Kartal Mustafa Tevfik
Department of Banking and Finance, European University of Lefke, Lefke, Northern Cyprus, Türkiye.
Strategic Planning, Financial Reporting, and Investor Relations Directorate, Borsa Istanbul, Istanbul, Türkiye.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024 Mar;31(13):20033-20047. doi: 10.1007/s11356-024-32214-3. Epub 2024 Feb 17.
Considering a vast majority of application areas, the study investigates how environmental tax (ET) affects ecological footprint. In this context, the study examines the European Union Five (EU5) countries, considers ecological footprint (EF) as the proxy of the environment, uses ET as tax-based environmental measures by making both disaggregated (i.e., energy and transport) and aggregated level analysis, and performs novel nonlinear quantile-based approaches for the period from 1995/Q1 to 2021/Q4. The outcomes show that on EF (i) energy-related ET has only a declining effect at lower and middle quantiles in Germany and at lower quantiles in Italy, whereas it does not have a curbing effect in other countries; (ii) transport-related ET is not effective on EF in any country, which means that it does not have a curbing effect; (iii) total ET has a decreasing effect in only Germany; and (iv) the alternative method validates the robustness. Thus, the study demonstrates the changing effect of ET across countries, quantiles, and ET types in curbing EF. Hence, it can be suggested that Germany can go on relying further on energy-related ET practices to decrease EF, whereas there is a long way for the remaining EU5 countries as well as transport-related ET in curbing EF.
考虑到绝大多数应用领域，本研究调查了环境税（ET）如何影响生态足迹。在此背景下，该研究考察了欧盟五国（EU5），将生态足迹（EF）作为环境的代理指标，通过进行分类（即能源和交通）和综合层面分析，将ET用作基于税收的环境措施，并对1995年第一季度至2021年第四季度期间采用了新颖的基于非线性分位数的方法。结果表明，关于生态足迹，（i）与能源相关的环境税在德国的较低和中等分位数以及意大利的较低分位数上仅具有下降效应，而在其他国家则没有抑制作用；（ii）与交通相关的环境税在任何国家对生态足迹都无效，这意味着它没有抑制作用；（iii）总的环境税仅在德国有下降效应；（iv）替代方法验证了稳健性。因此，该研究证明了环境税在抑制生态足迹方面在不同国家、分位数和环境税类型中的变化效应。因此，可以建议德国可以继续进一步依赖与能源相关的环境税措施来减少生态足迹，而其余欧盟五国以及与交通相关的环境税在抑制生态足迹方面还有很长的路要走。
