Our study used a large and comprehensive sample of Chinese energy and macroeconomics data over a period of 32 years. Our findings provide important insights into the relationship between energy sources and air pollution in China, which has significant implications for global policy and market debates. Specifically, our Granger causality results show that as China’s economy grows, air pollution levels decrease as the use of renewable energy increases. Also, the implementation of stricter environmental regulations by the Chinese government has increased the use of renewable energy sources and this has Granger-caused a reduction in air pollution levels. The results are consistent with both the EKC theory and the Porter Hypothesis. Our findings suggest that China may be approaching the turning point on the EKC, where economic growth leads to an improvement in environmental quality. At the same time, the Porter Hypothesis is supported, showing that the implementation of stricter regulations can incentivise the country to invest in research and development for more efficient and cleaner production processes, which can ultimately lead to improved air quality. These findings have significant international implications for global policy and market debates related to carbon neutralisation and sustainable energy transitions. However, the study also reveals that China’s economy still heavily relies on non-renewable energy sources, indicating a need for continued efforts to shift towards cleaner energy sources in the country. The results of this study have important implications for policymakers and industries in China, and globally, emphasising the need for continued investment in renewable energy sources and the promotion of innovation to achieve carbon neutralisation.
I am not sure how legit this EKC turning point theory is because a big reason why Western economies were able to improve environmentally was because they outsourced the “dirty work” to the global south. China improving air quality by the magnitude they are achieving is unprecedented in the global south and therefore the world. It should continue to improve even more in my estimation.
I don’t know why but I’m really glad for Porter. Great grift. In every other parallel universe, Porter is either a likeable scientist or known for Porter’s law, up there with Newton. In this neoliberal hellscape, they get to have a whole hypothesis named after them for hypothesising that maybe if you regulate emissions, emissions might go down. Genius. And yet the other scientists, high on whatever fumes are loose in their labs and a healthy dose of don’t-contradict-the-bourgeoisie-if-you-want-that-next-research-grant, are unwilling to consider whether Porter’s hypothesis that making emissions illegal might lead to fewer emissions might just be the most obvious law you’ve ever seen.
From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479723013130
I am not sure how legit this EKC turning point theory is because a big reason why Western economies were able to improve environmentally was because they outsourced the “dirty work” to the global south. China improving air quality by the magnitude they are achieving is unprecedented in the global south and therefore the world. It should continue to improve even more in my estimation.
I don’t know why but I’m really glad for Porter. Great grift. In every other parallel universe, Porter is either a likeable scientist or known for Porter’s law, up there with Newton. In this neoliberal hellscape, they get to have a whole hypothesis named after them for hypothesising that maybe if you regulate emissions, emissions might go down. Genius. And yet the other scientists, high on whatever fumes are loose in their labs and a healthy dose of don’t-contradict-the-bourgeoisie-if-you-want-that-next-research-grant, are unwilling to consider whether Porter’s hypothesis that making emissions illegal might lead to fewer emissions might just be the most obvious law you’ve ever seen.