Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Testing the pollution haven hypothesis on the pathway of sustainable development: Accounting the role of nuclear energy consumption

  • Danish, Danish (School of Economics and Trade, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies) ;
  • Ud-Din Khan, Salah (Sustainable Energy Technologies (SET) Center, College of Engineering, King Saud University) ;
  • Ahmad, Ashfaq (Department of Chemistry, College of Science, King Saud University)
  • Received : 2020.12.10
  • Accepted : 2021.02.09
  • Published : 2021.08.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The environmental effects of China's nuclear energy consumption in a dynamic framework of the pollution haven hypothesis are examined. This study uses a dynamic autoregressive distributed lag simulation approach. Empirical evidence confirms that the pollution haven hypothesis does not exist for China; i.e., foreign direct investment plays a promising role in influencing environmental outcomes. Furthermore, empirical results concluded positive contribution of nuclear energy in pollution mitigation. From the results it is expected that encouraging foreign investment to increase generation of nuclear energy would benefit environmental quality by reducing CO2 emissions.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors express their gratitude to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through research grant number RG-1441-384.

References

  1. U.K. Pata, A.E. Caglar, Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break, Energy (2020) 119220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119220.
  2. V. Yilanci, S. Bozoklu, M.S. Gorus, Are BRICS countries pollution havens? Evidence from a bootstrap ARDL bounds testing approach with a Fourier function, Sustain. Cities Soc. 55 (2020) 102035, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102035.
  3. B.R. Copeland, M.S. Taylor, North-south trade and the environment author ( s ): brian R . Copeland and M . Scott taylor, Q. J. Econ. 109 (1994) 755-787. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118421. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118421
  4. S.R. Paramati, D. Mo, R. Gupta, The effects of stock market growth and renewable energy use on CO 2 emissions: evidence from G20 countries, Energy Econ. 66 (2017) 360-371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.06.025.
  5. B. Sung, W.Y. Song, S. Do Park, How foreign direct investment affects CO2 emission levels in the Chinese manufacturing industry: evidence from panel data, Econ. Syst. 42 (2018) 320-331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2017.06.002.
  6. WDI, World bank, World development indicator. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/, 2018.
  7. S.A. Sarkodie, S. Adams, P.A. Owusu, T. Leirvik, I. Ozturk, Mitigating degradation and emissions in China: the role of environmental sustainability, human capital and renewable energy, Sci. Total Environ. 719 (2020) 137530, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137530.
  8. B. Lin, B. Xu, How does fossil energy abundance affect China ' s economic growth and CO 2 emissions ? Sci. Total Environ. 719 (2020) 137503, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137503.
  9. I.A. Mensah, M. Sun, C. Gao, A.Y. Omari-Sasu, D. Zhu, B.C. Ampimah, A. Quarcoo, Analysis on the nexus of economic growth, fossil fuel energy consumption, CO2 emissions and oil price in Africa based on a PMG panel ARDL approach, J. Clean. Prod. 228 (2019) 161-174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.281.
  10. S.A. Solarin, M.O. Bello, Energy innovations and environmental sustainability in the U . S .: the roles of immigration and economic expansion using a maximum likelihood method, Energy Innov. Environ. Sustain. U.S. Roles Immigr. Econ. Expans. Using a Maximum Likelihood Method. (2019) 135594, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135594.
  11. L.S. Lau, C.K. Choong, C.F. Ng, F.M. Liew, S.L. Ching, Is nuclear energy clean? Revisit of Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in OECD countries, Econ. Modell. 77 (2019) 12-20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.09.015.
  12. N. Mahmood, Danish, Z. Wang, B. Zhang, The role of nuclear energy in the correction of environmental pollution: evidence from Pakistan, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (2020) 1327-1333, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.11.027.
  13. J. Baek, Do nuclear and renewable energy improve the environment? Empirical evidence from the United States, Ecol. Indicat. 66 (2016) 352-356, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.059.
  14. R. Ulucak Danish, How do environmental technologies affect green growth? Evidence from BRICS economies, Sci. Total Environ. 712 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136504.
  15. K. Saidi, M. Ben Mbarek, Nuclear energy, renewable energy, CO2 emissions, and economic growth for nine developed countries: evidence from panel Granger causality tests, Prog. Nucl. Energy 88 (2016) 364-374, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PNUCENE.2016.01.018.
  16. M. Luqman, N. Ahmad, K. Bakhsh, Nuclear Energy , Renewable Energy and Economic Growth in Pakistan: Evidence from Non-linear Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model, vol. 139, 2019.
  17. S.T. Hassan, Salah-Ud-Din khan Danish, M. Awais Baloch, Z.H. Tarar, Is nuclear energy a better alternative for mitigating CO2 emissions in BRICS countries? An empirical analysis, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (2020) 2969-2974, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.05.016.
  18. S.A. Sarkodie, S. Adams, Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa, Sci. Total Environ. 643 (2018) 1590-1601, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.320.
  19. J. Baek, A panel cointegration analysis of CO2 emissions, nuclear energy and income in major nuclear generating countries, Appl. Energy 145 (2015) 133-138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.074.
  20. S.A. Solarin, U. Al-Mulali, I. Musah, I. Ozturk, Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation, Energy 124 (2017) 706-719, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.089.
  21. M. Ben Jebli, S. Ben Youssef, I. Ozturk, Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries, Ecol. Indicat. 60 (2016) 824-831, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031.
  22. I. Ozturk, A. Acaravci, The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey, Energy Econ. 36 (2013) 262-267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.025.
  23. Danish, B. Wang, Z. Wang, Imported technology and CO2emission in China: collecting evidence through bound testing and VECM approach, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 4204-4214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.11.002.
  24. R. Ulucak, Danish, B. Ozcan, Relationship between energy consumption and environmental sustainability in OECD countries : the role of natural resources rents, Res. Pol. 69 (2020) 101803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101803.
  25. J. Baek, D. Pride, On the income-nuclear energy-CO2 emissions nexus revisited, Energy Econ. 43 (2014) 6-10, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.01.015.
  26. H. Ishida, Can nuclear energy contribute to the transition toward a low-carbon economy? The Japanese case, Int. J. Energy Econ. Pol. 8 (2018) 62-68.
  27. K. Dong, R. Sun, H. Jiang, X. Zeng, CO2 emissions, economic growth, and the environmental Kuznets curve in China: what roles can nuclear energy and renewable energy play? J. Clean. Prod. 196 (2018) 51-63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.271.
  28. A.C. Marques, J.A. Fuinhas, A.R. Nunes, Electricity generation mix and economic growth: what role is being played by nuclear sources and carbon dioxide emissions in France? Energy Pol. 92 (2016) 7-19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.027.
  29. H. Iwata, K. Okada, S. Samreth, Empirical study on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO 2 in France : the role of nuclear energy, Energy Pol. 38 (2010) 4057-4063, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.031.
  30. H. Iwata, K. Okada, S. Samreth, Empirical study on the determinants of CO2 emissions: evidence from OECD countries, Appl. Econ. 44 (2012) 3513-3519, https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2011.577023.
  31. J. Baek, H.S. Kim, Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical evidence from Korea, Energy Econ. 36 (2013) 744-749, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.11.020.
  32. G. Akhmat, K. Zaman, T. Shukui, F. Sajjad, M.A. Khan, M.Z. Khan, The challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution through energy sources: evidence from a panel of developed countries, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21 (2014) 7425-7435, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-2693-2.
  33. H. Xie, Y. Yu, W. Wang, Y. Liu, The substitutability of non-fossil energy, potential carbon emission reduction and energy shadow prices in China, Energy Pol. 107 (2017) 63-71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.037.
  34. S. Lee, M. Kim, J. Lee, Analyzing the impact of nuclear power on CO2 emissions, Sustain. Times 9 (2017) 1-13, https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081428.
  35. A. Alam, Nuclear energy, CO2 emissions and economic growth: the case of developing and developed countries, J. Econ. Stud. 40 (2013) 822-834, https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-04-2012-0044.
  36. M. Jaforullah, A. King, Does the use of renewable energy sources mitigate CO2 emissions? A reassessment of the US evidence, Energy Econ. 49 (2014) 711-717, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.006.
  37. U. Al-Mulali, Investigating the impact of nuclear energy consumption on GDP growth and CO2 emission: a panel data analysis, Prog. Nucl. Energy 73 (2014) 172-178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.02.002.
  38. M. Mbarek, K. Saidi, M. Amamri, The relationship between pollutant emissions, renewable energy, nuclear energy and GDP: empirical evidence from 18 developed and developing countries, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 37 (2018) 597-615, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2017.1332060.
  39. T. Jin, J. Kim, What is better for mitigating carbon emissions e renewable energy or nuclear energy? A panel data analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 91 (2018) 464-471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.022.
  40. S. Jordan, A.Q. Philips, Cointegration testing and dynamic simulations of autoregressive distributed lag models, STATA J. 18 (2018) 902-923, https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1801800409.
  41. M.H. Pesaran, Y. Shin, R.J. Smith, Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships, J. Appl. Econom. 16 (2001) 289-326, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616.
  42. S. Kripfganz, D.C. Schneider, Response Surface Regressions for Critical Value Bounds and Approximate P-Values in Equilibrium Correction Models, 2018.
  43. S.T. Hassan, Danish, S.U.D. Khan, E. Xia, H. Fatima, Role of institutions in correcting environmental pollution: an empirical investigation, Sustain. Cities Soc. 53 (2020) 101901, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101901.
  44. R. Ulucak Danish, Linking biomass energy and CO2 emissions in China using dynamic Autoregressive-Distributed Lag simulations, J. Clean. Prod. (2019) 119533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119533.
  45. F.V. Bekun, F. Emir, S.A. Sarkodie, Another look at the relationship between energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and economic growth in South Africa, Sci. Total Environ. 655 (2019) 759-765, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.271.
  46. R. Ulucak Danish, S. Khan, Relationship between energy intensity and CO2 emissions: does economic policy matter? Sustain. Dev. 28 (2020) 1457-1464, https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2098.
  47. B. Danish, Wang, Z. Wang, Imported technology and CO2 emission in China: collecting evidence through bound testing and VECM approach, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 4204-4214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.11.002.
  48. M.A. Baloch, Q. Yiting Danish, Does energy innovation play a role in achieving sustainable development goals in BRICS countries? Environ. Technol. (2021) 1-56, https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2021.1874542.
  49. M.A. Baloch, I. Ozturk, F.V. Bekun, D. Khan, Modeling the dynamic linkage between financial development, energy innovation, and environmental quality: does globalization matter? Bus. Strat. Environ. (2020) 2615, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2615, bse.
  50. R. Ulucak Danish, B. Ozcan, An empirical investigation of nuclear energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in India: bridging IPAT and EKC hypotheses, Nucl. Eng. Technol. (2020) 104743, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.12.008.

Cited by

  1. An empirical investigation of nuclear energy and environmental pollution nexus in India: fresh evidence using NARDL approach vol.28, pp.39, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14365-9