Lagged effect of exports, industrialization and urbanization on carbon footprint in Southeast Asia

References

• Abramovay R. 2010. Decarbonizing the growth model of Brazil: addressing both carbon and energy intensity. J Environ Dev. 19(3):358–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackerman F, Ishikawa M, Suga M. 2007. The carbon content of Japan–US trade. Energy Policy. 35:4455–4462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akbostanci E, Turut-Asik S, Tunc GI. 2009. The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: is there an environmental Kuznets curve? Energy Policy. 37:861–867.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apergis N, Payne JE. 2010. The emissions, energy consumption, and growth nexus: evidence from the Commonwealth of Independent States. Energy Policy. 38:650–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASEAN Secretariat. 2018. ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2018. The ASEAN Secretariat, Jakarta, Indonesia. [accessed 2019 Mar 25]. https://www.aseanstats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/asyb-2018.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson G, Hamilton K, Ruta G, van der Mensbrugghe D. 2011. Trade in ‘virtual carbon’: empirical results and implications for policy. Global Environ Chang. 21(2):563–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltagi BH. 2005. Econometric analysis of panel data. 3rd ed. West Sussex (England): John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Begg KG. 2002. Implementing the Kyoto protocol on climate change: environmental integrity, sinks and mechanisms. Global Environ Chang. 12(4):331–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben Jebli M, Ben Youssef S. 2017. Renewable energy consumption and agriculture: evidence for cointegration and Granger causality for Tunisian economy. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 24(2):149–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben Jebli M, Hadhri W. 2018. The dynamic causal links between CO2 emissions from transport, real GDP, energy use and international tourism. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 25(6):568–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brahmasrene T, Lee JW. 2017. Assessing the dynamic impact of tourism, industrialization, urbanization, and globalization on growth and environment in Southeast Asia. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 24(4):362–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruckner M, Giljum S, Lutz C, Wiebe KS. 2012. Materials embodied in international trade – global material extraction and consumption between 1995 and 2005. Global Environ Chang. 22(3):568–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castro P, Hörnlein L, Michaelowa K. 2014. Constructed peer groups and path dependence in international organizations: the case of the international climate change negotiations. Global Environ Chang. 25:109–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialani C. 2017. CO2 emissions, GDP and trade: A panel cointegration approach. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 24(3):193–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coondoo D, Dinda S. 2008. The carbon dioxide emission and income: A temporal analysis of cross-country distributional patterns. Ecol Econ. 65:375–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dessai S, Schipper EL. 2003. The Marrakech accords to the kyoto protocol: analysis and future prospects. Global Environ Chang. 13(2):149–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinda S. 2004. A theoretical basis for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ. 53:403–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency (US). 2015. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2013. Report Number EPA 430-R-15-004. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. [accessed 2016 Dec 25]. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Main-Text.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhr H, Lederer M. 2009. Varieties of carbon governance in newly industrializing countries. J Environ Dev. 18(4):327–345.
   Google Scholar
• Grossman GM, Krueger AB. 1995. Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ. 110:353–377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heil MT, Selden TM. 2001. International trade intensity and carbon emissions: A cross-country econometric analysis. J Environ Dev. 10(1):35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Hernandez P. 2004. Mexico‘s maquiladora expansion during the 1990s: an environmental assessment. Ecol Econ. 49(2):163–185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y. 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom. 115(1):53–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanemoto K, Moran D, Lenzen M, Geschke A. 2014. International trade undermines national emission reduction targets: new evidence from air pollution. Global Environ Chang. 24:52–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolstad CD. 2006. Interpreting estimated environmental Kuznets curves for greenhouse gases. J Environ Dev. 15(1):42–49.
   Google Scholar
• Lee CC, Lee JD. 2009. Income and CO2 emissions: evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests. Energy Policy. 37:413–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levin A, Lin CF, Chu CJ. 2002. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econom. 108:1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Zhang PD, He C, Wang G. 2007. Evaluating the effects of embodied energy in international trade on ecological footprint in China. Ecol Econ. 62(1):136–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li JC. 2005. Is there a trade-off between trade liberalization and environmental quality? A CGE assessment on Thailand. J Environ Dev. 14(2):252–277.
   Google Scholar
• López R, Galinato GI. 2005. Deforestation and forest-induced carbon dioxide emissions in tropical countries: how do governance and trade openness affect the forest-income relationship? J Environ Dev. 14(1):73–100.
   Google Scholar
• Luzzati T, Orsini M. 2009. Natural environment and economic growth: looking for the energy-EKC. Energy. 34:291–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maddala GS, Wu S. 1999. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bull Econ Stat. 61(S1):631–652.
   Google Scholar
• Managi S, Jena PR. 2008. Environmental productivity and Kuznets curve in India. Ecol Econ. 65:432–440.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mongelli I, Tassielli G, Notarnicola B. 2006. Global warming agreements, international trade and energy/carbon embodiments: an input-output approach to the Italian case. Energy Policy. 34(1):88–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munksgaard J, Pedersen KA. 2001. CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility. Energy Policy. 29(4):327–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz P, Steininger KW. 2010. Austria‘s CO2 responsibility and the carbon content of its international trade. Ecol Econ. 69(10):2003–2019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muradian R, O‘Connor M, Martinez-Alier J. 2002. Embodied pollution in trade: estimating the ‘environmental load displacement’ of industrialised countries. Ecol Econ. 41(1):51–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayan PK, Narayan S. 2010. Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy. 38:661–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng TH, Lye CT, Lim YS. 2016. A decomposition analysis of CO2 emissions: evidence from Malaysia’s tourism industry. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol. 23(3):266–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman C, DeCanio S, Fan L. 2008. The montreal protocol at 20: ongoing opportunities for integration with climate protection. Global Environ Chang. 18(2):330–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman J, Charpentier AD, MacLean HL. 2007. Economic input-output life-cycle assessment of trade between Canada and the United States. Environ Sci Technol. 41(5):1523–1532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okereke C, Dooley K. 2010. Principles of justice in proposals and policy approaches to avoided deforestation: towards a post-Kyoto climate agreement. Global Environ Chang. 20(1):82–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters GP, Hertwich EG. 2006. Pollution embodied in trade: the Norwegian case. Global Environ Chang. 16(4):379–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters GP, Hertwich EG. 2008. CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ Sci Technol. 42(5):1401–1407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters GP, Minx JC, Weber CL, Edenhofer O. 2011. Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108(21):8903–8908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plassmann F, Khanna N. 2006. Household income and pollution: implications for the debate about the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. J Environ Dev. 15(1):22–41.
   Google Scholar
• Skelton A. 2013. EU corporate action as a driver for global emissions abatement: A structural analysis of EU international supply chain carbon dioxide emissions. Global Environ Chang. 23(6):1795–1806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soytas U, Sari R. 2009. Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecol Econ. 68:1667–1675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern DI. 2004. The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev. 32:1419–1439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamazian A, Chousa JP, Vadlamannati C. 2009. Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from the BRIC countries. Energy Policy. 37:246–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2015. The Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC website. [accessed 2016 Nov 22]. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
   Google Scholar
• Weber CL, Matthews HS. 2007. Embodied environmental emissions in U.S. international trade, 1997–2004. Environ Sci Technol. 41(14):4875–4881.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiedmann T. 2009. A first empirical comparison of energy footprints embodied in trade - MRIO versus PLUM. Ecol Econ. 68(7):1975–1990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2018. World Development Indicators (WDI). The World Bank Group, Washington, DC. [accessed 2018 October 4]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator#topic-1
   Google Scholar
• Yohe GW, Montgomery D, Balistreri E. 2000. Equity and the Kyoto Protocol: measuring the distributional effects of alternative emissions trading regimes. Global Environ Chang. 10(2):121–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar