European Commission’s Energy and Climate Policy Framework

  • Michael L. PolemisEmail author
  • Panagiotis Fotis
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


In 2007, the European Commission (EC) provided its targets of energy and climate policy framework (“20–20–20” targets), with which the EC aimed to achieve a 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels, an increase in the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources (RES) to 20% and a 20% improvement in the EU’s energy efficiency. In 2014, the EC introduced the new key achievements of its energy and climate policy framework (EU Energy Roadmap 2050, [16], 15 final). On 30 November 2016, the European Commission proposed an update to the Energy Efficiency Directive including a new 30% energy efficiency target for 2030. The aim of this chapter is to analyse the effect of renewable energy use and economic growth on pollution within EU. We attempt to explore the relationship between pollution, economic growth and renewable energy consumption and analyses the effect of environmental efficient indicators on local and global pollutants.


Sustainable development Environmental policy Renewable energy sources Dynamic panel data analysis Energy efficiency directive 

JEL classification

C21 C23 L16 


  1. 1.
    Acaravci A, Ozturk I (2010) On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35:5412–5420Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ajmi AN, Hammoudeh S, Nguyen KN, Sato JR (2015) A new look at the relationships between CO2 emissions, energy consumption and income in G7 countries: the importance of time variations. Energy Econ 49:629–638Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Akbostanci E, Turut-Asik S, Tunc GI (2009) The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: is there an environmental Kuznets curve? Energy Policy 37:861–867Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alvarez F, Marrero GA, Puch LA (2005) Air pollution and the macroeconomy across European countries. Working papers—10 (FEDEA)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apergis N (2016) Environmental Kuznets curves: new evidence on both panel and country-level CO2 emissions. Energy Econ 54:263–271Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arellano M (1989) A note on the Anderson-Hsiao estimator for panel data. Econ Lett 31:337–341MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58:277–297zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the Instrumental variable estimation of error component models. J Econom 68:29–51zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azomahou T, Laisney F, Van Phu N (2006) Economic development and CO2 emissions: a nonparametric panel approach. J Publ Econ 90:1347–1363Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baycan OI (2013) Air pollution, economic growth, and the european union enlargement. Int J Econ Finance 5(12):121–126Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernard J-T, Gavin M, Khalaf L, Voia M (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve: tipping points, uncertainty and weak identification. Environ Resour Econ 60(2):285–315Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial restrictions and moment rstrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87:115–143zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brannlund R, Ghalwash T (2008) The income–pollution relationship and the role of income distribution: an analysis of Swedish household data. Resour Energy Econ 30:369–387Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang D-S, Yeh L-T, Chen Y-F (2014) The effects of economic development, international trade, industrial structure and energy demands on sustainable development. Sustain Dev 22(6):377–390Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Communication form the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, 20 20 by 2020 Europe’s climate change opportunity, Commission of the European Communities. COM 2008 30 final. Accessed 15.12.16
  16. 16.
    Communication form the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030, Commission of the European Communities. COM 2014 15 final. Accessed 15.12.16
  17. 17.
    Coondoo D, Dinda S (2008) Carbon dioxide emissions and income: a temporal analysis of cross-country distributional patterns. Ecol Econ 65:375–385Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dagoumas A, Polemis ML (2017) An integrated model for assessing electricity retailer’s profitability with demand response. Appl Energy 198(C): 49–64.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Danaeifar I (2014) The estimation parameters of Kuznets spatial environmental curve in European countries (A case study of CO2 and PM10 and incidence of tuberculosis and life expectancy at birth). Eur Online J Nat Soc Sci 3(3):439–448Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49:431–455Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Donfouet HPP, Jeanty PW, Malin M (2013) A spatial dynamic panel analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve in European countries. Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM). Economics Working Paper Archive, 2013–18, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dögl C, Behnam M (2015) Environmentally sustainable development through stakeholder engagement in developed and emerging countries. Bus Strategy Environ 24(6):583–600Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Esteve V, Tamarit C (2012) Threshold cointegration and nonlinear adjustment between CO2 and income: the environmental Kuznets curve in Spain 1857–2007. Energy Econ 34(6):2148–2156Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eurostat (2016) Electricity market indicators Accessed 09.07.16
  25. 25.
    Fosten J, Morley B, Taylor T (2012) Dynamic misspecification in the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence from CO2 and SO2 emissions in the United Kingdom. Ecol Econ 76:25–33Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fotis P, Karkalakos S, Asteriou D (2017) The relationship between energy demand and real GDP growth rate: the role of price asymmetries and spatial externalities within 34 countries across the globe. Energy Econ 66:69–84Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fotis P, Pekka V (2017) The effect of renewable energy use and economic growth on pollution in the EUROZONE. Econ Bus Lett 6(4):88–99Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fotis P (2017) Energy efficiency measures & environmental pollutants: a dynamic panel data analysis within EU. Paper presented at 9th international conference, the economies of Balkan and Eastern Europe countries in the changed world (EBEEC 2017) and sixteenth conference on research on economic theory and econometrics (CRETE 2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fotis P (2019) The relationship between efficiency measures and environmental pollution: an empirical study. In: Sykianakis N, Polychronidou P, Karasavvolgou A (eds) Economic, financial, business and management issues for the countries of Southeastern and Central Europe (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fotis P, Polemis M (2018) Sustainable development, environmental policy and renewable energy use: a dynamic panel data approach. Sustain Dev. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Friedl B, Getzner M (2003) Determinants of CO2 emissions in a small open economy. Ecol Econ 45:133–148Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Galeotti M, Manera M, Lanza A (2009) On the robustness of robustness checks of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Environ Resour Econ 42:551–574Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Halkos G, Polemis M (2017) Does financial development affect environmental degradation? Evidence from the OECD countries. Bus Strategy Environ. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Holtz-Eakin D, Newey W, Rosen HS (1988) Estimating Vector Autoregressions with Panel Data. Econometrica56(6): 1371–1395Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    IRENA (2018) Renewable energy prospects for the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Iwata H, Okada K, Samreth S (2011) A note on the environmental Kuznets curve for CO2: a pooled mean group approach. Appl Energy 88:1986–1996Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jaunky CV (2011) The CO2 emissions-income nexus: evidence from rich countries. Energy Policy 39(3):1228–1240Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Johansson PO, Kriström B (2007) On a clear day you might see an environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Res Econ 37(1): 77–90Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kukla-Gryz A (2006) Use of structural equation modeling to examine the relationships between growth, trade and the environment in developing countries. Sustain Dev 14(5):327–342Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kunnas J, Myllyntaus T (2007) The environmental kuznets curve hypothesis and air pollution in finland. Scand Econ Hist Rev 55(2):121–127Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lee C-C, Chiu Y-B, Sun C-H (2009) Does one size fit all? A reexamination of the environmental kuznets curve using the dynamic panel data approach. Rev Agric Econ 31(4):751–778Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lise W (2006) Decomposition of CO2 emissions over 1980–2003 in Turkey. Energy Policy 34(14):1841–1852Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    López-Menéndez A, Pérez R, Moreno B (2014) Environmental costs and renewable energy: revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve. J Environ Manage 145:368–373Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Markandya A, Golub A, Pedroso-Galinato S (2006) Empirical analysis of national income and SO2 emissions in selected European countries. Environ Resour Econ 35:221–257Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Marrero AG (2010) Greenhouse gases emissions, growth and the energy mix in Europe. Energy Econ 32:1356–1363Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Martínez-Zarzoso I, Bengochea-Morancho A, Morales-Lage R (2007) The impact of population on CO2 emissions: evidence from European countries. Environ Resour Econ 38:497–512Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mazur A, Phutkaradze Z, Phutkaradze J (2015) Economic growth and environmental quality in the european union countries—is there evidence for the environmental Kuznets curve? Int J Manag Econ 45:108–126Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Morse S (2018) Relating environmental performance of nation states to income and income inequality. Sustain Dev 26(1):99–105Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mukherjee S, Chakraborty D (2013) Is environmental sustainability influenced by socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors? Cross-country empirical evidence. Sustain Dev 21(6):353–424Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Panayotou T (1995) Environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. In: Iftikhar A, Doeleman AJ (eds) Beyond Rio: the environmental crisis and sustainable livelihoods in the third world. ILO study Series. St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp 13–36Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Panayotou T (2000) Economic growth an the environment. CID Working Paper No. 56. Center for International Development at Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Polemis LM (2016) New evidence on the impact of structural reforms on electricity sector performance. Energy Policy 92:420–431Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Polemis LM, Dagoumas SA (2013) The electricity consumption and economic growth nexus: evidence from Greece. Energy Policy 62:798–808Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Polemis LM, Fotis P (2013) Do gasoline prices respond asymmetrically in the euro zone area? Evidence from cointegrated panel data analysis. Energy Policy 56:425–433Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Polemis M (2018) Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve: a semi-parametric analysis on the role of market structure on environmental pollution. Letters in Spatial and resource Sciences, 11(1): 27–35Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Richmond A, Kaufmann R (2006) Is there a turning point in the relationship between income and energy use and/or carbon emissions? Ecol Econ 56:176–189Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rodriguez M, Pena-Boguete Y, Pardo-Fernardez JC (2016) Revisiting environmental Kuznets curves through the energy price lens. Energy Policy 95:32–41Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sephton P, Mann J (2013a) Threshold cointegration: model selection with an application. J Econ Econom 56(2):54–77Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sephton P, Mann J (2013b) Further evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve in Spain. Energy Econ 36:177–181Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sephton P, Mann J (2016) Compelling evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve in the United Kingdom. Environ Resour Econ 64(2):301–315Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shahbaz M, Ozturk I, Afza T, Ali A (2013) Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 25:494–502Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Soytas U, Sari R (2009) Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecol Econ 68:1667–1675Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Stern DI (2014) The environmental Kuznets curve: a primer. Centre for Climate Economic & Policy Working Paper. 1404, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National UniversityGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wang Z, Yin F, Zhang Y, Zhang X (2012) An empirical research on the influencing factors of regional CO2 emissions: evidences from Beijing city, China. Appl Energy 100:277–284Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wang Y, Zhang C, Lu A, Li L, He Y, Tojo J, Zhu X (2017) A dissaggregated Analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve for industrial CO2 emissions in China. Appl Energy 190:172–180Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yang X, Lou F, Sun M, Wang R, Wang Y (2017) Study of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and the economic growth of Russia based on the Environmental Kuznets curve. Appl Energy 193:162–173Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zaim O, Taskinm F (2000) A Kuznets curve in environmental efficiency: an application on OECD countries. Environ Resour Econ 17:21–36Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zhang C, Zhao W (2014) Panel estimation for income inequality and CO2 emissions: a regional analysis in China. Appl Energy 136:382–392Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of PiraeusPiraeusGreece
  2. 2.Hellenic Competition Commission, Commissioner/RapporteurAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations