4.6 Article

Revisiting EKC hypothesis in context of renewable energy, human development and moderating role of technological innovations in E-7 countries?

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1077658

关键词

environmental kuznets curve; human development; renewable energy; economic growth; E-7 economies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the development of emerging industrialized economies such as Brazil, China, and India in terms of environmental sustainability. The findings show the existence of an environmental Kuznets curve phenomenon as income expands in these economies. Technological modernization, renewable energy use, and human development are identified as solutions for reducing carbon emissions.
The present study examines the potential of the traditional environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) with an extension for growing industrialized economies, including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, Mexico and Turkey (E-7 economies) spanning from 1995 to 2019. Since the E-7 economies are still in a growing phase, this study adds to the EKC phenomenon by taking into description human development, the use of renewable energy, and technological innovations for investigation. Second-generational panel econometrics techniques, such as cross-sectional augmented autoregressive distributive lag (CS-ARDL), Augmented Mean Group (AMG), and Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality tests, form the basis of the experimental framework's design. The study confirms the existence of the EKC phenomena in E-7 economies, where income expansion is prioritized in relation to environmental sustainability. The study's findings demonstrate that technological modernization helps to mitigate pollution level. Therefore, human development, technological innovation, and the use of renewable energy are held up as the panacea for reducing carbon emissions over the time period under study. Finally, some further policy suggestions are provided.

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

4.6
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