CO₂ Emissions in Asia–Pacific Region: Do Energy Use, Economic Growth, Financial Development, and International Trade Have Detrimental Effects?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper applies econometric analysis to evaluate the effects of energy use, economic growth, financial development and international trade on CO2 emissions in 17 selected countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

In general, the paper, particularly the Method and Results, is well-written from econometric point of view. However, from the scientific point of view, the findings lack novelty and significance, making it inappropriate for publication in Sustainability, at its current state. Particularly,

1. The paper seems a good exercise for econometric modelling. However, it lacks in-depth discussion of the novelty of the findings. What new insights we can learn from this study using the proposed method? 
2. Also, discuss the findings from a broader perspective. What are the implications, particularly to sustainability, climate change, energy, economic, and environmental policies? The implications (in the Conclusion) should be based on the results.
3. "Finally, the obtained results from the linkage between the variables of interest and the test of the environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis" - Where is the result of this? This should be discussed further and not only mentioning as "The positive and negative, effect of economic growth and square of economic growth for the sample countries, respectively,
   support for the existence of the EKC hypothesis."
4. The results should also be discussed in relation to the aims and scope of the "Sustainability and Health", particularly to the Special Issue: Special Issue "Sustainable Development, Environment, and Health"
5. Too much self-citations.
6. Define all acronyms and variables.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper applies econometric analysis to evaluate the effects of energy use, economic growth, financial development and international trade on CO2 emissions in 17 selected countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

In general, the paper, particularly the Method and Results, is well-written from econometric point of view. However, from the scientific point of view, the findings lack novelty and significance, making it inappropriate for publication in Sustainability, at its current state. Particularly,

Action / Response: Thanks to the esteemed reviewer for his or her nice observations and comments.  We have also addressed the below comments.

1. The paper seems a good exercise for econometric modelling. However, it lacks in-depth discussion of the novelty of the findings. What new insights we can learn from this study using the proposed method? 

Action / Response: Thanks for the comments. In this paper we have tried to explore the combined roles of energy consumption, economic growth, trade, and financial development in the Asia-Pacific regions, which is absent in the contemporary literature. In the revised manuscript we have provided the in-depth discussions of our findings (See page# 18-19 of the track changed manuscript).

 

1. Also, discuss the findings from a broader perspective. What are the implications, particularly to sustainability, climate change, energy, economic, and environmental policies? The implications (in the Conclusion) should be based on the results.

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. As per advice, we have discussed the findings and implications in the revised manuscript (See page# 18-19 of the track changed manuscript).   

 

1. "Finally, the obtained results from the linkage between the variables of interest and the test of the environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis" - Where is the result of this? This should be discussed further and not only mentioning as "The positive and negative, effect of economic growth and square of economic growth for the sample countries, respectively,
   support for the existence of the EKC hypothesis."

Action / Response: A description on EKC has already noted under section 2.1 (See page# 6 of the track changed manuscript). As per advice we have given more explanation on EKC results in the revised manuscript (See page# 18 of the track changed manuscript).    

1. The results should also be discussed in relation to the aims and scope of the "Sustainability and Health", particularly to the Special Issue: Special Issue "Sustainable Development, Environment, and Health"

Action / Response: As per advice we have discussed our findings relating to the mentioned “Sustainable Development, Environment, and Health” issue in the revised manuscript. (See page# 18-19 of the track changed manuscript).   

1. Too much self-citations.

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. We have tried to accommodate only the relevant studies along with our works to cite in the current paper.

 

1. Define all acronyms and variables.

Action / Response: As per advice we have provided the list of the definitions of all acronyms in the appendix-A (See Appendix-A of the track changed manuscript). The definition of studied variables is also provided in the revised manuscript (See page# 14-15 of the track changed manuscript).     

