The role of partisan conflict in environmental sustainability targets of the United States

  • Seyi Saint AkadiriEmail author
  • Andrew Adewale Alola
Research Article


The prevailing political atmosphere and partisanship in the United States depict the degree of polarization between the two major political parties of the country. Evidently, the polarization between the Democratic Party (DP) and the Republican Party will expectedly drive the partisan conflict to the higher levels. Considering this motivation, this paper examined the role of partisan conflict in the pollutant emissions in the case of the United States. For sound empirical analysis, the impacts of other environmental quality determinants are being examined over the period 1960–2015. In order to present a decent argument that is viable for policy implementation, the study adopts the combined methodologies of Johansen cointegration; the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) of Pesaran et al. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):621–634 (1999); and the Toda and Yamamoto J Econ 66(1–2):225–250 (1995) Granger causality. Empirical outcomes show (i) the kg oil equivalent per capita energy consumed exercise positive and significant impacts on metric tons of per capita CO2 emissions, and it is the principal determinant of environmental degradation in both the short-run and the long-run (ii) renewable energy consumption and economic growth also exercise negative and significant impacts on metric tons of per capita CO2 emissions. Based on our empirical findings, we conclude that partisan conflict indirectly plays a significant role in environmental sustainability targets of the United States. Thus, we are of the opinion that the government should avoid heightened partisan conflict among the political parties in order to promote sustainable environmental policies that would enhance sound and clean environment for both the immediate and the future generation.


Energy demand Environmental pollution Partisan conflict Real income United States 



We would like to appreciate AVIOLA Consult ltd for it quality proofreading service ( e-mail: Also, thanks to sheytex logistics and Services ( for both the paper formatting and significant input on the econometric analysis.


  1. Alola AA (2019a) The trilemma of trade, monetary and immigration policies in the United States: accounting for environmental sustainability. Sci Total Environ 658:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alola AA (2019b) Carbon emissions and the trilemma of trade policy, migration policy and health care in the US. Carbon Manag 10(2):209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alola AA, Yildirim H (2019) The renewable energy consumption by sectors and household income growth in the United States. Int J of Green Energy 16(15):1414–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alola AA, Bekun FV, Sarkodie SA (2019a) Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Sci Total Environ 685:702–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alola AA, Yalçiner K, Alola UV, Saint Akadiri S (2019b) The role of renewable energy, immigration and real income in environmental sustainability target. Evidence from Europe largest states. Sci Total Environ 674:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Azzimonti M (2014) Partisan Conflict. FRB of Philadelphia Working Paper No. 14-19. SSRN: or Accessed 20 July 2019
  7. Azzimonti M (2018) Partisan conflict and private investment. J Monet Econ 93:114–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balcilar M, Saint Akadiri S, Gupta R, Miller SM (2019) Partisan conflict and income inequality in the United States: a nonparametric causality-in-quantiles approach. Soc Indic Res 142(1):65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bekun FV, Alola AA, Sarkodie SA (2019) Toward a sustainable environment: nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Sci Total Environ 657:1023–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brookings (2019). The Challenging Politics of Climate Change. (Accessed 13 November 2019)
  11. Cheng CHJ, Hankins WB, Chiu CWJ (2016) Does US partisan conflict matter for the Euro area? Econ Lett 138:64–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 50(5):26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH (2016) The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the US. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 58(5):4–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerber, E. R. (2013). Partisanship and local climate policy. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 15(1):107–124Google Scholar
  15. Gupta R, Pierdzioch C, Selmi R, Wohar ME (2018) Does partisan conflict predict a reduction in US stock market (realized) volatility? Evidence from a quantile-on-quantile regression model☆. North Am J Econ Finan 43:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halkos GE, Polemis ML (2019) The impact of market structure on environmental efficiency in the United States: a quantile approach. Bus Strateg Environ 28(1):127–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jorgenson A, Schor J, Huang X (2017) Income inequality and carbon emissions in the United States: a state-level analysis, 1997–2012. Ecol Econ 134:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu C, Jiang Y, Xie R (2019) Does income inequality facilitate carbon emission reduction in the US? J Clean Prod 217:380–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayer A (2019) National energy transition, local partisanship? Elite cues, community identity, and support for clean power in the United States. Energy Res Soc Sci 50:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y (2010) CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in the US. Energy Policy 38(6):2911–2915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pearson AR, Schuldt JP (2015) Bridging climate communication divides: beyond the partisan gap. Sci Commun 37(6):805–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RP (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):621–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raza SA, Sharif A, Wong WK, Karim MZA (2017) Tourism development and environmental degradation in the United States: evidence from wavelet-based analysis. Curr Issue Tour 20(16):1768–1790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raza SA, Shah N, Sharif A (2019) Time frequency relationship between energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in the United States: evidence from transportation sector. Energy 173:706–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Saint Akadiri S, Alola AA, Akadiri AC (2019a) The role of globalization, real income, tourism in environmental sustainability target. Evidence from Turkey. Sci Total Environ 687:423–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saint Akadiri S, Alola AA, Akadiri AC, Alola UV (2019b) Renewable energy consumption in EU-28 countries: policy toward pollution mitigation and economic sustainability. Energy Policy 132:803–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2019) Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Sci Total Environ 646:862–871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shapiro RY, Bloch-Elkon Y (2005) Partisan conflict, public opinion, and US foreign policy. In: Inequality and Social Policy Seminar. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Soytas U, Sari R, Ewing BT (2007) Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):482–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Toda HY, Yamamoto T (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J Econ 66(1–2):225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. United Nations, UN (2019) Climate Action Summit 2019: A Race We Can Win. (Accessed 03 September 2019)
  33. Van Boven L, Ehret PJ, Sherman DK (2018) Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy. Perspect Psychol Sci 13(4):492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang Q, Zhao M, Li R, Su M (2018) Decomposition and decoupling analysis of carbon emissions from economic growth: a comparative study of China and the United States. J Clean Prod 197:178–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wishart R (2019) Class capacities and climate politics: coal and conflict in the United States energy policy-planning network. Energy Res Soc Sci 48:151–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sheytex Logistics and Services LimitedAbujaNigeria
  2. 2.College of BusinessWestcliff UniversityIrvineUSA
  3. 3.Department of International Economics and Management, Graduate School of Economics and ManagementUral Federal UniversitySverdlovsk OblastRussia
  4. 4.Faculty of EconomicsAdministrative and Social SciencesIstanbulTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Financial TechnologiesSouth Ural State UniversityChelyabinskRussia

Personalised recommendations