Journals / Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 46

Impact of Environmental Taxes on Reducing Environmental Risks: Case of the European Union and Turkey

Çevresel Riskleri Azaltmada Çevre Vergilerinin Etkisi: Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye Örneği

Pages
20–39
Publication Date
2020-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results obtained from the Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) Causality test, there is a bi-directional causality relationship between carbon footprint, environmental taxes and renewable energy consumption demand.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the effectiveness of environmental taxes in reducing CO2 emissions in the 1997-2015 period for nine members of the European Union countries and Turkey is examined by panel data analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings of Westerlund (2007) cointegration test showed that there wasn't a long run cointegration relationship between the series.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results obtained from the Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) Causality test, there is a bi-directional causality relationship between carbon footprint, environmental taxes and renewable energy consumption demand.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Karbon Ayak İzi · Çevre Vergisi · Çevresel Ekonomi

Abstract

In this study, the effectiveness of environmental taxes in reducing CO2 emissions in the 1997-2015 period for nine members of the European Union countries and Turkey is examined by panel data analysis. Before the analysis is conducted, series used in the study were tested with Pesaran statistical analysis, and then cointegration and causality analysis according to the structure of stability. The findings of Westerlund (2007) cointegration test showed that there wasn't a long run cointegration relationship between the series. According to the results obtained from the Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) Causality test, there is a bi-directional causality relationship between carbon footprint, environmental taxes and renewable energy consumption demand. There is a one-way causality relationship from per capita GDP and urban population to carbon footprint.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, 1997-2015 döneminde, 9 AB ülkesi ve Türkiye için çevre vergilerinin, CO2 emisyonunu azaltmadaki etkinliği panel veri analizi ile incelenmektir. Analize yapılmadan önce, çalışmada kullanılan seriler Pesaran durağanlık analizi ile test edilmiş, daha sonra durağanlık yapısına göre eşbütünleşme ve nedensellik analizi yapılmıştır. Westerlund (2007) eş-bütünleşme testi sonuçları, seriler arasında uzun dönem bir ilişki olmadığını göstermektedir. Dumitrescu ve Hurlin (2012) nedensellik testi sonuçlarına göre; karbon ayak izi, çevre vergisi ve yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi talebi arasında çift yönlü bir ilişki olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Diğer taraftan, kişi başı GSYH ve kentleşme oranından karbon ayak izi değişkenine doğru tek yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisinin varlığına ulaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞİMŞEK, D., KESBİÇ, C. (2020). Impact of Environmental Taxes on Reducing Environmental Risks: Case of the European Union and Turkey. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 46, 20–39. https://ajindex.com/articles/79566

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Abrell, J. & Rausch, S. (2017). Combining price and quantity controls under partitioned environmental regulation. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 226-242.
  2. Allan, G., Lecca, P., McGregor, P. & Swales, K. (2014). The economic and environmental impact of a carbon tax for Scotland: A computable general equilibrium analysis. Ecological Economics, 100, 40-50.
  3. Alper, A. E. (2017). Analysis of carbon tax on selected European countries: Does carbon tax reduce emissions? Applied Economics and Finance, 5(1), 29-36.
  4. Baranzini, A., Goldemberg, J. & Speck, S. (2000). A future for carbon taxes. Ecological Economics, 32(3), 395-412.
  5. Bayar, Y. & Şaşmaz, M. (2016). Karbon vergisi, ekonomik büyüme ve CO2 emisyonu arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: Danimarka, Finlandiya, Hollanda, İsveç ve Norveç örneği. International Journal of Applied Economic and Finance Studies, 1(1), 32-41.
  6. Breusch, T. & Pagan, A. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
  7. Bruvoll, A. & Larsen, B. (2004). Greenhouse gas emissions in Norway: Do carbon taxes work? Energy Policy, 32(4), 493-505.
  8. Calderon, S., Alvarez, A., Loboguerrero, A., Arango, S., Calvin, K., Kober, T.,. Fisher-Vanden, K. (2016). Achieving CO2 reductions in Colombia: Effects of carbon taxes and abatement targets. Energy Economics, 56, 575-586.
  9. Cenikli, E., & Özbek, Ç. (2015). Siyasal Ekoloji. İçinde: Küresel kamusal mal olarak çevre: Türkiye'nin küresel çevre politikalarına uyumu, 291-308. (Editörler: Fatih Kırışık, Özcan Sezer), Ankara:
  10. Detay Yayıncılık. Costello, K. W. (2019). Essay on climate apocalypse and a carbon tax. The Electricity Journal, 32(10). Dumıtrescu, E. I. & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450-1460.
  11. Gao, T., Liu, Q. & Wang, J. (2013). A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 9(3), 237-243.
  12. Global Footprint Network. (2019). Erişim Adresi: http://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.149088752.718779758.1572288592-261372792.1571505108#/countryTrends?type=BCpc,EFCpc&cn=223, Erişim Tarihi: 14.11.2019.
  13. Hajek, M., Zimmermannova, J., Helman, K. & Rozenski, L. (2019). Analysis of carbon tax efficiency in energy ındustries of selected EU countries. Energy Policy, 134, 1-11.
  14. Hannel, R. (2014). Yeşil ekonomi ekolojik krize karşı koymak. (N. Ersoy, P. Ertör, M. Gülboy, İ. Akgün, &