Reviewer 2 Report

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Review Comments

The paper examines trade, financial development, growth, and energy consumption variables as determinants of environmental quality in a sample of 17 countries in the Asia Pacific region over the period 1960-2020. With the help of appropriate econometric technique that estimates the relationship between these variables and CO2 emissions (as proxy for environmental quality), authors find evidence that trade, growth, energy consumption and financial development contribute to environmental degradation. Authors also investigate causality between CO2 and these variables. While the paper is well within the scope of the journal, neither the topic nor the results are new. There is considerable literature on the topic and it behooves authors to identify with greater clarity what their contribution is to this literature.

 

1. The contribution of the paper is simply that it uses a longer period for analysis. Moreover, because of limited data, this longer period means authors can only work with unbalanced panel data. There are papers that study this topic using Asia or Asia-Pacific, either as standalone samples or as subsets of global analysis. Here are some examples: Sadiq et al (2022), Al-mulali and Sheau-Ting (2014), Lu (2018), Jamel and Derbali (2016), Balli et al (2021), Ghazouani et al (2020), Zhu et al 92016), Khan et al (2022), etc. Note that this literature also makes use of the same variables considered in this paper. Thus, authors’ claim that using financial development and others in the model constitutes a contribution to the literature is not true. Please re-write the last paragraph of the introduction and other parts of the paper where you list the purported contributions. They are either half-truths or entirely false claims. Similar literature but with a focus outside the Asia region include Li et al (2021).

Action / Response: Thanks for the observations and guidelines. In the current work we have tried to find out the combined roles of energy consumption, economic growth, trade, and financial development in the Asia-Pacific regions, which is absent in the contemporary literature. It is true that past studies examined the effects of these variables in isolation in different parts of the world, but not in the way (at a time) we have considered all these variables in a single study (like ours) in the Asia -Pacific region covering 17 countries. Moreover, we have covered large available time dimension (1960-2020) addressing autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity, and cross-sectional dependency problems under the application of Driscoll and Kraay’s (1998) standard error panel corrected standard error (PCSE) models. Considering this, we believe our study is unique and comprehensive. We have also cited the mentioned relevant studies in the revised manuscript (See page# 18-19 of the track changed manuscript).   

2. The strand of literature discussed in section 2.2 can also benefit from the broader literature. For Asia-Pacific, see Li et al (2021). For other regions and further literature, see Nyiwul (2017) and Nyiwul (2018).

Action / Response: Thanks for the suggestions. As per advice, we have taken help and cited the mentioned studies in the revised manuscript. (See page# 7 of the track changed manuscript).   

3. Check paper for typos, grammar and clarity - for example, the last sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction is simply gibberish.

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. As per advice, we have corrected the mentioned sentence in the revised manuscript. (See page# 3 of the track changed manuscript).    

4. Edit equation 4 to be more compact

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. In the revised manuscript we have corrected equation 4 (See page# 14 of the track changed manuscript).   

5. You need not repeat values of summary statistics from Table 2 in section 4.1. Simply state the goal of the statistics and proceed. Repeating them unnecessarily takes up space in the paper without adding any value or substance.

Action / Response: As per advice we have corrected the discussion of the descriptive statistics in the revised manuscript (See page# 15 of the track changed manuscript).

6. For all tests, please state both the null and alternative hypotheses before reporting the results.

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. In the revised manuscript we have provided both of the null and alternative hypotheses for all tests results (See page# 16-20 of the track changed manuscript).

 

References

Al-mulali, U. and Sheau-Ting, L. 2014. Econometric analysis of trade, exports, imports, energy consumption and CO2 emission in six regions, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 33, 2014, Pages 484-498, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.02.010

Balli, E., Sigeze, C., Ugur, M.S. et al. The relationship between FDI, CO2 emissions, and energy consumption in Asia-Pacific economic cooperation countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17494-3

Ghazouani, T., Boukhatem, J. and Sam, C.Y. 2020. Causal interactions between trade openness, renewable electricity consumption, and economic growth in Asia-Pacific countries: Fresh evidence from a bootstrap ARDL approach, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 133, 110094, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110094

Jamel, L and Derbali, A. | Lanouar Charfeddine (Reviewing Editor) (2016) Do energy consumption and economic growth lead to environmental degradation? Evidence from Asian economies, Cogent Economics & Finance, 4:1, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2016.1170653

