IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pes/ieroec/v14y2023i2p449-482.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives the preferences for cleaner energy? Parametrizing the elasticities of environmental quality demand for greenhouse gases

Author

Listed:
  • Javier Sánchez García

    (University of Almeria, Spain)

  • Emilio Galdeano Gómez

    (University of Almeria, Spain)

Abstract

Research background: The heterogeneity in the factors that affect demand for environmental quality implicates a diverse set of policies and actions aimed at achieving cleaner production to address the challenges posed by pollution and damage to the natural environment. Even though this topic has been widely addressed, mainly from the traditional perspective of the Environmental Kuznets Curves hypothesis (EKC), it has been assumed that the environment is a luxury good with an income elasticity greater than unity. However, it has recently been recognized that the relationship between income and demand for cleaner energy may be more complex and that further inquiry may be needed for a better understanding. Purpose of the article: This research work, employing a panel of European countries, offers direct explicit parameters for the elasticity of income-environmental quality demand for Greenhouse Gases (GHG), as well as its relationship with other important factors. It provides quantitative novel insights into the complex relationship between income and the preferences for cleaner energy. Methods: A hierarchical regression equations approach is used to analyze the evolution of the elasticity of income-environmental quality demand with the inclusion of further co-variates that are relevant for the preferences side of the EKC, such as consumption, R+D investment and BERD (Business Enterprise Research and Development). The data for the empirical study comes from a panel of 16 European countries for the period from 2010 to 2020. Findings & value added: The results show robust evidence that the elasticity of environmental quality demand, which although positive and significant, does not exceed one. To obtain an elasticity above unity, two more variables are needed, namely the R+D expenditure of business enterprises and the exposure of citizens to air pollution. These two factors have a similar or even higher effect on the preferences of agents for cleaner energy, which also means that the preferences of the citizens are endogenous to technological development. At the theoretical level, this work shows that the technological and preferences arguments are not substitute explanations of the EKC, but that technological development exerts a positive effect on the preferences of inhabitants, whose demand for environmental quality is heavily conditioned by their capabilities to see pollution, even more than by their income level. This also means that public policies directed to improve environmental awareness should be directed first towards those regions where the exposure of the citizens to pollution is lower.

Suggested Citation

  • Javier Sánchez García & Emilio Galdeano Gómez, 2023. "What drives the preferences for cleaner energy? Parametrizing the elasticities of environmental quality demand for greenhouse gases," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 14(2), pages 449-482, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:pes:ieroec:v:14:y:2023:i:2:p:449-482
    DOI: 10.24136/oc.2023.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.24136/oc.2023.012
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.24136/oc.2023.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jesus Crespo Cuaresma & Doris Ritzberger-Grunwald & Maria Antoinette Silgoner, 2008. "Growth, convergence and EU membership," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 643-656.
    2. Dutta, Anupam & Bouri, Elie & Rothovius, Timo & Uddin, Gazi Salah, 2023. "Climate risk and green investments: New evidence," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    3. Brian R. Copeland & M. Scott Taylor, 2004. "Trade, Growth, and the Environment," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(1), pages 7-71, March.
    4. Casu, Barbara & Girardone, Claudia, 2010. "Integration and efficiency convergence in EU banking markets," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 260-267, October.
    5. Arrow, Kenneth & Bolin, Bert & Costanza, Robert & Dasgupta, Partha & Folke, Carl & Holling, C.S. & Jansson, Bengt-Owe & Levin, Simon & Mäler, Karl-Göran & Perrings, Charles & Pimentel, David, 1996. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 104-110, February.
    6. Andreoni, James & Levinson, Arik, 2001. "The simple analytics of the environmental Kuznets curve," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 269-286, May.
    7. Blampied, Nicolás, 2021. "Economic growth, environmental constraints and convergence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    8. Bimonte, Salvatore, 2009. "Growth and environmental quality: Testing the double convergence hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2406-2411, June.
    9. Alvarez-Herranz, Agustin & Balsalobre-Lorente, Daniel & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Cantos, José María, 2017. "Energy innovation and renewable energy consumption in the correction of air pollution levels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 386-397.
    10. Edward B. Barbier & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Is the Income Elasticity of the Willingness to Pay for Pollution Control Constant?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 663-682, November.
    11. Costanza, Robert, 1995. "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 89-90, November.
    12. Dinda, Soumyananda, 2004. "Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 431-455, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard T. Carson, 2010. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve: Seeking Empirical Regularity and Theoretical Structure," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 3-23, Winter.
    2. Valeria Costantini & Chiara Martini, 2010. "A Modified Environmental Kuznets Curve for sustainable development assessment using panel data," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1/2), pages 84-122.
    3. Pascalau, Razvan & Qirjo, Dhimitri, 2017. "TTIP and the Environmental Kuznets Curve," MPRA Paper 80192, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Onafowora, Olugbenga A. & Owoye, Oluwole, 2014. "Bounds testing approach to analysis of the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 47-62.
    5. Jaime Alonso-Carrera & Carlos Miguel & Baltasar Manzano, 2019. "Economic Growth and Environmental Degradation When Preferences are Non-homothetic," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1011-1036, November.
    6. Carson, Richard T, 2009. "Searching for Empirical Regularity and Theoretical Structure: The Environmental Kuznets Curve," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt4m6263c2, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    7. Simone Marsiglio & Alberto Ansuategi & Maria Carmen Gallastegui, 2016. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve and the Structural Change Hypothesis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 265-288, February.
    8. Dhimitri Qirjo & Razvan Pascalau, 2021. "Would economic growth affect air pollution in light of the potential transatlantic trade and investment partnership?," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 127-156, February.
    9. Roxana Pincheira & Felipe Zuniga, 2021. "Environmental Kuznets curve bibliographic map: a systematic literature review," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 1931-1956, April.
    10. George Halkos & Iacovos Psarianos, 2016. "Exploring the effect of including the environment in the neoclassical growth model," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 18(3), pages 339-358, July.
    11. Costantini, Valeria & Monni, Salvatore, 2008. "Environment, human development and economic growth," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 867-880, February.
    12. Anver C. Sadath & Rajesh H. Acharya, 2019. "Economic growth and environmental degradation: How to balance the interests of developed and developing countries," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(2), pages 25-47.
    13. Di Vita, Giuseppe, 2008. "Is the discount rate relevant in explaining the Environmental Kuznets Curve?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 191-207.
    14. Sabuj Kumar Mandal & Devleena Chakravarty, 2017. "Role of energy in estimating turning point of Environmental Kuznets Curve: an econometric analysis of the existing studies," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 19(2), pages 387-401, October.
    15. Managi, Shunsuke, 2006. "Are there increasing returns to pollution abatement? Empirical analytics of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in pesticides," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 617-636, June.
    16. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, February.
    17. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Nasir, Muhammad Ali & Roubaud, David, 2018. "Environmental degradation in France: The effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 843-857.
    18. Tetsuya Tsurumi & Shunsuke Managi, 2010. "Decomposition of the environmental Kuznets curve: scale, technique, and composition effects," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 11(1), pages 19-36, February.
    19. Kijima, Masaaki & Nishide, Katsumasa & Ohyama, Atsuyuki, 2011. "EKC-type transitions and environmental policy under pollutant uncertainty and cost irreversibility," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 746-763, May.
    20. Fernández-Amador, Octavio & Francois, Joseph F. & Oberdabernig, Doris A. & Tomberger, Patrick, 2017. "Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Economic Growth: An Assessment Based on Production and Consumption Emission Inventories," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 269-279.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cleaner energy; environmental demand elasticity; business enterprises R+D; exposure to air pollution;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O44 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Environment and Growth
    • Q50 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - General
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pes:ieroec:v:14:y:2023:i:2:p:449-482. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Adam P. Balcerzak (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibgtopl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.