The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years

被引:129
作者
Stern D.I. [1 ]
机构
[1] Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, 132 Lennox Crossing, Acton, 2601, ACT
关键词
Air pollution; Climate change; Convergence; Economic growth; Environmental Kuznets curve;
D O I
10.1007/s10818-017-9243-1
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) has been the dominant approach among economists to modeling aggregate pollution emissions and ambient concentrations over the last quarter century. Despite this, the EKC was criticized almost from the start and decomposition approaches have been more popular in other disciplines working on global climate change. More recently, convergence approaches to modeling emissions have become popular. This paper reviews the history of the EKC and alternative approaches. Applying an approach that synthesizes the EKC and convergence approaches, I show that convergence is important for explaining both pollution emissions and concentrations. On the other hand, economic growth has a strong positive effect on carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but weaker effects on non-industrial GHG emissions and concentrations of particulates. Negative time effects are important for sulfur and industrial and non-industrial GHG emissions. Even for particulate concentrations, economic growth only reduces pollution at very high income levels. Future research should focus on developing and testing alternative theoretical models and investigating the non-growth drivers of pollution reduction. © 2017, Springer Science+Business Media New York.
引用
收藏
页码:7 / 28
页数:21
相关论文
共 88 条
[1]  
Aldy J.E., An environmental Kuznets curve analysis of U.S. state-level carbon dioxide emissions, Journal of Environment and Development, 14, pp. 48-72, (2005)
[2]  
Aldy J.E., Per capita carbon dioxide emissions: Convergence or divergence?, Environmental and Resource Economics, 33, 4, pp. 533-555, (2006)
[3]  
Anjum Z., Burke P.J., Gerlagh R., Stern D.I., Modeling the emissions-income relationship using long-run growth rates, CCEP Working Papers, (2014)
[4]  
Antweiler W., Copeland B.R., Taylor M.S., Is free trade good for the environment?, American Economic Review, 91, pp. 877-908, (2001)
[5]  
Arrow K., Bolin B., Costanza R., Dasgupta P., Folke C., Holling C.S., Jansson B.-O., Levin S., Maler K.-G., Perrings C., Pimentel D., Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment, Science, 268, pp. 520-521, (1995)
[6]  
Azomahou T., Laisney F., Van Nguyen P., Economic development and CO <sub>2</sub> emissions: A nonparametric panel approach, Journal of Public Economics, 90, 6-7, pp. 1347-1363, (2006)
[7]  
Beckerman W., Economic growth and the environment: Whose growth? Whose environment?, World Development, 20, pp. 481-496, (1992)
[8]  
Blanco G., Gerlagh R., Suh S., Barrett J., de Coninck H., Diaz Morejon C.F., Mathur R., Nakicenovic N., Ahenkorah A.O., Pan J., Pathak H., Rice J., Richels R., Smith S.J., Stern D.I., Toth F.L., Zhou P., Drivers, trends and mitigation. In Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate c
[9]  
Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, (2013)
[10]  
Brock W.A., Taylor M.S., The green Solow model, Journal of Economic Growth, 15, pp. 127-153, (2010)