Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 1253–1262 | Cite as

Causality relationship between CO2 emissions, GDP and energy intensity in Tunisia

  • Mounir Ben Mbarek
  • Nadia Ben Ali
  • Rochdi Feki


This article analyzes the causality between the economic growth, the energy and the environment, measured by CO2 emissions. Our empirical study is based on a series of annual data from 1980 to 2010 in Tunisia. Our study was conducted using the Granger causality test and variance decomposition. The empirical results confirm the presence of a positive effect between the energy consumption and the economic growth measured by gross domestic product (GDP). Thus, there is a unidirectional relationship between GDP and CO2 emissions in the short term. This analysis shows, as is common to relatively fast-growing economies in Tunisia, that the biggest contributor to the rise is CO2 emissions. Hence, in congruence with the result of variance decomposition, the GDP affects CO2 emissions in the short and medium term at an almost constant level (10 %). The non-renewable energy intensity in Tunisian economy is responsible for a modest reduction in CO2 emissions, which suggests the implementation of conservation policies aimed at energy efficiency and the orientation toward renewable energy.


CO2 emissions Energy consumption Economic growth Granger causality Variance decomposition 


  1. Agras, J., & Chapman, D. (1999). A dynamic approach to the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 28(2), 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akbostanci, E., Türüt-aşik, S., & Tunç, G. I. (2009). A decomposition analysis of co2 emissions from energy use: Turkish case. Energy Policy, 37(11), 4689–4699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ang, J. (2007). Co2 emissions, energy consumption, and output in France. Energy Policy, 35(10), 4772–4778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apergis, N., & Payne, J. E. (2010). The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: Evidence from the common wealth of independent states. Energy Policy, 38(1), 650–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckerman, W. (1992). Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment. World Development, 20, 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belloumi, M. (2009). Energy consumption and gdp in Tunisia: Cointegration and causality analysis. Energy Policy, 37(7), 2745–2753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binh, P. T. (2011). Energy consumption and economic growth in Vietnam: Threshold cointegration and causality analysis. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 1(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  8. Sung, B., & Song, W.-Y. (2013). Causality between public policies and exports of renewable energy technologies. Energy Policy, 55, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boulatoff, C., & Jenkins, M. (2010). Long-term nexus between openness, income and environmental quality. International Advances in Economic Research, 16(4), 410–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chuhwan, P., & Mo Chung, S. L. (2011). The effects of oil price on regional economies with different production structures: A case study from Korea using a structural var model. Energy Policy, 39(12), 8185–8195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coondoo, D., & Dinda, S. (2002). Causality between income and emissions: A country group-specific econometric analysis. Ecological Economics, 40(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vries, B. J. M., van Vuuren, D. P., & Hoogwijk, M. M. (2007). Renewable energy resources: Their global potential for the first half of the 21st century at a global level: an integrated approach. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2590–2610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diebold, F. X., & Yilmaz, K. (2012). Better to give than to receive: Predictive directional measurement of volatility spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting, 28(1), 57–66.Google Scholar
  14. Ehrhardt-martinez, K., Crenshaw, E. M., & Jenkins, J. C. (2002). Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: A cross-national investigation of intervening mechanisms. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Esty, D. C., & Porter, M. E. (2005). National environmental performance: An empirical analysis of policy results and determinants. Environment and Development Economics, 10(4), 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leukhardt, F., & Allen, S. (2013). How environmentally focused is the German sustainability strategy? A critical discussion of the indicators used to measure sustainable development in Germany. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(1), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedl, B., & Getzner, M. (2003). Determinants of co2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecological Economics, 45(1), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Nber working paper series, (3914).Google Scholar
  19. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hassaballa, H. (2014). Testing for Granger causality between energy use and foreign direct investment Inflows in developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jbir, R., & Zouari Ghorbel, S. (2009). Recent oil price shock and Tunisian economy. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1041–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kohler, Marcel. (2013). CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade: A South African perspective. Energy Policy, 63, 1042–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kraft, J., & Kraft, A. (1978). On the relationship between energy and GNP. Journal of Energy and Development, 3(2), 401–403.Google Scholar
  24. Mantalos, P., & Shukur, G. (2010). The effect of spillover on the granger causality test. Journal of Applied Statistics, 37(9), 1473–1486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazbahul, G. A., & Nazrul, A. K. M. (2011). Electricity consumption and economic growth nexus in Bangladesh: Revisited evidences. Energy Policy, 39, 6145–6150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazzanti, M., Montini, A., & Zoboli, R. (2009). Municipal waste generation and the EKC hypothesis new evidence exploiting province-based panel data. Applied Economics Letters, 16(7), 719–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fodha, M., & Zaghdoud, O. (2010). Economic growth and pollutant emissions in Tunisia: An empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy, 38(2), 1150–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pao, H.-T., & Tsai, C.-M. (2011). Modeling and forecasting the CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in Brazil. Energy, 36(5), 2450–2458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peng, S., & Bao, Q. (2006). Economic growth and environmental pollution: An empirical test for the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in china. Research on Financial and Economic Issues, 8, 3–17.Google Scholar
  30. Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Economics Letters, 58, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Richmond, A. K., & Kaufmann, R. K. (2006). Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecological Economics, 56(2), 176–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sekkat, K. (1989). L’analyse de causalité comme méthode de détermination des filières industrielles. Annales D’economie et de Statistique, 14, 191–224.Google Scholar
  33. Shafiei, S., & Salim, R. A. (2014). Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Energy Policy, 66, 547–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sims, C. A. (1980). Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica, 48(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soytas, U., Sari, R., & Ewing, B. T. (2007). Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spangenberg, J. H. (2007). Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind. Ecological Economics, 61, 146–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stern, D. I. (1993). Energy and economic growth in the USA: A multivariate approach. Energy Economics, 15(2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tiago, C., & João Tovar, J. (2013). Macroeconomic effects of oil price shocks in Brazil and in the United States. Applied Energy, 104, 475–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tokimatsu, K., Yasuoka, R., Nishio, M., & Ueta, K. (2013). A study on forecasting paths of genuine savings and wealth without and with carbon dioxide constraints: Development of shadow price functions. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(1), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang, S. S., Zhou, D. Q., Zhou, P., & Wang, Q. W. (2011). Co2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in china: A panel data analysis. Energy Policy, 39(9), 4870–4875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yemane, W. R. (2010). Coal consumption and economic growth revisited. Applied Energy, 87(1), 160–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yuan, J. H., Kang, J. G., Zhao, C. H., & Hu, Z. G. (2008). Energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from china at both aggregated and disaggregated levels. Energy Economics, 30(6), 3077–3094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeshan, M., & Ahmed, V. (2013). Environment and growth nexus in South Asia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 1465–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang, Y., Yao, F., Iu, H. H. C., Fernando, T., & Wong, K. P. (2013). Sequential quadratic programming particle swarm optimization for wind power system operations considering emissions. Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy, 1(3), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of Management and Economic Sciences of SfaxSfaxTunisia

Personalised recommendations