The environmental Kuznets curve after 25 years

Abstract

The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) has been the dominant approach among economists to modeling aggregate pollution emissions and ambient pollution 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, while economic growth has had a monotonic positive effect on carbon and sulfur emissions, the EKC holds for concentrations of particulates. Negative time effects are important for sulfur emissions. The EKC seems to be most useful for modeling the ambient concentrations of pollutants it was originally applied to. AbstractThe environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) has been the dominant approach among economists to modeling aggregate pollution emissions and ambient pollution 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, while economic growth has had a monotonic positive effect on carbon and sulfur emissions, the EKC holds for concentrations of particulates. Negative time effects are important for sulfur emissions. The EKC seems to be most useful for modeling the ambient concentrations of pollutants it was originally applied to.

A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights

“…Around 80% of global GHG emissions originate from combustion of fossil fuels. Given the historical coupling between primary energy and GDP, we might expect a similar coupling relationship between territorial CO 2 emissions and GDP at the global level (Bassetti et al 2013, Stern 2017. The empirical evidence supports that assertion: global GDP (constant $US2010) grew at 3.5%/year from 1960-2014, while CO 2 emissions grew at 2.5%/year on average (World Bank 2019a); i.e.…”

“…A few country-level GDP-CO 2 studies find empirical support for an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) type relationship, whereby CO 2 /capita rises and then falls with rising GDP/capita, i.e. income (Stern 2017). National-level studies (Peters and Hertwich 2008, Kander et al 2015, Azam and Khan 2016, Hardt et al 2018, Moreau and Vuille 2018, Moreau et al 2019, Wood et al 2019a emphasize the role of 'offshoring' emissions (e.g.…”

Pollution and economic development: an empirical research review

“…This hypothesis has been debated for at least 25 years in various forms (Stern 2017). Much of the controversies have revolved around the scale of the analysis, the kind of pollutant chosen and the relative determinism of the pollution reduction with income.…”

Testing for Convergence in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Using a Bayesian Robust Structural Model

“…relationship would ultimately lead to emission convergence (Stern, 2017). However, even though empirical studies find a positive relationship between economic growth and CO 2 emissions, the evidence favoring an EKC-type relationship is restricted to time-series or panel studies covering OECD economies.…”

“…2). 4 See Pettersson et al (2014) and Stern (2017) for comprehensive surveys of the literature on convergence in pollution emissions. 5 The findings of the literature range from evidence for convergence (Strazicich and List, 2003;Nguyen, 2005;Ezcurra, 2007;Romero-Ávila, 2008;Westerlund and Basher, 2008;Lee and Chang, 2009;Brock and Taylor, 2010;Jobert et al, 2010;Huang and Meng, 2013;Yavuz and Yilanci, 2013;Anjum et al, 2014;Hao et al, 2015;Wu et al, 2016;Zhao et al, 2015) over the existence of convergence clubs (Nguyen, 2005;Aldy, 2006;Panopoulou and Pantelidis, 2009;Barassi et al, 2011;Ordás Criado and Grether, 2011;Camarero et al, 2013;Herrerias, 2013;Wang et al, 2014;Burnett, 2016) to no evidence for convergence (Aldy, 2007;Barassi et al, 2008;Nourry, 2009).…”