Khan MB, Saleem H, Shabbir MS, Huobao X. The effects of globalization, energy consumption and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions in South Asian countries. Energy & Environment. 2022;33(1):107-134. doi:10.1177/0958305X20986896

Li K, Hu E, Xu C, et al. A heterogeneous analysis of the nexus between energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: Evidence from the Group of Twenty (G20) countries. Energy Exploration & Exploitation. 2021;39(3):815-837. doi:10.1177/0144598720980198

Li, R., Joyeux, R. and Ripple, R.D. 2021. Income and energy consumption in Asia-Pacific countries – A panel cointegration analysis enhanced with common factors, Heliyon, Volume 7, Issue 5, e07090, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07090

Lu, Wen-Cheng. 2018. Carbon emissions, energy consumption, trade openness and economic growth in 12 Asia-Pacific economies: evidence from panel co-integration results, International Journal of Global Warming 2018 16:2, 162-180

Nyiwul, L. Economic performance, environmental concerns, and renewable energy consumption: drivers of renewable energy development in Sub-Sahara Africa. Clean Techn Environ Policy 19, 437–450 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1229-5

Nyiwul L. Income, environmental considerations, and sustainable energy consumption in Africa. International Journal of Green Energy. 2018;15(4):264-276. doi:10.1080/15435075.2018.1439037

Sadiq, M., Kannaiah, D., Yahya Khan, G. et al. Does sustainable environmental agenda matter? The role of globalization toward energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emissions in South Asian countries. Environ Dev Sustain (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02043-2

Zhu, H., Duan, L., Guo, Y. and Yu, K. 2016). The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: Evidence from panel quantile regression, Economic Modelling, Volume 58, Pages 237-248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.05.003

Reviewer 3 Report

1. This paper presents analyses of Asia pacific for 61 countries and explains the different dynamics of energy, carbon emissions, etc. Overall quality is good, however, multiple issues need to be fixed before publication process. My comments and suggestions are following:
2. English editing required from native English speaker.
3. Abstract should be revised considering write up, conciseness, and clarity. Practical policy implications should be provided (at least one).
   Clear problem statement and rationale should be improved.
4. Abbreviations should be explained whenever used for the first time.
5. What is novelty of this work? To make sure that it is not recycling of the available science in this field.
6. There is huge problem in scientific writing and referencing. Authors should address them, for instance eon page 3, first paragraph.
7. Literature review need to be revised in terms that it should look like story type and many studies that are relevant are missing.
8. Why period of 61 years selected? What is logical reasoning?
9. Why the models used applied in this study? How are they best fit?
10. My same comments for conclusions as for abstract.
11. Look for redundancy of the references if any.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This paper presents analyses of Asia pacific for 61 countries and explains the different dynamics of energy, carbon emissions, etc. Overall quality is good, however, multiple issues need to be fixed before publication process. My comments and suggestions are following:

Action / Response: Our sincere thanks to the esteemed reviewer for his or her observations. In the revised manuscript we have tried best to address the raised issues.     

2. English editing required from native English speaker.

Action / Response: As per the advice, we have taken the help of proof-reader and native English speaker to proof-read this manuscript.

3. Abstract should be revised considering write up, conciseness, and clarity. Practical policy implications should be provided (at least one).
Clear problem statement and rationale should be improved.

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. As per the advice, we have corrected the mentioned issues of the abstract in the revised manuscript. (See page# 2 of the track changed manuscript)

4. Abbreviations should be explained whenever used for the first time.

Action / Response: As per the advice, we have addressed the mentioned issue in the revised manuscript. These have also been provided in the appendix section of the manuscript (See Appendix-A of the track changed manuscript).  

5. What is novelty of this work? To make sure that it is not recycling of the available science in this field.

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. The novelty of this work is noted in the manuscript (See page # 5).

6. There is huge problem in scientific writing and referencing. Authors should address them, for instance eon page 3, first paragraph.

Action / Response: As per the advice, we have tried to correct the mentioned issues in the revised manuscript. (See page# 3 of the track changed manuscript).

