Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 9510–9522 | Cite as

Is trade openness good for environment in South Korea? The role of non-fossil electricity consumption

Research Article
  • 70 Downloads

Abstract

The paper investigates the linkage of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, per capita real output, share of non-fossil electricity consumption, and trade openness in South Korea from 1971 to 2013. The empirical results indicate that the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) is supported by autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) test. Both short- and long-run estimates indicate that increasing non-fossil electricity consumption can mitigate environmental degradation, and increasing trade aggravates carbon dioxide emissions. By Granger causality, long-run causalities are found in both equations of CO2 emissions and trade openness, as well as exports and imports. In the short-run, evidence indicates feedback linkage between output and trade, unidirectional linkages from trade to emissions, from emissions to output, and from output to non-fossil electricity use. Therefore, South Korea should strengthen the sustainable economy, consume clean energy, and develop green trade.

Keywords

Carbon dioxide emissions Trade openness Share of non-fossil electricity consumption Environmental Kuznets curve South Korea 

References

  1. Ahmed K, Shahbaz M, Kyophilavong P (2016) Revisiting the emissions-energy-trade nexus: evidence from the newly industrializing countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(8):7676–7691.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-6018-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed K, Bhattacharya M, Shaikh Z, Ramzan M, Ozturk I (2017) Emission intensive growth and trade in the era of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) integration: an empirical investigation from ASEAN-8. J Clean Prod 154:530–540.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali W, Abdullah A, Azam M (2017) The dynamic relationship between structural change and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegrating approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(14):12723–12739.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8888-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Mulali U, Saboori B, Ozturk I (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 76:123–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alshehry AS, Belloumi M (2017) Study of the environmental Kuznets curve for transport carbon dioxide emissions in Saudi Arabia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 75:1339–1347.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Apergis N (2016) Environmental Kuznets curves: new evidence on both panel and country-level CO2 emissions. Energy Econ 54:263–271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aung TS, Saboori B, Rasoulinezhad E (2017) Economic growth and environmental pollution in Myanmar: an analysis of environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(25):20487–20501.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9567-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baek J (2015) A panel cointegration analysis of CO2 emissions, nuclear energy and income in major nuclear generating countries. Appl Energy 145:133–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ben Jebli M, Ben Youssef S (2015) The environmental Kuznets curve, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy, and trade in Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 47:173–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brini R, Amara M, Jemmali H (2017) Renewable energy consumption, international trade, oil price and economic growth inter-linkages: the case of Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 76:620–627.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown R, Durbin J, Evans J (1975) Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. J R Stat Soc 37:149–192.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2984889 Google Scholar
  12. Byun H, Lee CY (2017) Analyzing Korean consumers’ latent preferences for electricity generation sources with a hierarchical Bayesian logit model in a discrete choice experiment. Energy Policy 105:294–302.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cerdeira Bento JP, Moutinho V (2016) CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55:142–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choi Y, Liu Y, Lee H (2017) The economy impacts of Korean ETS with an emphasis on sectoral coverage based on a CGE approach. Energy Policy 109:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Danish, Zhang B, Wang B, Wang Z (2017) Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: evidence from Pakistan. J Clean Prod 156:855–864.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeJong DN, Nankervis JC, Savin NE, Whiteman CH (1992) The power problems of unit root tests in time series with autoregressive errors. J Econ 53:323–343.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(92)90090-E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Destek MA, Balli E, Manga M (2016) The relationship between CO2 emission, energy consumption, urbanization and trade openness for selected CEECs. Res World Econ 7(1):52–58.  https://doi.org/10.5430/rwe.v7n1p52 Google Scholar
  18. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74(366):427–431.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2286348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dogan E, Seker F (2016) Determinants of CO2 emissions in the European Union: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy. Renew Energy 94:429–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dogan E, Turkekul B (2016) CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(2):1203–1213.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5323-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dogan E, Seker F, Bulbul S (2015) Investigating the impacts of energy consumption, real GDP, tourism and trade on CO2 emissions by accounting for cross-sectional dependence: a panel study of OECD countries. Curr Issues Tour 3500(16):1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1119103 Google Scholar
  23. Dong K, Sun R, Hochman G (2017a) Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO2 emission? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy 141:1466–1478.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dong K, Sun R, Hochman G, Zeng X, Li H, Jiang H (2017b) Impact of natural gas consumption on CO2 emissions: panel data evidence from China’s provinces. J Clean Prod 162:400–410.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Elliott G, Rothenberg TJ, Stock JH (1996) Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 64(4):813–836.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2171846 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2):251–276.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1913236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Farhani S, Ozturk I (2015) Causal relationship between CO2 emissions, real GDP, energy consumption, financial development, trade openness, and urbanization in Tunisia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(20):15663–15676.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4767-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gozgor G, Can M (2017) Does export product quality matter for CO2 emissions? Evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(3):2866–2875.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-8070-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Natl Bur Econ Res Work Pap Ser No 3914:1–57.  https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914 Google Scholar
  30. Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37(3):1156–1164.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harris R, Sollis R (2003) Applied time series modelling and forecasting. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  32. Hasson A, Masih M (2017) Energy consumption, trade openness, economic growth, carbon dioxide emissions and electricity consumption: evidence from South Africa based on ARDL. MPRA Pap. No. 79424Google Scholar
  33. Jebli MB, Youssef SB, Ozturk I (2016) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol Indic 60:824–831.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kafle S, Parajuli R, Bhattarai S, Euh SH, Kim DH (2017) A review on energy systems and GHG emissions reduction plan and policy of the Republic of Korea: past, present, and future. Renew Sust Energ Rev 73:1123–1130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim E, Kim BHS (2016) Quantitative regional economic and environmental analysis for sustainability in Korea, New Frontier. ed. Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0300-4
  36. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45:1–28Google Scholar
  37. Le T-H, Chang Y, Park D (2016) Trade openness and environmental quality: International evidence. Energ Policy 92:45–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.030
  38. Li T, Wang Y, Zhao D (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve in China: new evidence from dynamic panel analysis. Energy Policy 91:138–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liddle B (2015) What are the carbon emissions elasticities for income and population? Bridging STIRPAT and EKC via robust heterogeneous panel estimates. Glob Environ Chang 31:62–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liddle B (2017) Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions nexus. Energy Econ 69:1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.11.004 Google Scholar
  41. Liddle B, Sadorsky P (2017) How much does increasing non-fossil fuels in electricity generation reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Appl Energy 197:212–221.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.04.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin B, Omoju OE, Nwakeze NM, Okonkwo JU, Megbowon ET (2016) Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis a sound basis for environmental policy in Africa? J Clean Prod 133:712–724.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu X, Bae J (2018) Urbanization and industrialization impact of CO2 emissions in China. J Clean Prod 172:178–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu X, Zhang S, Bae J (2017a) The impact of renewable energy and agriculture on carbon dioxide emissions: investigating the environmental Kuznets curve in four selected ASEAN countries. J Clean Prod 164:1239–1247.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liu X, Zhang S, Bae J (2017b) The nexus of renewable energy-agriculture-environment in BRICS. Appl Energy 204:489–496.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lorente DB, Álvarez-Herranz A (2016) Economic growth and energy regulation in the environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(16):16478–16494.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6773-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Narayan PK (2005) The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Appl Econ 37(17):1979–1990.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Narayan PK, Smyth R (2009) Multivariate granger causality between electricity consumption, exports and GDP: Evidence from a panel of Middle Eastern countries. Energ Policy 37:229–236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.020
  49. Ng BYS, Perron P (2001) Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69(6):1519–1554.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ozatac N, Gokmenoglu KK, Taspinar N (2017) Testing the EKC hypothesis by considering trade openness, urbanization, and financial development: the case of Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(20):16690–16701.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9317-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U (2015) Investigating the validity of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Cambodia. Ecol Indic 57:324–330.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pao HT, Tsai CM (2011) Multivariate Granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy 36(1):685–693.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis. J Appl Econ 326(3):289–326.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saboori B, Sulaiman J (2013) Environmental degradation, economic growth and energy consumption: evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia. Energy Policy 60:892–905.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shahbaz M, Lean HH (2012) Does financial development increase energy consumption? The role of industrialization and urbanization in Tunisia. Energy Policy 40:473–479.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.10.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Hammoudeh S, Shahzad SJH (2017) Bounds testing approach to analyzing the environment Kuznets curve Hypothesis: The Role of Biomass Energy Consumption in the United States with Structural Breaks. Energy Econ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.10.004
  57. Shrestha MB, Chowdhury K (2007) Testing financial liberalization hypothesis with ARDL modelling approach. Appl Financ Econ 17(18):1529–1540.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09603100601007123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016) International Energy Outlook 2016, International Energy Outlook 2016. www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2016).pdf
  59. Ubi PS, Effiom L (2013) The dynamic analysis of electricity supply and economic development : lessons from Nigeria. J Sustain Soc. 2:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.11634/216825851302163 Google Scholar
  60. Wagner M (2008) The carbon Kuznets curve: a cloudy picture emitted by bad econometrics? Resour Energy Econ 30(3):388–408.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2007.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang L, Wei Y-M, Brown MA (2017) Global transition to low-carbon electricity: a bibliometric analysis. Appl Energy 205:57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. World Bank (2016) World development indicatorGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang S, Liu X, Bae J (2017) Does trade openness affect CO2 emissions: evidence from ten newly industrialized countries? Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(21):17616–17625.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9392-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zivot E, Andrews DWK (1992) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 10(1):251–270.  https://doi.org/10.1198/073500102753410372 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessLuoyang Normal UniversityLuoyangPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations