نقش کارایی انرژی در بهبود محیط زیست در کشورهای منتخب صادرکنندۀ نفت (به روش داده های تابلویی)

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• عطیه شارکیان
• دکتر محمدرضا لطفعلی پور

دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

https://doi.org/10.22067/erd.v23i11.49143

چکیده

یکی از مسائل پیش روی جوامع جهانی در دهه های اخیر، مباحث مربوط به محیط زیست و عوامل تخریب آن است. آلودگی هایی که به تغییرات شدید آب و هوایی و گرم شدن کرۀ زمین منجر شده، نگرانی های زیادی را در سطح منطقه ای و جهانی ایجاد کرده است. از سوی دیگر با وجود محدودیت منابع و ضرورت توسعه در کشورهای کمتر توسعه یافته، توجه به مبحث کارایی به عنوان یک راه حل در حوزۀ بحران های زیست محیطی، اهمیت خود را نمایان می‌سازد. نظر به اهمیت مسائل زیست محیطی در کنار مباحث مربوط به رشد و توسعۀ اقتصادی، در تحقیق حاضر سعی شده است از بُعد کارایی انرژی، به این مهم پرداخته شود. به این منظور در این پژوهش، اثر متغیرهای شدت انرژی (به عنوان یکی از شاخص های رایج کارایی انرژی)، جمعیت، ثروت (درآمد سرانه) و مصرف انرژی بر انتشار دی-اکسیدکربن (به عنوان شاخص کیفیت محیط زیست) به روش داده های تابلویی طی دوره 1996-2010 مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. آزمون های مربوط به اثرات فرد و زمان و نیز آزمون هاسمن وجود یک الگوی اثرات تصادفی یک جانبه را برای انتشار دی اکسیدکربن در کشورهای مورد بررسی تأیید کرد. نتایج تحقیق نشان می دهد جمعیت، ثروت، مصرف انرژی و شدت انرژی، همگی اثری مثبت و معنی دار بر انتشار دی اکسیدکربن دارند. هم چنین ضریب بالای متغیر اصلی مورد بررسی (شدت انرژی) میزان اهمیت توجه به کارایی انرژی در حوزۀ محیط زیست را تأیید می کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• انتشار دی اکسیدکربن
• ثروت
• GDP
• شدت انرژی
• کارایی انرژی
• گازهای گلخانه-ای
• معادله IPAT

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Role of Energy Efficiency in the Improvement of the Environment in Selected Oil Exporting Countries (Method of panel data)

نویسندگان [English]

• Atieh Sharekian
• mohamad reza Lotfalipour

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

چکیده [English]

Issues related to environment are one of the most important issues the communities are facing with in the recent decades. On the other hand, the resource scarcity and the necessity of development for Iran and other similar countries makes the issue of efficiency as a solution of the environmental crisis important. In this study, the effects of the variables energy intensity (as one of the most common indicators of efficiency), population, affluence (GDP per capita), and the energy use are examined on the carbon dioxide emission with the method of panel data for the period of 1996- 2010.
Nowadays due to the expansion of human economic activities, the environment has been destroyed dramatically at the local and international level, thus, considering carbon emission and its issues have become one of the most challenging issues during the recent decades (Deluna, 2008). Also, the existence of the bilateral relation between growth and the environmental development is one of the more important and complex problems which has always captured different points of view (Dincer,1999). Different countries are willing to achieve the balanced growth rate which requires special attention to the destructive pconsequences emerging as a result of the subsequent of energy consumption. The lack of attention to this matter can bring irreparable problems to the countries (Sadeghi & Sadat, 2004).
Too aggregation of the greenhouse gasses in atmosphere is one of the most important reasons of rapid changes in climate. Changes in climate, in turn, leads to an increase in world temperature, rising of the sea level , irregular weather condition, outbreak of floods, and other damages on earth. Solving these environmental problems with different subsequences is usually difficult. For example, to save the coastal areas replacing millions of population to other places is required (Delona, 2008). On the basis of the governmental climate change organization report only up to 2020, there is an opportunity to reverse the increasing trend of emission and its results.
Theoretical Framework
One of the most popular methods which is usually used for the environmental issues is the equation of Environmental Impact, Population, Affluence, and Technology (EIPAT). This Model considers the effects of important variables can improve the environmental conditions as the technical innovation and improvement in technology is considered at this method. On the basis of this methodology, three major elements have more impact on the environment. These variables are population, affluence, and technology. Any changes in the abovementioned variables affect the condition of the environment. The relation between the technical innovation and environment is apparent in this model. Meanwhile, in spite of Erlich and Holdern, (1971), population factor is at the core of this model, on the other hand population growth causes an increase in the consumption which, in turn, can affect the income. At the same time technology is implicitly considered at this framework. Technology improvement may get fixed or even decrease per energy consumption due to the increase in efficiency.

Methodology
On the basis of the theoretical framework the main important variables which are selected in this study are, population, energy intensity which are the proxy of energy efficiency, affluence, energy consumption, and the foreign direct investment for the period of 1996-2010. Energy intensity is modified as a portion of energy consumption to GDP. The data is collected from the nine member countries which are Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. The data base is collected from the World Bank data base. Also, the data from population (urban population), affluence (per capita Income), foreign direct investment, and energy consumption are collected from the World Bank data base. Due to the different data base used in the current work, the methodology is a logarithmic model. This study examines the relationship between the efficiency of energy and the economic growth among the selected OPEC member countries.

Results & Discussion
Results show that the population is a more important factor in carbon dioxide emission. Subsequent to population growth, are the demand increase in farm lands, energy resources, water requirements, and so on. All these lead to a destruction of environmental issues (Perman, et al.2003). The results also show that a huge percent of emission is related to the increase in the population rate. Meanwhile, the energy efficiency shows a significant effect on the environmental issues. It means while the energy density increases, the emission also rises and vice versa. Hence, the improvement in energy efficiency will affect the quality of environment. Also, there is a significant positive relation between per capita income and the dioxide carbon emission (Asgharpour, et al.2013).
Energy efficiency also has a meaningful positive effect on the environmental indices. It means that by the increase of energy intensity, dioxide emission will also increase, and vice versa. The findings confirm the obtained results of Delona, 2008, Diters, 1998, and Rose. One of the most important factors in the rise of energy intensity, is the low quality and the price of the productions compared to the similar productions in other countries. The main reason for this, is because of the old manufacturing structure in the developing countries along with the cultural and social factors.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Carbon Dioxide Emission
• Affluence
• GDP
• Energy Intensity
• Energy Efficiency
• IPAT Equation

مراجع

[1] Ebrahimi salari, ataghi, Ghotbodinian yazd, Yasmin. (2014). “The Analysis of energy intensity consumption in major oil Exporting Countries during 1990-2010” third international conference on new approches

[2] Ostadzadeh, alihosin, Safavi, seid Ali. (1391). “The estimation of Kuznets Curve by existence of Energy: The comparison of Five Evolution Optimal Methods” The First National Conference on environmental protection, Islamic Azad University, Hamadan, http://www.civilica.com/Paper-NATURE01-NATURE01_883.html

[3] Asgharpore, Hossein, and et all. (1012).” Test of Kuznets Curve in Iran by LSTR Method”, Quarterly Journal of Economic Studies, No, 32, pp73-93.

[4] Asghari, Maryam, Salarnazar, rafsanjanipour, Somaeih. (2013)” The Effect of Foreign Direct Investment Flows on environmental Quality in selected MENA Countries”, Quarterly of Economic Growth Researches” No 9, pp1-30.

[5] Central Bank of Iran. (2010). “Efficiency and Energy Intensity in Iran and the World”, unpublished report of Ministry of Energy.

[6] Bahrami, gholami, Mina, Dargahi, Hasan. (2011). “Effective Factors on Green House Gasses in Selected Industrialized and Petroleum Exporting Countries, Pannel Data Approach, Quarterly of environmental Economy and Energy, No, 1, pp73-99

[7] Pajoyan, Jamshid, Moradhasel, Nilofar. (2007). “The Study of economic Growth on Pollution” Economic Researches, No, 7 pp57-71.

[8] Porkazemi, Mohammad Hossein, Ebrahimi, ilnaz. (2008). “The Study of Kuznets’ Environmental Curve in Middle East” Quarterly of Economic Researches, No 34, pp57-72.

[9] Salmani, Behzad & Yavari, kazem. (2015). “Economic Growth, in reach Endowment Countries: Oil Exporting Countries” Journal of Commerce” No, 37 pp. 1-24.

[10] Sharzehei, gholamali & Hghani, Majid. (2009).” The Study of Casualty relation between Carbon Emission and Internal Income, By emphasizes on Energy Consumption” Journal of Economic Researches, No 68.

[11] Shabani, Zohreh & Others. (2009). “The Study of Casualty relation between GDP and Greenhouse Gasses in Iran” Case Study of Carbon Dioxide, Agriculture Economics and Development, No 66.

[12] Sadeghi Hossein & Sadat, Rahman. (2004). Population Growth, Economic Growth and Environmental Effects in Iran”, Journal of Economic Researches, No 64, pp164-180.

[13] Fotros, Mohammad Hossein, & Mabodi, Reza. (2011). “Economic Growth, Energy Consumption, and pollution in Iran” Quarterly of Environmental Economics and Energy, No, 1 pp.189-211.

[14] Fotros, Mohammad Hossein, & Nasrindost, misam. (2009).” The Study of pollution, water pollution, Energy consumption and Economic Growth in Iran” Quarterly of Energy Economics, No, 21.

[15] Mohammadbagheri, azam. (2010).” the study of short run and long run relation between GDP, Energy consumption and emission in Iran”, Quarterly Journal of Energy Economic, No,27 pp.101-129.

[16] References (in English)

A. Kaidonis, M., B. Andrew & j. Andrew. (2010). “Carbon Tax: Challenging neoliberal solutions to climate change”, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 21, pp. 618- 611.

[17] Alam, S., F. Ambreen& B. Muhammad. (2007). “Sustainable Development in Pakistan in the Context of Energy Consumption Demand and Environmental Degradation”, Journal of Asian Economics, No. 18, pp. 825-837.

[18] Chen, B., zh. Yang & L. Chen. (2013). “Decomposition Analysis of Energy-Related Industrial CO2 Emission in China”, Energies, Vol. 6, PP. 2319- 2337.

[19] Cole, M. A. & Neumayer, E. (2004). “Examining the impact of demographic factors on air pollution”, Population and Development Review,PP. 5–21.

[20] Copeland, B.R. & M.S. Taylor. (2003). “Trade and the Environment”, Princeton University Press.

[21] Cramer, C. J. (2002). “Population growth and local air pollution: Methods, models and results”, Population and environment. Vol. 28, PP. 22-52.

[22] Dietz, T. and E. Rosa. (1994). “Rethinking the environmental impacts of population, affluence and technology”,Human Ecology Review, Vol. 1, PP. 277- 300.

[23] Dincer, I. (1999). “Environmental Impacts of Energy”, Energy Policy, Vol. 27, PP. 845-854.

[24] Eddine chebbi, H., M. Olarreaga and H. Zitouna. (2010). “Trade openness and CO2 emissions in Tunisia”, Economic Research Forum.

[25] Grossman, M. G. and B. Alan Krueger. (1991). “Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreements”, Working Paper, No. 3914.

[26] H.Baltagi, B. (2005). “Econometric Analysis of Panel Data”, Third Edition.

[27] Heaton, G., R. Repetto, and R. Sobin(1991).“Transforming technology: An agenda for environmentally sustainable growth in the 21st century”,Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

[28] JrDeluna, R. (2008). “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emission in Asia: Effect of Population, Affluence and Energy Efficiency”, MPRA paper, No.36603.

[29] Kraft, J., Kraft, A. (1978). “On the relationship between energy and GNP”, Journal of Energy and Development, Vol. 3, PP. 401– 403.

[30] List, J.A. et al. (2003). “Effects of Environmental Regulations on Manufacturing Plant Births: Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator”, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[31] Newell, P. (2001). “Managing Multinational: The Governance of Investment for the Environment”, Journal of International Development, 13(7). 907-19.

[32] Popp, D. and Newell. (2009). “Energy, the environment and technological change”, WorkingPapers, National Bureau of Economic Research Inc.

[33] R. Chertow, M. (2001). “The IPAT Equation and Its Variants”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 4, No. 4.

[34] Reddy, A. K. N. (2004). “Energy and Social Issue. In T. B. Johansson & J. Goldemberg (Eds.)”, Energy and the challenge of sustainability, New York.

[35] Shi, A. (2003). “The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions, 1975–1996: Evidence from pooled cross-country data”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 44, PP. 29–42.

[36] Shim, J.H. (2006). “The Reform of Energy Subsidies for the Enhancement of Marine Sustainability”, Case Study of South Korea, University of Delaware.

[37] Simon, J. (1981). “Environmental disruption or environmental improvement?”,Social Science Quarterly.

[38] Soytas, Ugur& Sari, Ramazan& T. Ewing, Bradle. (2007). “Energy Consumption, Income and Carbon Emissions in the United States", Ecological Economics, Elsevier, Vol. 62, No. 3-4, PP. 482-489, May.

[39] Stern, D.I. (2004). “Energy and Economic Growth”, Rensselaer Working Paper, No. 0410.

[40] Tamazian, A. and B. Rao. (2009). “Do Economic, Financial and Institutional Developments Matter of Environmental Degradation? Evidence from Transitional Economics”, Journal of Energy Economics, No. 13015.

[41] Wernick, I., P. Waggoner, and J. Ausubel. (1997). “Searching for leverage to conserve forests”, Journal of Industrial Ecology.

[42] Perman, R. Ma, Y. Mcgilvray, J. (1996). “Natural Resource & Environmental”, Adisson Wesely Longman; New York.

[43] York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, t. (2003). “STIRPAT, IPATand IMPACT: Analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces o environmental impacts”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 46(3). PP. 351–365.

[44] Yu, E. S. H., Hwang, B. (1984). “The relationship between energy and GNP: An international comparison”, Journal of Energy and Development, Vol. 10, PP. 249–272.

[45] Yu, S. H. Eden, & Choi, J. (1985). “The causal relationship between energy and GDP: An international comparison”, The Journal of Energy and Development,Vol. 10(2), PP. 249–270.

[46] Zhang, Ch. and J. Nian. (2013). “Panel estimation for transport sector CO2 emissions and its affecting factors: A regional analysis in China”, Energy Policy, No. 63, PP. 918-926.

[47] Zhang, M., H. Mu and Y. Ning. (2009). “Accounting for energy-related CO2 emission in China 1991-2006”, Energy Policy, Vol. 37, PP. 767-773, March.