| Annotation: | Methods. This research employs econometric modeling and panel data analysis to investigate the intricate relationship between economic growth, environmental policies, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the European Union (EU). Panel data from 27 EU countries during the period from 2008 to 2021 is used to assess the impact of various factors on GHG emissions, including per capita GDP, primary energy consumption, renewable energy share, technological development, and extra-EU trade. Results. The study reveals that there is a positive correlation between GDP per capita and emissions, suggesting that the EU has not yet reached full decoupling of GDP growth and growth in GHG emissions. Increased primary energy consumption is associated with higher emissions, while a greater proportion of renewable energy sources is linked to reduced emissions. Technological advancements are found to mitigate GHG emissions. Importantly, the research uncovers a positive relationship between extra-EU trade and emissions, indicating the pollution leakage through trade. Novelty. This study contributes to the literature by offering a comprehensive examination of the dynamics between economic growth, changes in energy consumption, technological advancement, trade patterns, and GHG emissions within the EU. A more specific international trade variable is introduced into the model – the trade balance of EU countries with the outside EU countries. It explores the concept of pollution leakage, shedding light on how changes in foreign trade may impact emissions levels. Practical Value. The findings have significant policy implications, highlighting the need for a holistic approach to environmental policymaking within the EU. The study emphasizes that while progress has been made in adopting cleaner technologies and supporting renewable energy, challenges remain, including the potential for pollution leakage through international trade. This insight underscores the importance of globally impactful environmental policies and international cooperation to address GHG emissions effectively. |
| Literature: | - 1. Paris Agreement. (2015) United Nations. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
- 2. Felbermayr, G. & Peterson, S. (2020). Economic assessment of carbon leakage and carbon border adjustment. Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union, PE 603.501. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/603501/EXPO_BRI(2020)603501_EN.pdf
- 3. Bouvier, R. A. (2004), Air Pollution and Per Capita Income: a Disaggregation of the Effects of Scale, Sectoral Composition, and Technological Change, Political Economy Research Institute, working paper series number 84, 24 p.
- 4. Cole, M. A., Neumayer, E. (2005), Environmental policy and the environmental Kuznets curve: can developing countries escape the detrimental consequences of economic growth? «International Handbook of Environmental Politics», Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, p. 298-318.
- 5. Cole, M. A. (2004), Trade, the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve: examining the linkages. «Ecological Economics», 48, p. 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.09.007
- 6. Antweiler, W., Copeland, B. R., & Taylor, M. S. (2001), Is free trade good for the environment?, “American Economic Review”, 91(4), p. 877-908. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.4.877
- 7. Grether, J. M., Mathys, N. A., de Melo, J. (2006), Unraveling the World-Wide Pollution Haven Effect, Nota di lavoro 122, Milano : Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, 29 p. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1962482
- 8. Broner, F, Bustos, P., Carvalhoy, V. M. (2012), Sources of Comparative Advantage in Polluting Industries, NBER Working Paper No. 18337, 51 p.
- 9. Kiuila, O., Wójtowicz, K., Żylicz, T., Kasek, L. (2014), Economic and environmental effects of unilateral climate actions, “Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change”, vol. 21, p. 263-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9597-9
- 10. Ederington, J., Levinson, A., Minier, J. (2004), Trade Liberalization and Pollution Havens, NBER Working Paper No. 10585, 31 p.
- 11. Esceland, G. S., Harrison, A.E.(2002), Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis, NBER Working Paper No. 8888, 39 p.
- 12. Kearsley, A., Riddle, M. (2010), A further inquiry into the Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve, «Ecological Economics», vol. 69, p. 905-919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.014
- 13. Naegele, H. and Zaklan, A. (2017) Does the EU ETS cause carbon leakage in European manufacturing? DIW Berlin Discussion Paper No. 1689 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3050323
- 14. Frankel, J. A., Rose A. K. (2002), Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality, NBER Working Paper No. 9201, 55 p. DOI:10.1162/0034653053327577
- 15. Hnatyshyn, M. (2016), Decomposition of carbon dioxide and sulphur oxides emissions intensity change in the European Union, “Ekonomia. Rynek, gospodarka, społeczeństwo”, vol. 44, s. 31−50 https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-1/15
- 16. Allard, A., Takman, J., Uddin, G.S. et al. The N-shaped environmental Kuznets curve: an empirical evaluation using a panel quantile regression approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25, 5848-5861 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0907-0
- 17. Pimonenko, T. V. (2019). Determinants of improving the efficiency of green investment management. Economic Bulletin of the National Mining University scientific journal, 65(65), 158-165. https://doi.org/10.33271/ev/65.158
|
Archive