The impact of financial development, economic growth and energy consumption on environmental degradation

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of financial development, economic growth and energy consumption on environment degradation for Indian economy by using the time series data for the period 1971-2011. Design/methodology/approach – The stationary properties of the variables are checked by ADF, DF-GLS, PP and Ng-Perron unit root tests. The long-run relationship is examined by implementing the Autoregressive Distributed Lag bounds testing approach to co-integration and error correction method (ECM) is applied to examine the short-run dynamics. The direction of the causality is checked by VECM framework and variance decomposition is used to predict exogenous shocks of the variables. Findings – The empirical evidence confirms the existence of long-run relationship among the variables. Financial development appears to increase environmental degradation in India. The main contributors to environmental degradation are: economic growth, energy consumption financial development and urbanization. The results also lend support to the existence of environmental Kuznets curves for Indian economy. Research limitations/implications – The present study suggests that environmental degradation can be reduced at the cost of economic growth or energy efficient technologies should be encouraged to enhance the domestic product with the help of financial sector by improving environmental friendly technologies from advanced economies. Originality/value – This paper proposes to make a contribution to the existing literature through examining the relationship between financial development and environmental degradation in Indian economy during 1971-2011 by employing modern econometric techniques.

UK's net-zero carbon emissions target: Investigating the potential role of economic growth, financial development, and R&D expenditures based on historical data (1870–2017)

“…Keeping other things constant, carbon emissions are expected to increase by 0.0428% as a result of 1% increase in financial development. This finding is similar to the study by Zhang (2011) on China and Sehrawat et al. (2015) on India as both of these studies reported a positive impact of financial development on carbon emissions.…”

A Causal Nexus of Energy Consumption, Private Investment, Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation: Evidence from Pakistan

“…Researchers used different econometric techniques for identifying causality among different macroeconomic variables. The present study follows the econometric technique used by Sehrawat and Mohapatra (2015) and for analysis.…”

Does financial development stimulate environmental sustainability? Evidence from a panel study of 115 countries

“…Different researchers have found divergent results in the growth–energy use nexus due to time or methodological differences, patterns of energy or economy, and heterogeneous climatic conditions (Shahbaz, Tiwari, et al, 2013). However, there is a direct link between energy consumption and environmental degradation (Boutabba, 2014; Destek, Balli, & Manga, 2016; Jalil & Feridun, 2011; Jamel & Derbali, 2016; G. Li et al, 2016; Omri, 2013; Saboori & Sulaiman, 2013; Sanderson et al, 2013; Sehrawat et al, 2015; Tamazian et al, 2009). Continuous consumption of non‐renewable energy sources (oil, coal, and gas) is resulting in an alarming increase in global warming and depletion of the ozone layer.…”

“…Of all the pollutants, CO 2 is empirically the most influential element in global warming (Pachauri et al, 2014). The majority of scientists have depicted different shapes (inverted U‐shaped, U‐shaped, or N‐shaped) in the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation (Alkhathlan, Alam, & Javid, 2012; Bekhet et al, 2017; He, Xu, Shen, Long, & Chen, 2017; Jalil & Feridun, 2011; Jayanthakumaran, Verma, & Liu, 2012; Saboori & Sulaiman, 2013; Sehrawat et al, 2015; Zi, Jie, & Hong‐Bo, 2016). CH 4 is the second most influential GHG, and it is 25 times more potent than CO 2 .…”