7. Literature review need to be revised in terms that it should look like story type and many studies that are relevant are missing.

Action / Response: As per the advice, we have added additional relevant literature (see page # 7-11 of the track changed manuscript). The format of L/R section is very often visible in the most cited papers (see Shahbaz et al 2013; Chen et al. 2019; Rahman 2017, for example). These papers are published in high quality journals. Our paper is in line with these papers.

References:

 Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q. M. A., Tiwari, A. K., & Leitão, N. C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109-121. (1049 CITATIONS)

Chen, Y., Wang, Z. and Zhong, Z., 2019. CO2 emissions, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy production and foreign trade in China. Renewable energy, 131, pp.208-216. (337 CITATIONS).

Rahman, M.M., 2017. Do population density, economic growth, energy use and exports adversely affect environmental quality in Asian populous countries?  Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 77, pp.506-514. (144 CITATIONS).

 

8. Why period of 61 years selected? What is logical reasoning?

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. In this work we have tried to include all the available data that are found ranging from 1960 to 2020 (61 years). Beyond this limit no data found, and for this reason we have taken 61 years’ data.

 

9. Why the models used applied in this study? How are they best fit?

Action / Response: Thanks for the nice comment. We have applied Driscoll and Kraay’s (1998) standard error model because it can properly address the complications arose due to the existence of autocorrelation, heteroscedasticity, and cross-sectional dependence problems. Moreover we have dealt with unbalanced panel data which can be effectively dealt with this method. Further, we have adopted panel corrected standard error (PCSE) model for the robustness checking of the obtained outcomes. The logic of using these models is noted in the methodology, model and data section of the manuscript (See section 3.1 Econometric approach of the manuscript).

10. My same comments for conclusions as for abstract.

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. As per the advice, we have addressed the mentioned issues for both of conclusions and abstract of the manuscript. In conclusion section, four policy recommendations are made based on the obtained results (see page # 21-22 of the track changed manuscript).

11. Look for redundancy of the references if any.

Action / Response: Thanks for suggestion. As per the advice, we have tried to correct out the redundancy of the references of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors carefully addressed all reviewers' comments and made significant changes to improve the manuscript.

I am looking forward to read the published version of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carefully addressed all reviewers' comments and made significant changes to improve the manuscript.

I am looking forward to read the published version of the manuscript. 

Action / Response: Our sincere thanks to the honourable reviewer for recommending our paper to publish in this renowned journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors did well to address all issues that arose from the first review. Just a couple of minor issues to look at:

1. In the last review, you authors were asked to edit equation 4 to be more compact. Authors might be using "justified" formatting in Microsoft, this would explain the large spaces between symbols. Even so, on close look, you don't need equation 4. Remove it because you restate it in equation 5.
2. Consider minimizing normative statements. Rephrase the last sentence in abstract to make it a positive rather than prescriptive. Even if your results allow imply one policy or the other may be preferred, it is questionable to then make the argument a normative one. There are many such normative arguments in the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors did well to address all issues that arose from the first review. Just a couple of minor issues to look at:

1. In the last review, you authors were asked to edit equation 4 to be more compact. Authors might be using "justified" formatting in Microsoft, this would explain the large spaces between symbols. Even so, on close look, you don't need equation 4. Remove it because you restate it in equation 5.

Action / Response: Thanks to the esteemed reviewer for his or her nice observations and comments. As per the advice, we have removed equation 4 in the revised manuscript (See page# 14 of the track changed manuscript).   

 

1. Consider minimizing normative statements. Rephrase the last sentence in abstract to make it a positive rather than prescriptive. Even if your results allow imply one policy or the other may be preferred, it is questionable to then make the argument a normative one. There are many such normative arguments in the paper.

Action / Response: Thanks for the comment. As per the advice, we have corrected the raised issue in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Acceptable and can be proceeded further.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Acceptable and can be proceeded further.

Action / Response: Our heartiest thanks to the esteemed reviewer for his or her recommendation to accept our paper.