Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 31, pp 30949–30961 | Cite as

Determinants of pollution and the role of the military sector: evidence from a maximum likelihood approach with two structural breaks in the USA

  • Sakiru Adebola Solarin
  • Usama Al-mulaliEmail author
  • Ilhan Ozturk
Research Article


We investigate the role of military expenditure on emission in USA during the period 1960–2015. To achieve the objectives of this study, two measures of military expenditure are utilised, while several timeseries models are constructed with the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, population, energy consumption per capita, non-renewable energy consumption per capita, renewable energy consumption per capita, urbanisation, trade openness and financial development serving as additional determinants of air pollution. We also use ecological indicator as an alternative measure of pollution. Moreover, different timeseries methods are utilised including a likelihood-based approach with two structural breaks. The output of this research concluded that all the variables are cointegrated. It is found that military expenditure has mixed impact on CO2 emissions. Real GDP per capita, energy consumption per capita, non-renewable energy consumption per capita, population and urbanisation increase CO2 emissions per capita in the long-run, while renewable energy consumption, financial development and trade openness reduce it. There is also evidence for the mixed role of military expenditure, when ecological footprint is utilised as the environmental degradation index. From the output of this research, few policy recommendations are offered for the examined country.


USA CO2 emissions Military expenditure Timeseries Likelihood-based approach 


  1. Al-Mulali U, Solarin SA, Ozturk I (2016a) Investigating the presence of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in Kenya: an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach. Nat Hazards 80(3):1729–1747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Mulali U, Solarin SA, Sheau-Ting L, Ozturk I (2016b) Does moving towards renewable energy cause water and land inefficiency? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy 93:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balsalobre-Lorente D, Shahbaz M, Roubaud D, Farhani S (2018) How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO 2 emissions? Energy Policy 113:356–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bildirici M (2017b) CO2 emissions and militarization in G7 countries: panel cointegration and trivariate causality approaches. Environ Dev Econ 22(6):771–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bildirici ME (2017a) The effects of militarization on biofuel consumption and CO2 emission. J Clean Prod 152:420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bildirici ME (2017c) The causal link among militarization, economic growth, CO2 emission and energy consumption. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(5):4625–4636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Changyong F, Hongyue W, Naiji L, Tian N, Hua H, Ying L (2014) Log-transformation and its implications for data analysis. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry 26(2):105Google Scholar
  8. Clark LP, Millet DB, Marshall JD (2011) Air quality and urban form in US urban areas: evidence from regulatory monitors. Environ Sci Technol 45(16):7028–7035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dogan E, Ozturk I (2017) The influence of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and real income on CO 2 emissions in the USA: evidence from structural break tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(11):10846–10854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Energy Information Administration (2014) Biofuels are included in latest U.S. Navy fuel procurement.
  11. Energy International Administration Database (2017). Energy international administration. Available at:
  12. Environmental and Energy Study Institute (2011). DoD’s energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives. Available at:
  13. Galvao A, Reis Gomes F (2007) Convergence or divergence in Latin America? A time series analysis. Appl Econ 39:1353–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gil-Alana LA, Solarin SA (2018) Have US environmental policies been effective in the reduction of US emissions? A new approach using fractional integration. Atmos Pollut Res 9(1):53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giles DE, Godwin RT (2012) Testing for multivariate cointegration in the presence of structural breaks: p-values and critical values. Appl Econ Lett 19(16):1561–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Global Footprint Network (2017) Global foot print network database. Available at
  17. Grebe J (2011) The global militarization index (GMI). Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC). Occas Pap 7:1–18Google Scholar
  18. Hamilton JD (2009) Causes and consequences of the oil shock of 2007-08. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, 40(1):215–283Google Scholar
  19. Hooks G, Smith CL (2005) Treadmills of production and destruction threats to the environment posed by militarism. Org Environ 18(1):19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hynes PH (2011) The military assault on global climate. Available at:
  21. Hynes HP (2014) The “invisible casualty of war”: the environmental destruction of U.S. militarism. Differentakes 84:1–4Google Scholar
  22. Institute for Policy Studies (2014) Combat vs climate. The military and climate security budgets compared. Available at:
  23. Johansen S (1996) Likelihood-based inference in cointegrated vector autoregressive models. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Johansen S, Mosconi R, Nielsen B (2000) Cointegration analysis in the presence of structural breaks in the deterministic trend. Econ J 3(2):216–249Google Scholar
  25. Jones C, Kammen DM (2014) Spatial distribution of U.S. household carbon footprints reveals suburbanization undermines greenhouse gas benefits of urban population density. Environ Sci Technol 48(2):895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jorgenson AK, Clark B, Kentor J (2010) Militarization and the environment: a panel study of carbon dioxide emissions and the ecological footprints of nations, 1970–2000. Global Environmental Politics 10(1):7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khan MTI, Ali Q, Ashfaq M (2018) The nexus between greenhouse gas emission, electricity production, renewable energy and agriculture in Pakistan. Renew Energy 118:437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee J, Strazicich MC, Meng M (2012) Two-step LM unit root tests with trend-breaks. J Stat Econ Methods 1(2):81–107Google Scholar
  29. Levinson A (2009) Technology, international trade and pollution from US manufacturing. Am Econ Rev 99(5):2177–2192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meng M, Im KS, Lee J, Tieslau MA (2014) More powerful LM unit root tests with non-normal errors. In: Sickles RC, Horrace WC (eds) Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt. Springer, New York, pp 343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mutascu M (2018) A time-frequency analysis of trade openness and CO 2 emissions in France. Energy Policy 115:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ozcan B, Apergis N (2017) The impact of internet use on air pollution: evidence from emerging countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–16Google Scholar
  33. Pata UK (2018) Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO 2 emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. J Clean Prod 20:770–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shafiei S, Salim RA (2014) Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy 66:547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shahbaz M, Shahzad SJH, Mahalik MK, Hammoudeh S (2018) Does globalisation worsen environmental quality in developed economies? Environ Model Assess 23(2):141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Sbia R, Bibi S (2015) Does energy intensity contribute to CO2 emissions? A trivariate analysis in selected African countries. Ecol Indic 50:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sinha A, Shahbaz M (2018) Estimation of environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emission: role of renewable energy generation in India. Renew Energy 119:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Solarin SA, Lean HH (2016) Natural gas consumption, income, urbanization, and CO2 emissions in China and India. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(18):18753–18765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2017) Validating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in India and China: the role of hydroelectricity consumption. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:1578–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, (2017). The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Military Expenditure Database.
  41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013. Available at:
  42. World Bank (2017) World development indicators. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhang S (2018) Is trade openness good for environment in South Korea? The role of non-fossil electricity consumption. Environ Sci Pollut Res:1–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sakiru Adebola Solarin
    • 1
  • Usama Al-mulali
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ilhan Ozturk
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Globalisation and Sustainability ResearchMultimedia University MelakaAyer KerohMalaysia
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesCag UniversityMersinTurkey

Personalised recommendations