Abstract
This paper employs a recently constructed consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions data in which emissions computations are made based on fossil fuel usage domestically, in addition to emissions emanating from imports minus exports. We contrast this measure with the commonly measured territory-based carbon dioxide emissions data and examine how trade performance (split into imports, exports, and total trade) impacts these two measures of carbon dioxide. We focus on 22 sub-Saharan African countries over the period 1995–2014. Employing the system generalized method of moments, we find trade to generally have positive effect on emissions. The results are consistent across the different measures of trade and carbon dioxide emissions. The results of the paper allow us to give some policy suggestions regarding carbon dioxide emissions in sub-Saharan Africa.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Concerns over global warming and climate change have increased in recent times due to the negative effects on human. This has led to an extensive research agenda on the causes and impacts of environmental degradation (Khan et al. 2020). It is not surprising that Beeson (2010) describes the environment as defining public policy issue of the epoch. Many governments across the world have jumped at the policy of protecting the environment. France, for example, has made it mandatory for all listed firms to report on how their activities protect and harm the environment. The United Nations is also at the forefront of pushing the environmental protection agenda to help curtail the numerous effects of climate change especially in developing countries. Countries in the developing world are earmarked to be the hardest hit from the dangers of climate change. For Africa, in particular, the issue is more critical because though it emits the least of the greenhouse gases (GHG), it is the worst affected and the most vulnerable.
Recent climate report by the Guardian suggests that over the next eight decades, the continent will witness many dire outbreaks of heavy rainfalls (The Guardian 2019). These intense rainfalls could spark destructive floods and storms that could have enormous devastating effects on activities like farming. Moreover, these occurrences are expected to be associated with severe droughts in the course of the planting season and would affect crop production (The Guardian 2019). The report also highlighted that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were historically at their peak on earth in May 2019. The emissions levels got to 415 ppm, and scientists caution that it is probable for them to persist on this increasing trajectory for many years to come.
Increasing climate change is also anticipated to increase the possibility of violent behaviors as climate change could have political, sociological, economical, and psychological consequences (Miles-Novelo and Anderson 2019; Plante et al., 2017a, b). Temperatures all over the world will dangerously increase, and in certain parts of Africa, particularly South Africa, climate change is expected to increase violence and conflict (Chersich et al. 2019). The Foresight Africa (2019) has observed that climate change will exacerbate poverty, strain government institutions, and threaten stability in the region if nothing is done especially in the Sahel region and other unstable areas. In a special meeting at the United Nations, Inga Rhonda King, the President of United Nations Economic and Social Council, asserted that the region happens to be one of the most environmentally degraded globally. Temperature rise in the region is expected to be 1.5 times higher relative to other regions globally. West Africa, for example, is earmarked as a climate change stronghold, with the consequences expected to decrease food production and yields. This poses a serious challenge to food security. Shepard (2019) also argues that perhaps no region is suffering from climate change as the Sahel region, a region with an estimated population growth rate of 2.8% per annum and diminishing natural resources, even including water resources. For Africa, then the World Research Institute’s statement that “climate change is not a distant phenomenon-it is right here with us” is very real (Levin and Tirpak, 2018).
The African region as a whole contributed just about 2.5% to the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the period 1980–2005 (Canadell et al. 2009). Despite the fact that sub-Saharan Africa’s (SSA) emissions are least globally, they have been increasing in the last decade. Considering the consequences of rapid population increase on CO2 emissions and the associated adverse effects, this becomes more worrisome as SSA has one of the speediest population growth rates globally. Recent reports suggest that the region only accounts for 7.1% of the global emissions of GHGs, though it is home to 14% of global population (The Economist 2018).
In the era of globalization, trade openness is one of the key economic variables (components), aside capital flows, urbanization, and migration (O’Rouke 2002) affecting climate change. The 2017 African Trade Statistics Yearbook indicates that trade is one of the major drivers of integration and economic development in Africa (African Union 2018). The African region is poised to increase its trade volume and value as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is believed to tremendously increase intra-African trade and speed the process of diversification of sources of trade (African Trade Report 2018). The main aim of the AfCFTA is to speed economic integration in the region and accelerate trade within the region. In year 2016, Africa’s intra-trade increased to 19.6% of its total trade, from 15.2% in the year 2014 to 10.3% in 2008 (World Trade Organization 2018). The AfCFTA signed in Kigali on March 2018 by 44 out of the 55 countries will fundamentally create a larger market for 55 African countries made up of about 1.2 billion people and an annual GDP of about $2.1 trillion, aggregating the present regional economic blocs into a one continental bloc (Trade and Development Report 2018). It is estimated that this move could increase intra-African trade by about 33%, employment by about 1.2%, and GDP between the range of a 1 to 3%. The successful implementation of the AfCFTA has the potential of accelerating industrialization and facilitating economic diversification and inclusion (The Foresight Africa 2019). The AfCFTA agenda is consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals, Goal 17.11, which seeks to increase developing countries’ exports and especially doubling the share of global exports of least developed countries.
