In the midst of the global challenge of climate change induced by the consumption of fossil fuels, energy security remains a global concern. Thus, this study examines the role of energy security from the witty perspective of the production and reserves of the world’s leading energy mix (oil, natural gas, and coal) in the dynamics of global crude oil prices and volatility over the period of 1970 to 2040. Having discovered a nonlinear dynamics in the relationship, we employ the nonparametric causality-in-quantiles test which differentiates causality-in-mean from the causality-in-variance. The results show that the causality-in-variance is exceedingly stronger than causality-in-mean for the predictability of oil price. The mean oil price is unpredictable by the production and reserves of the energy sources, except those of crude oil and natural gas at the lower quantiles. Moreover, the production and reserves of all the energy sources are strong predictors of the volatility of oil price for most of the quantiles. This is further confirmed by the causality-in-mean conducted for the actual oil price volatility series. In general, this study weighs in from the perspective of an effective policy instrument associated with the trilemma among crude oil price, energy security, and environmental sustainability.
{"title":"Outlook of Oil Prices and Volatility from 1970 to 2040 Through Global Energy Mix-Security from Production to Reserves: A Nonparametric Causality-in-Quantiles Approach","authors":"A. Alola, O. Adekoya, J. Oliyide","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3924949","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3924949","url":null,"abstract":"In the midst of the global challenge of climate change induced by the consumption of fossil fuels, energy security remains a global concern. Thus, this study examines the role of energy security from the witty perspective of the production and reserves of the world’s leading energy mix (oil, natural gas, and coal) in the dynamics of global crude oil prices and volatility over the period of 1970 to 2040. Having discovered a nonlinear dynamics in the relationship, we employ the nonparametric causality-in-quantiles test which differentiates causality-in-mean from the causality-in-variance. The results show that the causality-in-variance is exceedingly stronger than causality-in-mean for the predictability of oil price. The mean oil price is unpredictable by the production and reserves of the energy sources, except those of crude oil and natural gas at the lower quantiles. Moreover, the production and reserves of all the energy sources are strong predictors of the volatility of oil price for most of the quantiles. This is further confirmed by the causality-in-mean conducted for the actual oil price volatility series. In general, this study weighs in from the perspective of an effective policy instrument associated with the trilemma among crude oil price, energy security, and environmental sustainability.","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"194 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125860781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mario Larch, Serge Shikher, Constantinos Syropoulos, Y. Yotov
Capitalizing on the latest developments in the gravity literature, we utilize two new datasets on sanctions and trade to study the impact of economic sanctions on international trade in the mining sector, which includes oil and natural gas. We demonstrate that the gravity equation is well suited to model bilateral trade in mining and find that sanctions have been effective in impeding mining trade. Our analysis reveals that complete trade sanctions have reduced bilateral mining trade by about 44 percent on average. We also document the presence of significant heterogeneity in the effects of sanctions on mining trade across mining industries and across sanction episodes/cases, depending on the sanctioning and sanctioned countries, the type of sanctions used, and the direction of trade flows. We take a close look at the impact of recent sanctions on Iran and Russia.
{"title":"Quantifying the Impact of Economic Sanctions on International Trade in the Energy and Mining Sectors","authors":"Mario Larch, Serge Shikher, Constantinos Syropoulos, Y. Yotov","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3784389","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3784389","url":null,"abstract":"Capitalizing on the latest developments in the gravity literature, we utilize two new datasets on sanctions and trade to study the impact of economic sanctions on international trade in the mining sector, which includes oil and natural gas. We demonstrate that the gravity equation is well suited to model bilateral trade in mining and find that sanctions have been effective in impeding mining trade. Our analysis reveals that complete trade sanctions have reduced bilateral mining trade by about 44 percent on average. We also document the presence of significant heterogeneity in the effects of sanctions on mining trade across mining industries and across sanction episodes/cases, depending on the sanctioning and sanctioned countries, the type of sanctions used, and the direction of trade flows. We take a close look at the impact of recent sanctions on Iran and Russia.","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"2020 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132891517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The effects of climate change on natural systems will be substantial, widespread, and likely irreversible. Warmer temperatures and changing precipitation patterns have already contributed to forest dieback and pushed some species toward extinction. Natural systems contribute to human welfare both as an input to the production of consumption goods and through the provision of nonuse values (i.e., existence and bequest values). But because they are often unpriced, it can be difficult to constrain these benefits. Understanding how climate change effects on the natural capital stock affect human well-being, and therefore the social cost of carbon (SCC), requires understanding not just the biophysical effects of climate change but also the particular role they play in supporting human welfare. This article reviews a range of topics from natural capital accounting through climate change economics important for quantifying the ecological costs of climate change and integrating these costs into SCC calculations. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Resource Economics, Volume 14 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Climate Impacts on Natural Capital: Consequences for the Social Cost of Carbon","authors":"B. Bastien-Olvera, F. Moore","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3945184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3945184","url":null,"abstract":"The effects of climate change on natural systems will be substantial, widespread, and likely irreversible. Warmer temperatures and changing precipitation patterns have already contributed to forest dieback and pushed some species toward extinction. Natural systems contribute to human welfare both as an input to the production of consumption goods and through the provision of nonuse values (i.e., existence and bequest values). But because they are often unpriced, it can be difficult to constrain these benefits. Understanding how climate change effects on the natural capital stock affect human well-being, and therefore the social cost of carbon (SCC), requires understanding not just the biophysical effects of climate change but also the particular role they play in supporting human welfare. This article reviews a range of topics from natural capital accounting through climate change economics important for quantifying the ecological costs of climate change and integrating these costs into SCC calculations. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Resource Economics, Volume 14 is October 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114684835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Currently living agents might have selfish reasons to undertake climate policy, because young agents benefit in the future from an improved climate, and policy affects the asset price. Previous models downplayed the first factor and assumed away the second. Self-interested incentives induce meaningful climate policy over a period of several generations, if the young have substantial policy-making influence. Policy is largely driven by the young generation’s concern about its future consumption, not from endogenous asset prices. For small climate policy, the old and young generations’ incentives are aligned if and only if the elasticity of intertemporal substitution exceeds 1.
{"title":"Selfish incentives for climate policy: Empower the young!","authors":"L. Karp, Alessandro Peri, Armon Rezai","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3933987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3933987","url":null,"abstract":"Currently living agents might have selfish reasons to undertake climate policy, because young agents benefit in the future from an improved climate, and policy affects the asset price. Previous models downplayed the first factor and assumed away the second. Self-interested incentives induce meaningful climate policy over a period of several generations, if the young have substantial policy-making influence. Policy is largely driven by the young generation’s concern about its future consumption, not from endogenous asset prices. For small climate policy, the old and young generations’ incentives are aligned if and only if the elasticity of intertemporal substitution exceeds 1.","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127884181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Algorithm-based decision tools in environmental law appear policy neutral but embody bias and hidden values that affect equity and democracy. In effect, algorithm-based tools are new fora for law and policymaking, distinct from legislatures and courts. In turn, these tools influence the development and implementation of environmental law and regulation. As a practical matter, there is a pressing need to understand how these automated decision-making tools interact with and influence law and policy. This Article begins this timely and critical discussion. Though algorithmic decision-making has been critiqued in other domains, like policing and housing policy, environmental and energy policy may be more dependent on algorithmic tools because of climate change. Expectations of climatic stationarity—for example how frequently or severely a coastal area floods or how many days of extreme heat an energy system needs to anticipate—are no longer valid. Algorithm-based tools are needed to make sense of possible future scenarios in an unstable climate. However, dependence on these tools brings with it a conflict between technocracy (and the need to rapidly adapt and respond to climate change) and democratic participation, which is fundamental to equity. This Article discusses sources of that tension within environmental, algorithm-based tools and