Dynamic impact of urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness on CO 2 emissions in Nigeria

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to examine the dynamic impact of urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness on CO 2 emissions in Nigeria based on autoregressive distributed lags (ARDL) approach for the period of 1971-2011. The result shows that variables were cointegrated as null hypothesis was rejected at 1 % level of significance. The coefficients of long-run result reveal that urbanization does not have any significant impact on CO 2 emissions in Nigeria, economic growth, and energy consumption has a positive and significant impact on CO 2 emissions. However, trade openness has negative and significant impact on CO 2 emissions. Consumption of energy is among the main determinant of CO 2 emissions which is directly linked to the level of income. Despite the high level of urbanization in the country, consumption of energy still remains low due to lower income of the majority populace and this might be among the reasons why urbanization does not influence emissions of CO 2 in the country. Initiating more open economy policies will be welcoming in the Nigerian economy as the openness leads to the reduction of pollutants from the environment particularly CO 2 emissions which is the major gases that deteriorate physical environment.

Role of Economic Growth, Financial Development, Trade, Energy and FDI in Environmental Kuznets Curve for Lithuania: Evidence from ARDL Bounds Testing Approach

“…Table 4 presents the estimates for all ARDL models, and these results evident that coefficients of ΔGDP, ΔGDP 2 are positive and negative respectively, and both are statistically significant, confirming the EKC hypothesis for GDP in the short run. These results are consistent with the Balaguer and Cantavella (2018), Bekhet and Othman (2018), , Sinha and Shahbaz (2018), Zhang (2018), Shahzad et al (2017), Bekhet and Othman (2017), Isik et al (2017), Ali, Law, and Zannah (2016), , and Dogan and Turkekul (2016). Conversely, trade improves the environmental degradation in the short run.…”

“…EKC is an extension ofthe Kuznets Curve (KC).5 For the similar evidences, seeBekhet and Othman (2018),Balaguer and Cantavella (2018),Sinha and Shahbaz (2018),Zhang (2018),,Salahuddin el al. (2017),Shahzad et al (2017),Bekhet and Othman (2017),Isik et al (2017),Ali, Law, and Zannah (2016),Ali et al …”

Exploring the relationship between energy usage segregation and environmental degradation in N-11 countries

“…Considering evidence that has been documented in prior studies, the results of this study are consistent in regards to renewable energy consumption Mert, 2014, 2015;Bilgili et al, 2016;Dogan and Seker, 2016 a, b;Jebli et al, 2016) and non-renewable fossil fuel energy consumption (Halicioglu, 2009;Kasman and Duman, 2015;Ali et al, 2016;Dogan and Seker, 2016b;Magazzino, 2016).…”

“…They find that urbanization increases electric power consumption and carbon emission. Hassan and Salim (2015), Shahbaz et al (2015), Al-Mulali et al (2016), Ali et al (2016), Destek et al (2016), Kang et al (2016), Wang et al (2016a, b), He et al (2017) and several other studies extend the urbanization-emissions nexus to include diverse aspects. They have used multivariate frameworks to consider dimensions such as spatial dispersion, dynamics of nations, income inequality, and land use patterns, but the results were inconclusive.…”

Environmental Degradation and Economic Growth in ASEAN-10: The Perspective of EKC Hypothesis

“…This means overwhelmingly accelerated and ill-planned development may be achieved at the expense of the environment. Interestingly, the findings also explore the negative impact of trade openness on carbon emission which could be found in other previous academic work (Ali, Law, & Zannah, 2016;Al-Mulali, Ozturk, & Lean, 2015;Shahbaz, Sbia, Hamdi, & Ozturk, 2014) and confirm the existence of the carbon emission embodied in trade phenomenon in ASEAN-10 (Böhringer et al, 2018;Sakai & Barrett, 2016;Su & Ang, 2014;Wu, Geng, Dong, Fujita, & Tian, 2016;Yunfeng & Laike, 2010) or carbon leakage (Franzen & Mader, 2018). This implies that policies for greater market access and deeper integration, as discussed by Al-Mulali, Ozturk and Lean (2015), can help ASEAN-10 authorities proactively hamper the environmental degradation.…”