The question then is how this improvement in trade is impacting on the environment? This is the issue driving this paper. The main objective of this study is to examine the effect of trade on CO2 emissions in SSA countries. Specifically, we find the effect of different components of trade, by examining how exports and imports of goods and services in addition to the total trade measure affect CO2 emissions. Previous studies have mainly focused on the total trade measure. More importantly, we find the effect of the different measures of trade on disaggregated data of CO2 emissions (territorial and consumption-based emissions). As the territorial-based is made up of CO2 emissions from domestic activities only (Boden et al. 2013; Lamb et al. 2014), the consumption-based emissions is related to the domestic use of fossil fuels in addition to the embodied emissions from imports, subtracting exports (Peters et al., 2011a, b). This is one of the first studies on SSA that examines the independent effects of total exports and total imports on the disaggregated data of CO2 emissions. We make a case for 22 SSA countries over the period 1995–2014. The number of countries and years for the study are influenced by data availability. Data on consumption-based CO2 emissions exists for 26 African countries; hence. excluding North Africa countries leaves us with 22 SSA countries.
The study continues as follows: “Related literature” presents a brief literature review on the topic. “Methodology and data” and “Results and discussion” present the methodology and the results (and discussion) of the paper respectively. “Conclusion and policy implications” concludes the paper.
Related literature
Trade openness has been identified as one of the key ingredients of globalization besides intellectual property rights and capital flows (O’Rourke 2002), whose impact on sustainable development and particularly the environment has been contested both theoretically and empirically. Three main perspectives of trade have been identified in relation to the environment: positive impact, deteriorating (negative), and no impact. The positive impact of trade on CO2 emissions is associated with the fact that increased international trade leads to more production and energy consumption and consequently more pollution (scale effect) (Dean 2002). This scale effect that leads to more pollution could be augmented by the composition effect related to the changes in consumption and production patterns which ensure greater efficiency and higher output and consequently the release of more CO2 emissions. Put differently, the scale effect indicates that a greater level of economic growth (increase in per capita income) results in greater energy consumption, which leads to increases in emissions of CO2 (Shahbaz et al., 2019a, b). The composition effect of trade on the other hand indicates that strictness of environmental regulations would cause a move in pollution-intensive production to less developed countries (Copeland and Taylor 2003) leading to the so-called pollution havens and the development of the pollution haven hypothesis (PHH). The PHH thus emphasizes that, with an open and liberalized trade, industries that produce pollution-intensive products tend to move from advanced (rich) countries with stringent environmental standards to less developing (poor) countries with lax environmental standards, while industries producing “clean” products tend to shift towards advanced countries (Copeland and Taylor 1994). Rich countries can decrease their production of carbon-intensive products and by doing so decrease their territory-based CO2 emissions (Bhattacharya, Inekwe and Sadorsky 2020).
The reasoning behind the hypothesis is that environmental regulations causes cost to rise, which eventually makes exports of stringent regulations countries more expensive, compared with exports from less stringent regulations countries (Grossman and Krueger 1993; Tobey 1990). Indeed, trade liberalizations and globalization pervert the gains of countries’ policies concerning the climate change since advanced countries decrease their emissions by shifting their “dirty” industries to less developed countries (Ertugrul et al. 2016; Bilgili et al. 2016).
On the other hand, the improved growth and wealth associated with trade liberalization could trigger demand for higher quality environment and therefore more stringent enforcement of environmental policy. Additionally, an upsurge in trade flows can also make environmental quality to increase if trade speeds up better access to greener technologies in production and backs the call for environmental standards and regulations that protect the environment. Trade induces competition, and this competition can also coax countries to adopt more efficient production technologies and hence decrease carbon emissions. Thus, the technique effect associated with the transfer of knowledge and improved technological production strategies is likely to result in decrease in emissions (Shahbaz et al., 2019a, b). Runge (1993) asserts that through the utilization of cleaner technologies in production and other economic activities, trade openness is able to provide opportunities for a number of countries to attain better environmental quality by reducing CO2 emissions.
The effect of trade on carbon emissions therefore cannot be determined a priori. As noted by Grossman and Krueger (1991, 1993), the impact of trade on the environment in both developed and developing countries hinges on the sort of environmental policies they have implemented regardless of their stages of development. As Dean (2002) has noted, trade openness could have both direct and indirect impacts on emissions, and that these impacts could be either positive or negative.
Accordingly, many studies have therefore been carried out to validate the trade-carbon emissions relationship. In the recent literature, interest in disaggregated CO2—consumption-based and territory-based carbon emissions—is rising. In what follows, we review some of these studies. Globalization, of which trade has been the main indicator has direct consequences on the environment (Ahmed et al. 2016). Ahmed et al. (2016) find trade to affect energy consumption which in turn affects environmental degradation. Using the club convergence approach of Phillips and Sul and a total of 70 countries over the period 1990–2014, Bhattacharya et al. (2020) examines the determinants of convergence paths for both consumption-based and territorial-based carbon emission intensities. Among other results, they find that a one-unit increase in trade leads to a 1.0 (consumption-based) or 1.03 (territorial-based) increase the odds of being in the low carbon emissions intensity club. Hasanov et al. (2018) investigate the impact of trade on CO2 emissions for 9 oil-exporting countries. Examining the separate impacts of exports and imports and disaggregating CO2 emissions, consumption-based and territorial-based carbon emissions, they show that as exports and imports have statistically significant impacts of opposite signs on consumption-based CO2 emissions in both the long and short run, exports and imports are statistically insignificant for territorial-based CO2 emissions. Using a panel of 20 Asian countries over the period 1990–2013, Liddle (2018a) finds that as trade is significant for consumption-based emissions, it is not for territorial-based emissions. Specifically, he finds that exports and imports offset each other in that exports lower (negative coefficient) consumption-based emissions, whereas imports increase (positive coefficient) them. Similarly, Liddle (2018b) examines the differential impact of exports and imports on disaggregated CO2 emissions over the period 1990–2013 but in 102 countries. He finds results similar to Liddle (2018a); trade was significant for consumption-based emissions but not for territorial-based emissions. As exports are found to lower consumption-based emissions, imports increase them. The results are found to be consistent across various income groups. Khan et al. (2020) examine the impact of trade on disaggregated CO2 emissions for G7 economies and find that exports and imports are negatively and positively associated with consumption-based carbon emissions, respectively.
Methodology and data
In this section, we describe the methodology employed in attaining the objective of the paper. Specifically, it respectively contains the following subsections; model, estimation method, and data.
Model
In investigating the effect of trade on CO2 emissions, we follow empirical and theoretical literature (Hasanov et al. 2018; Liddle 2018a, b) and estimate our main empirical model as:
where i and t, respectively, denote country and time. COit is the dependent variable, and it represents a proxy for the environment and in this case represents CO2 emissions. COit takes any of the following variables: consumption-based CO2 emissions (CO2 _ cons) and territorial-based CO2 emissions (CO2 _ terr). CO2 _ cons is consumption-based per capita CO2 emissions. Consumption-based emissions are calculated based on domestic final consumption and include imports (Bhattacharya et al. 2020). Hence, they are calculated based on the domestic use of fossil fuels in addition to the embodied emissions from imports minus exports (Peters et al., 2011a, b). It is measured per year in million tons of carbon. CO2 _ terr is territorial-based emissions per capita. The territorial-based emissions consist of only emissions from domestic activities (Boden et al. 2013; Lamb et al. 2014). They are also measured per year in million tons of carbon.
Opennessit represents trade openness and can take any of the following: EXPit, IMPit, and Tradeit. Where EXPit, IMPit, and Tradeit represent total exports (of goods and services) as a percentage of GDP, total imports (of goods and services) as a percentage of GDP, and total trade (exports plus imports) of goods and services as a percentage of GDP, respectively. FDIit represents foreign direct investment (net inflows) as a percentage of GDP. GDPit represents a measure of economic growth and in this case proxied by the log of GDP per capita. Talking about economic growth in relation to the environment, we cannot do away with the EKC hypothesis which asserts an inverted “U”-shaped relationship between environmental degradation (emissions) and economic growth (Grossman and Krueger 1991; Saboori et al. 2012). It implies that as the economy grows, emissions rise, but with greater growth, environmental quality sets in. To capture the curvature of the EKC, we include the squared of GDP, i.e., \( {GDP}_{it}^2 \) (Wang 2012). Popit represents the log of total population. β1- β5 are parameters to be estimated. εit is the error term.
