive use of electricity, especially in cryptocurrency mining, prompting regulators and stakeholders to reassess the costs and benefits of technological development in Fintech and its impact on the environment. This study found that Fintech development can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the inclusion of appropriate control variables, even after considering the potential endogeneity of Fintech development using 2SLS and GMM estimations.
In the recent years, the concerns raised by environmentalists, over the excessive usage of electricity, particularly in the mining of cryptocurrencies, have caught the attention of the community at large. In this regard, regulators and stakeholders have been reevaluating the costs and benefits of technological development in general, as well as in Fintech, specifically targeting their efforts towards the restoration of the environment. Considering that technology has long been perceived as dual edged sword for the environment, this would be the appropriate time to assess its true role in the environmental improvement, or rather, even deterioration. Therefore, this study attempts to address the question of whether the Fintech development is helping economies towards a smooth transition towards a lower level of carbon and greenhouse gasses emissions. Our results in this aspect are highly encouraging, and confirm that Fintech development can in fact help to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, after the inclusion of appropriate control variables. Moreover, these results are robust even after the incorporation of the potential endogeneity of Fintech development, by the usage of 2SLS and GMM estimations.

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

4.8
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