Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: The case of Arctic countries

Energy Economics

Volumn 50, Issue , 2015, Pages 13-17

  Baek, Jungho ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS   (United States)

Author keywords

Arctic; ARDL; EKC; Energy consumption; Income

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS;

ARCTIC; ARDL; AUTO-REGRESSIVE; BENEFICIAL EFFECTS; ECONOMIC GROWTHS; ENVIRONMENTAL KUZNETS CURVES; INCOME; TIME-SERIES DATA;

ENERGY UTILIZATION;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON EMISSION; COINTEGRATION ANALYSIS; ECONOMETRICS; ECONOMIC GROWTH; ENERGY MARKET; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; KUZNETS CURVE; NUMERICAL MODEL; TIME SERIES;

ARCTIC;

EID: 84929629663     PISSN: 01409883     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.010     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Baek J., Kim H.S. Trade liberalization, economic growth, energy consumption and the environment: time series evidence from G-20 countries. J. East Asia Econ. Integr. 2011, 15:3-32.
2. Baek J., Kim H.S. Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical evidence from Korea. Energy Econ. 2013, 36:744-749.
3. Baek J., Cho Y., Koo W.W. The environmental consequences of globalization: a country-specific time series analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:2255-2264.
4. Bahmani-Oskooee M., Nasir A.B. ARDL approach to test the productivity bias hypothesis. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2004, 8:483-488.
5. Banerjee A., Dolado J.J., Mestre R. Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-equation framework. J. Time Ser. Anal. 1998, 19:267-284.
6. Dinda S. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 49:431-455.
7. Elliot G., Rothenberg T., Stock J. Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 1996, 64:813-836.
8. Frankel J.A., Rose A.K. Is trade good or bad for the environment?: sorting out the causality. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2005, 87:85-91.
9. Grossman G., Krueger A. Environmental impacts of the North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper No. 3914 1991.
10. 2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1156-1164.
11. Harbaugh W.T., Levinson A., Wilson D.M. Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2002, 84:541-551.
12. 2 in France: the role of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 2010, 38:4057-4063.
13. 2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 2009, 37:5167-5172.
14. Johansen S. Statistical analysis of cointegration vector. J. Econ. Dyn. Control. 1988, 12:231-254.
15. Kremers J.J.M., Ericson N.R., Dolado J.J. The power of cointegration tests. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 1992, 54:325-348.
16. 2 emissions and national income - the role of energy consumption. Econ. Lett. 2005, 87:325-328.
17. Ouattara B. Foreign Aid and Fiscal Policy in SENEGAL 2004, Mimeo University of Manchester.
18. Panayotou T. Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development 1993, ILO, Geneva.
19. Pesaran M.H., Shin Y., Smith R.J. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J. Appl. Econ. 2001, 16:289-326.
20. Roberts J., Grimes P. Carbon intensity and economic development 1962-91: a brief exploration of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev. 1997, 25:191-198.
21. Shafik N., Bandyopadhyay S. Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and cross-country evidence. NBER Working Paper No. 904 1992.
22. Soytas U., Sari R. Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1667-1675.