Econometric method
Considering the pollution haven hypothesis and the relationship that exists between openness and emissions, we cannot assume that openness and its component variables are strictly exogenous. As a result, we employ the system generalized method of moments (GMM) which is able to accommodate endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity by allowing lagged internal instruments to be included in the model (see Arellano and Bond 1991; Arellano and Bover 1995; Blundell and Bond 1998; Holtz-Eakin et al. 1988). Motivation behind the use of the GMM estimator is reflected in its ability in mainly accommodating for a dearth of good external instrumental variables (Roodman 2009). We are also particularly interested in employing the GMM due to the enormous challenge of identifying, theoretically justifying, and validating external instruments (Bazzi and Clemens 2013; Durlauf et al. 2005). The GMM estimator makes use of the dynamic relationships existing in the explanatory variables. Estimations using the GMM follow two main procedures; the first procedure involves first differencing the variables which eliminates any possible bias that may result from time-invariant unobserved heterogeneity. In the second procedure, the model of interest is estimated by using the lagged values of the dependent variable(s) as instruments for the current explanatory variables. These instruments are therefore gleaned from the set of lagged dependent variable(s).
Data
This paper covers a panel data of 22 SSA countries covering the period 1995–2014.Footnote 1 The sampled countries and time period are limited by the availability of data for all the variables employed, particularly the CO2 emissions related variables.Footnote 2 The number of countries in the sample (22) is arrived at due to the following; data on consumption-based CO2 emissions existed for 26 African countries, and restricting the sample to SSA, we arrived at 22 countries. With the exception of the consumption- and territorial-based CO2 emissions sourced/updated from Peters et al. (2011a, b) and Boden et al. (2015), all other remaining variables are obtained from the online database of the World Bank (World Development Indicators). Table 1 contains a summary of the variables and the descriptive statistics.
Results and discussion
This section presents and discusses the results of the paper. Before presenting the results, we test for cross-sectional dependence in the data as its existence can bias the estimates. We employ the Pesaran (2004) cross-sectional dependence test.Footnote 3 For all the variables, the test rejected the null hypothesis of cross-sectional independence (see Table 3 in the Appendix). As cross-sectional dependence could bias the estimates, we follow Sarafidis and Robertson (2009) and perform time-specific demeaning of the data before estimation to reduce the impact of the bias. Time-demeaning the data prior to estimation successfully removes the bias from the mean group parameter (Herzer and Strulik 2017; Neal, 2015, Sarafidis and Robertson, 2009). Sarafidis and Robertson (2009) assert that one way to reduce the amount of error cross-sectional dependence in estimators (including GMM estimators) is to transform the data in terms of deviations from time averages.
Following Pesaran and Yamagata (2008), we also test for slope heterogeneity/homogeneity of the estimates of all the models we estimate. Under each dependent variable (territorial-based CO2 emissions and consumption-based CO2 emissions), we present 6 models. The results of the slope heterogeneity test (reported in Table 4 in the Appendix) show that models using territorial-based CO2 emissions do not suffer from slope heterogeneity bias at the 5% significance level except in the case of model 4. Nevertheless, the models presented under the consumption-based CO2 emissions dependent variable exhibit slope heterogeneity.Footnote 4
In Table 2, we present results using the system GMM. Considering that the data suffer from cross-sectional dependence, we follow Herzer and Strulik (2017), Neal (2015), and Sarafidis and Robertson (2009) and demean the data prior to estimation to reduce/alleviate the effect. Before discussing the results, it is important to emphasize the validity and the consistency of the estimates which rely on the model diagnostics. The results indicate that for all the models, there is no second-order autocorrelation (see bottom of Table 2). The estimates indicate that the null hypothesis of no serial correlation between the errors cannot be rejected. This implies that the instruments emanating from the lags of the variables are valid for their current values. Also, the Sargan tests of over-identifying restrictions imply that the models are correctly specified and the instruments are valid (see the bottom of Table 2). Table 2 contains 12 models; from models 1–6, the dependent variable is territorial-based CO2 emissions, and from 7 to 12, the dependent variable is consumption-based CO2 emissions. The main independent variable is trade, and this variable is divided into three, exports, imports, and total trade of goods and services (exports plus imports of goods and services), all as a percentage of GDP. For all the estimated models (Table 2), the coefficients of the lagged dependent variables are positive and statistically significant at the 1% level. This is an indication that the dependent variables in a given year are influenced by their previous values.
The results indicate that openness as measured by total trade (as a percentage of GDP) has a statistically positive coefficient (1% level) for both the consumption-based and territorial-based CO2 emissions estimations (see models 3 and 9 of Table 2). Similarly, in models 6 and 12 when the models were augmented by GDP squared, trade is still positive and statistically significant.
Using exports and (as a percentage of GDP) to proxy for openness, the results still show positive and statistically significant coefficients (models 2 and 5 of Tables 2) irrespective of the dependent variable. Exports still exhibit statistically positive coefficients when the models are augmented with GDP squared (models 8 and 11 of Table 2). Imports (as a percentage of GDP) also show positive and statistically significant coefficients (models 1 and 7 of Table 2) even when the models are augmented with GDP squared. The results generally indicate that trade (irrespective of the measure) leads to increase in CO2 emissions (regardless of the measure).
To further investigate the impact of trade on the environment, we split total trade to its components: exports and imports. The results of both exports and imports are similar to that of total trade irrespective of the dependent variable (models 2 and 7 of Table 2). Since trade is divided into exports and imports, the expectation is that exports will reduce and imports will increase consumption-based emissions (Hasanov et al. 2018). The results show the coefficients of exports in the consumption-based emissions to be positive and statistically significant (see models 8 and 11 of Table 2), implying that increase in exports increases consumption-based emissions. The results of exports are contrary to the expectation (Hasanov et al. 2018). The consumption-based emissions are calculated based on domestic final consumption and includes imports but excludes exports (Bhattacharya et al. 2020).
However, the positive impact of exports on consumption-based emissions may be explained by the fact that products that are exported require the use of machinery and other products that are imported to especially facilitate processing or production of the goods to be imported. To our expectation, the results indicate that imports have positive and statistically significant coefficients (see 7 and 10 of Table 2), implying that increase in imports increases consumption-based CO2 emissions. Consumption-based emissions include embodied emissions from imports, as a result increase in imports will increase their emissions (Peters et al., 2011a, b). Imported goods and services form a great chunk of the of the total consumption of developing countries; they import a substantial amount of intermediate and final goods to consume domestically, and as a result, consumption-based CO2 emissions increase (Hasanov et al. 2018). The results are consistent with Hasanov et al. (2018) and Liddle (2018a, b).
Regarding the estimations using the territorial-based emissions as the dependent variables, we find the results to be consistent with those using consumption-based emissions. Both exports and imports have positive and statistically significant coefficients. Since the territorial-based emissions are made up of CO2 emissions from domestic activities including production for exports (Boden et al. 2013; Lamb et al. 2014), the results of the exports variable meet our expectation as increase in exports increases territorial-based emissions. The results of imports defy our expectation. Nevertheless, in cases where imported products have to be reprocessed or reproduced in the domestic economy importing them, increase in such imports will add up to the territorial-based emissions in that economy. Our results are largely contrary to some studies that have found trade not to matter for territorial-based emissions (Liddle 2018a, b; Hasanov et al. 2018; Khan et al. 2020).
The results of the study indicate that regardless of the measure of trade or emissions, increase trade is associated with increased emissions. This implies that trade is harmful to environmental quality (as they lead to increase in both territorial- and consumption-based CO2 emissions). Generally, the results buttress the argument of the pollution haven hypothesis. The pollution haven hypothesis suggests that with globalization and the opening up of countries for trade, multinational firms in more developed countries are bound to move their “dirty” production to developing or poor countries. This is the case as developing countries have lax environmental regulations and are in dire need of trade, considering the many benefits that come with it. In SSA, the structural and economic recovery programs of the 1980s saw the opening up of more countries for trade. The results largely tell that total trade has not contributed in improving environmental quality. This outcome is generally in consonance with a number of studies (see for example, Bento and Moutinho 2016; Jebli et al. 2019; Zeng et al. 2019; Opoku and Boachie, 2020).
In relation to the other control variables, the results indicate that irrespective of the dependent variable, the FDI variable is found to be consistently negative and statistically significant. This implies that increase in FDI is likely to cause environmental quality to improve. This leans support to the pollution halo hypothesis (Kahia et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2019; Jebli et al. 2019), which argues that multinational firms possess superior technologies and as a result are capable of engaging in green investments and activities that do not hurt the environment (Doytch and Uctum 2016; Wang 2017). Regardless of the dependent variable, the results generally show population to have positive coefficients howbeit statistically insignificant.
For economic growth (GDP), the results indicate positive and statistically significant coefficients regardless of the dependent variable, indicating that rising economic growth can hurt the environment. A rise GDP implies a rise in the income level of the countries in the sample. A rise in income will increase economic activity. Individuals, firms, and governments in these countries can demand more goods whose production and consumption result in increase in CO2 emissions (Hasanov et al. 2018, Liddle, 2018a). Khan et al. (2020) assert that increase in economic activities as a result of increase in GDP increases energy consumption hence causing CO2 emissions to rise. Nevertheless, in accounting for the EKC by including the square of GDP, we find contrary results. We find GDP having negative coefficients with the squared GDP having positive coefficients. In contrast to the underpinnings of the EKC hypothesis, the results indicate that at the initial levels of growth, growth is not harmful to the environment; however, it becomes harmful at higher stages of the growth expedition. Following Hasanov et al. (2018), we argue that this outcome may be as a result of the countries in our sample. The countries in the sample are developing countries, and they will continue to grow in the long run especially in industrial development which has not fully taken place in these African countries. With this, higher CO2 emission is expected with greater increase in GDP. The results of the study affirm the findings in many empirical studies that the EKC hypothesis usually does not hold for developing countries (Hasanov et al. 2018; Hasanov et al. 2019). The countries in our sample are developing countries and have long way to go to have the economic, institutional, and environmental systems in which rise in income will result in reduction in CO2 emissions (Hasanov et al. 2019). Harbaugh et al. (2002) assert that the evidence for EKC is less robust than previously claimed.
Conclusion and policy implications
The results of the paper allow us to give some policy implications regarding CO2 emissions in SSA. The observation is that trade and its components generate positive impact on both territorial and consumption-based CO2 emissions. The results, hence, imply that trade, regardless of how it is measured, leads to environmental degradation in the form of increased CO2 emissions. The results are in line with the hypothesis that openness could pollute developing countries. Trade is very important to countries in Africa. Despite the fact that almost all economies in Africa rely mainly on exports, these economies are also very import-dependent. The region is a net-importer of consumables. As the region’s domestic activities of trade (export production) could increase the emissions of territorial based CO2, its imports increase consumption-based CO2 emissions. As both exports and imports are bound to happen in all African countries, CO2 emissions are also bound to happen. Governments and policymakers must therefore be conscious of the emissions capabilities of trade. This is important considering the effect of CO2 emissions on climate change. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges societies all over the world (especially African countries) are contending with, and there is mounting interest in reducing CO2 emissions around the globe.
Deliberate attempts by governments and policymakers in Africa are presently pressing considering the initiation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The AfCFTA, which came into force in 2019, requires members to remove tariffs from 90% of goods, allowing free access to commodities, goods, and services across the African region. It is aimed at expanding intra-African trade across the region. With the AfCFTA, trade (both exports and imports) is bound to increase within the region, and hence if stringent environmental measures are not put in place, environmental degradation in the form of carbon emissions is bound to rise. As a result, environmental policymakers have to execute and monitor strict environmental regulatory framework to effectually counter the deteriorating impact that this trade openness may come with. The AfCFTA secretariat can also come up with environmental regulations for its members to abide with. The negative effect of trade should not lead to less trade to reduce pollution, but rather the countries should embark on environmental assessment mechanisms which can in the long run make the positive impact of trade on environmental quality stronger. Improving the quality of the trade basket can be more productive than an increase in the volume of trade.
The results indicate that trade policy in the SSA region should be directed at attracting FDI in high-tech industries in the long run and also those that could help in production of renewable energy options. A major option for SSA countries is to motivate a greater set of both domestic and foreign investment so as to produce a higher scale of output and at the same time to achieve sustainable environmental quality. The way forward is for SSA countries to implement stringent regulatory frameworks that balance investment policies and environmental standards such that environmental friendly FDI will be attracted.
Realistically, every research has some limitations. Obviously, not all variables can be studied at the same time, which suggests the possibility of omitted variables. Some of the models estimated here failed to pass the slope homogeneity test, drawing a little caution to the interpretation of the results. Finally, this is a regional study of 22 SSA countries that assumes similar economic, political, and sociocultural characteristics. Future research should focus on more country-specific studies to provide more information on the trade/globalization-CO2 emissions relationship.
Change history
24 July 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15429-6
Notes
The list of countries is as follows: Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
In order to attain balanced panel for all the variables employed and to include as many countries as possible, we restrict end of the sample to 2014.
This test is implemented in Stata using the command xtcd.
The results hold for the main data and the time-specific demeaned data. Considering the existence of slope heterogeneity for some of the models, estimators robust (such as CS-ARDL, AMG or CCEMG) to this bias are prudent to be used for these models. However, none of these estimators worked for our data. Besides, these estimators are applied to static panel models with strictly exogenous regressors. As a result, we proceed to estimate our main results with the GMM on time-specific demean data.
References
African Trade Report (2018) Boosting intra-African trade: implications of the African continental free trade area agreement. Afreximbank, Cairo
African Union (2018) African Trade Statistics YEARBOOK 2017. https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/34899-doc-african_union_trade_final_web.pdf
Ahmed K, Bhattacharya M, Qazi AQ, Long W (2016) Energy consumption in China and underlying factors in a changing landscape: empirical evidence since the reform period. Renew Sust Energ Rev 58:224–234
Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econ 68(1):29–51
Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297
Bazzi S, Clemens MA (2013) Blunt instruments: avoiding common pitfalls in identifying the causes of economic growth. Am Econ J Macroecon 5(2):152–186
Beeson M (2010) The coming of environmental authoritarianism. Environmental Politics 19(2):276–294
Bento JPC, Moutinho V (2016) CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55:142–155
Bhattacharya M, Inekwe JN, Sadorsky P (2020) Consumption-based and territory-based carbon emissions intensity: determinants and forecasting using club convergence across countries. Energy Econ 86:104632
Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü (2016) The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:838–845
Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econ 87(1):115–143
Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2013) Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel (Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)
Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2015) Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide information analysis center, oak ridge national laboratory, U.S. department of energy, oak ridge, Tenn
Canadell JG, Raupach MR, Houghton RA (2009) Anthropogenic CO 2 emissions in Africa. Biogeosciences 6(3):463–468
Chersich M, Swift CP, Edelstein I, Breetzke G, Scorgie F, Schutte F, Wright CY (2019) Violence in hot weather: will climate change exacerbate rates of violence in South Africa? S Afr Med J 109(7):447–449
Copeland BR, Taylor MS (1994) North-South trade and the environment. The quarterly journal of Economics 109(3):755–787
Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2003) Trade and the Environment: Theory and Evidence. Princeton University Press, New Jersey
Dean JM (2002) Does trade liberalization harm the environment? A new test. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 35(4), 819–842
Doytch N, Uctum M (2016) Globalization and the environmental impact of sectoral FDI. Econ Syst 40(4):582–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.02.005
Durlauf S. Johnson P, Temple J (2005). Growth econometrics part a. 1 Elsevier: 555–677
Ertugrul HM, Cetin M, Seker F, Dogan E (2016) The impact of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from the top ten emitters among developing countries. Ecol Indic 67:543–555
Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No 3914(3914), 1–57
Grossman G, Krueger AB (1993) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement, The US-Mexico free trade agreement. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Harbaugh WT, Levinson A, Wilson DM (2002) Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. Rev Econ Stat 84(3):541–551
Hasanov FJ, Liddle B, Mikayilov JI (2018) The impact of international trade on CO2 emissions in oil exporting countries: territory vs consumption emissions accounting. Energy Econ 74:343–350
Hasanov FJ, Mikayilov JI, Mukhtarov S, Suleymanov E (2019) Does CO 2 emissions–economic growth relationship reveal EKC in developing countries? Evidence from Kazakhstan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(29):30229–30241
Herzer D, Strulik H (2017) Religiosity and income: a panel cointegration and causality analysis. Appl Econ 49(30):2922–2938
Holtz-Eakin D, Newey W, Rosen HS (1988) Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica 56(6):1371–1395 Accessed 1 October 2017
Huang Y, Chen X, Zhu H, Huang C, Tian Z (2019) The heterogeneous effects of FDI and foreign trade on CO2 emissions: evidence from China. Math Probl Eng, 2019
Jebli MB, Youssef SB, Apergis N (2019) The dynamic linkage between renewable energy, tourism, CO 2 emissions, economic growth, foreign direct investment, and trade. Latin Am Econ Rev 28(2):1–19
Kahia M, Jebli MB, Belloumi M (2019) Analysis of the impact of renewable energy consumption and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions in 12 MENA countries. Clean Techn Environ Policy 21(4):871–885
Khan Z, Ali S, Umar M, Kirikkaleli D, Jiao Z (2020) Consumption-based carbon emissions and international trade in G7 countries: The role of environmental innovation and renewable energy. Sci Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138945
Lamb WF, Steinberger JK, Bows-Larkin A, Peters GP, Roberts JT, Wood FR (2014) Transitions in pathways of human development and carbon emissions. Environ Res Lett 9(1):014011
Levin K, Tirpak D (2018) 2018: a year of climate extremes. World Research Institute. Washington, DC. https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/2018-year-climate-extremes
Liddle B (2018a) Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions Nexus in Asia: a heterogeneous, common factor panel analysis. Sustainability 10(10):3627
Liddle B (2018b) Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions nexus. Energy Econ 69:71–78
Miles-Novelo A, Anderson CA (2019) Climate change and psychology: effects of rapid global warming on violence and aggression. Curr Climate Change Rep 5(1):36–46
Neal, T. (2015). Estimating heterogeneous coefficients in panel data models with endogenous regressors and common factors. Workblacking Paper
O'Rourke KH (2002) Globalization and inequality: historical trends. In Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 2001, pp 39–67
Opoku EE, Boachie MK (2020) The environmental impact of industrialization and foreign direct investment. Energy Policy 137:111178
Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. IZA discussion paper no. 1240; IZA: Bonn, Germany
Pesaran MH, Yamagata T (2008) Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. J Econ 142(1):50–93
Peters GP, Andrew R, Lennox J (2011a) Constructing an environmentally-extended multi-regional input–output table using the GTAP database. Econ Syst Res 23(2):131–152
Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CL, Edenhofer O (2011b) Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(21):8903–8908
Plante C, Allen JJ, Anderson CA (2017a) Effects of rapid climate change on violence and conflict. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science
Plante C, Allen JJ, Anderson CA (2017b) Likely effects of rapid climate change on violence and conflict. In: Oglesby L (ed) The Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Roodman D (2009) Practitioners’ corner: a note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 71(1):135–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2008.00542.x
Runge CF (1993) Trade, pollution and environmental protection. Staff Papers 14025, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics, p 29–37
Sarafidis V, Robertson D (2009) On the impact of error cross-sectional dependence in short dynamic panel estimation. Econ J 12(1):62–81
Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohd S (2012) Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy 51:184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.065
Shahbaz M, Gozgor G, Adom PK, Hammoudeh S (2019a) The technical decomposition of carbon emissions and the concerns about FDI and trade openness effects in the United States. Int Econ 159:56–73
Shahbaz M, Mahalik MK, Shahzad SJH, Hammoudeh S (2019b) Testing the globalization-driven carbon emissions hypothesis: international evidence. Int Econ 158:25–38
Shepard D (2019) Global warming: severe consequences for Africa. Africa Renewal https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2018-march-2019/global-warming-severe-consequences-africa
The Economist (2018) A burning issue in Africa: Africa’s big carbon emitters admit they have a problem. https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2018/04/21/africas-big-carbon-emitters-admit-they-have-a-problem
The Foresight Africa (2019) Top priorities for the continent in 2019. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/foresight-africa-top-priorities-for-the-continent-in-2019/
The Guardian (2019) Global heating to inflict more droughts on Africa as well as floods. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/14/africa-global-heating-more-droughts-and-flooding-threat
Tobey JA (1990) The effects of domestic environmental policies on patterns of world trade: an empirical test. The Economics of International Trade and the Environment, pp 205–216
Wang KM (2012) Modelling the nonlinear relationship between CO2 emissions from oil and economic growth. Econ Model 29(5):1537–1547
Wang S (2017) Impact of FDI on energy efficiency: an analysis of the regional discrepancies in China. Nat Hazards 85(2):1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2629-x
World Trade Organization (2018) World Trade Statistical Review 2018. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/wts2018_e/wts2018_e.pdf
Zeng B, Wu T, Guo X (2019) Interprovincial trade, economic development and the impact on air quality in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 142:204–214
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Samuel Adams. Methodology: Eric Evans Osei Opoku. Formal analysis and investigation: Eric Evans Osei Opoku.Writing - original draft preparation: Samuel Adams and Eric Evans Osei Opoku. Writing - review and editing: Samuel Adams and Eric Evans Osei Opoku. Supervision: Samuel Adams and Eric Evans Osei Opoku
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Eyup Dogan
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Adams, S., Opoku, E.E.O. Trade and environmental pollution in Africa: accounting for consumption and territorial-based emissions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 44230–44239 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10328-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10328-8