offers a pathway forward to integrate values of equity and democratic participation into these tools. After introducing the problem of water and energy adaptation to climate change, this Article synthesizes prior multidisciplinary work on algorithmic decision making and modeling-informed governance—bringing together the works of early climate scientists and contemporary leaders in algorithmic decision making. From this synthesis, this Article presents a framework for analyzing how well these tools integrate principles of equity, including procedural and substantive fairness—both of which are essential to democracy. The framework evaluates how the tools handle uncertainty, transparency, and stakeholder collaboration across two attributes. The first attribute has to do with the model itself—specifically, how, and whether, existing law and policy are incorporated into these tools. These social parameters can be incorporated as inputs to the model or in the structure of the model, which determines its logic. The second attribute has to do with the modeling process—how, and whether, stakeholders and end-users collaborated in the model’s development. This Article then applies this framework and compares two algorithm-assisted, decision-making tools currently in use for adapting water and energy systems to climate change. The first tool is called “INFORM.” It is used to allocate water quantity and flow on the Sacramento River, while taking climate and weather into account. The second tool is called “RESOLVE.” It is used by energy utility regulators in California to evaluate scenarios for energy generation. Although the d
{"title":"How Algorithm Assisted Decision Making Is Influencing Environmental Law and Climate Adaptation","authors":"Sonya Ziaja","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3898812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3898812","url":null,"abstract":"Algorithm-based decision tools in environmental law appear policy neutral but embody bias and hidden values that affect equity and democracy. In effect, algorithm-based tools are new fora for law and policymaking, distinct from legislatures and courts. In turn, these tools influence the development and implementation of environmental law and regulation. As a practical matter, there is a pressing need to understand how these automated decision-making tools interact with and influence law and policy. This Article begins this timely and critical discussion. Though algorithmic decision-making has been critiqued in other domains, like policing and housing policy, environmental and energy policy may be more dependent on algorithmic tools because of climate change. Expectations of climatic stationarity—for example how frequently or severely a coastal area floods or how many days of extreme heat an energy system needs to anticipate—are no longer valid. Algorithm-based tools are needed to make sense of possible future scenarios in an unstable climate. However, dependence on these tools brings with it a conflict between technocracy (and the need to rapidly adapt and respond to climate change) and democratic participation, which is fundamental to equity. This Article discusses sources of that tension within environmental, algorithm-based tools and offers a pathway forward to integrate values of equity and democratic participation into these tools. After introducing the problem of water and energy adaptation to climate change, this Article synthesizes prior multidisciplinary work on algorithmic decision making and modeling-informed governance—bringing together the works of early climate scientists and contemporary leaders in algorithmic decision making. From this synthesis, this Article presents a framework for analyzing how well these tools integrate principles of equity, including procedural and substantive fairness—both of which are essential to democracy. The framework evaluates how the tools handle uncertainty, transparency, and stakeholder collaboration across two attributes. The first attribute has to do with the model itself—specifically, how, and whether, existing law and policy are incorporated into these tools. These social parameters can be incorporated as inputs to the model or in the structure of the model, which determines its logic. The second attribute has to do with the modeling process—how, and whether, stakeholders and end-users collaborated in the model’s development. This Article then applies this framework and compares two algorithm-assisted, decision-making tools currently in use for adapting water and energy systems to climate change. The first tool is called “INFORM.” It is used to allocate water quantity and flow on the Sacramento River, while taking climate and weather into account. The second tool is called “RESOLVE.” It is used by energy utility regulators in California to evaluate scenarios for energy generation. Although the d","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132289512","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
If one nation damages another, what are its obligations? This question can be approached and understood in diverse ways, but it is concretized in debates over the social cost of carbon, which is sometimes described as the linchpin of national climate policy. The social cost of carbon, meant to capture the damage done by a ton of carbon emissions, helps to determine the stringency of regulations in many domains, including emissions limits on motor vehicles and on stationary sources. In determining the social cost of carbon, agencies must decide whether to use the global number (as chosen by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden) or instead the domestic number (as chosen by President Donald Trump). Use of the global number should be seen as a form of climate change cosmopolitanism, whether the grounding is moral or otherwise. There are four central arguments in favor of using the global figure. (1) The epistemic argument: Experts do not know a great deal about the purely domestic harms from climate change, which makes it impossible to generate a purely domestic number. (2) The interconnectedness argument: Harms done by domestic emissions are not limited to those done by the incremental increase in temperatures in the United States; they include harms to U.S. citizens living abroad and harms to U.S. citizens and interests that come from the cascading effects of harm done to foreigners (including governments, companies, and individuals), which are ultimately felt in the United States. (3) The moral cosmopolitan argument: In deciding on the scope of its regulations, the United States should account of the harms it does to non-Americans. (4) The prisoner’s dilemma argument: If all nations used a domestic figure, all nations would lose; a successful approach to the climate problem requires nations to treat greenhouse gas emissions as a global, and not merely domestic, externality. Neither the epistemic argument nor the incompleteness argument justifies choice of the global number. The moral cosmopolitan and prisoner’s dilemma arguments stand on much stronger grounds.
{"title":"Climate Change Cosmopolitanism","authors":"C. Sunstein","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3886696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3886696","url":null,"abstract":"If one nation damages another, what are its obligations? This question can be approached and understood in diverse ways, but it is concretized in debates over the social cost of carbon, which is sometimes described as the linchpin of national climate policy. The social cost of carbon, meant to capture the damage done by a ton of carbon emissions, helps to determine the stringency of regulations in many domains, including emissions limits on motor vehicles and on stationary sources. In determining the social cost of carbon, agencies must decide whether to use the global number (as chosen by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden) or instead the domestic number (as chosen by President Donald Trump). Use of the global number should be seen as a form of climate change cosmopolitanism, whether the grounding is moral or otherwise. There are four central arguments in favor of using the global figure. (1) The epistemic argument: Experts do not know a great deal about the purely domestic harms from climate change, which makes it impossible to generate a purely domestic number. (2) The interconnectedness argument: Harms done by domestic emissions are not limited to those done by the incremental increase in temperatures in the United States; they include harms to U.S. citizens living abroad and harms to U.S. citizens and interests that come from the cascading effects of harm done to foreigners (including governments, companies, and individuals), which are ultimately felt in the United States. (3) The moral cosmopolitan argument: In deciding on the scope of its regulations, the United States should account of the harms it does to non-Americans. (4) The prisoner’s dilemma argument: If all nations used a domestic figure, all nations would lose; a successful approach to the climate problem requires nations to treat greenhouse gas emissions as a global, and not merely domestic, externality. Neither the epistemic argument nor the incompleteness argument justifies choice of the global number. The moral cosmopolitan and prisoner’s dilemma arguments stand on much stronger grounds.","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126051106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines national GHG inventories prepared by Australia, China, Germany, Japan, and the United States, and highlights how the inventories of different countries—though following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories—reflect different choices of GHG accounting methodologies and approaches, emission factors, and categories and gases reported. These choices, allowed under the IPCC Guidelines, result in significant differences in reported GHG emissions, reinforcing the case for adopting a harmonized GHG accounting framework.
{"title":"Comparison Between the IPCC Reporting Framework and Country Practice","authors":"Sam Chen, Martin Dietrich Brauch","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3900798","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3900798","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines national GHG inventories prepared by Australia, China, Germany, Japan, and the United States, and highlights how the inventories of different countries—though following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories—reflect different choices of GHG accounting methodologies and approaches, emission factors, and categories and gases reported. These choices, allowed under the IPCC Guidelines, result in significant differences in reported GHG emissions, reinforcing the case for adopting a harmonized GHG accounting framework.","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124267633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An important element of the comprehensive suite of climate and environmental policies advanced under the “European Green Deal” (EGD) is the “Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism” (CBAM). CBAM is a policy safeguard against emissions leakage, that is, the relocation of emitting activities from the European Union (EU) to third countries due to the impact of EU climate policy ambition on production and investment decisions. A legislative proposal setting out the parameters of the CBAM is expected from the European Commission by the end of June 2021 as part of the “Fit for 55” package of initiatives operationalizing the strengthened climate target under the EGD.
As of now, the design parameters of a future EU CBAM are still uncertain. What the process so far – including a formal consultation process carried out by the European Commission – has unmistakably shown, however, are considerable divergences in the views of key EU stakeholders about the preferred CBAM design, and, in some cases, what they consider to be red lines.
This report proposes a CBAM design that seeks to balance trade-offs so as to secure its environmental and competitiveness benefits while maximizing its administrative, legal and technical viability, as well as political acceptability. An elegant technical proposal that ignores political feasibility is not one that should be taken seriously.
Beyond the mere design, this proposal also addresses important procedural aspects and the timeline of implementation, which are critical for legal and political acceptability.
{"title":"CBAM for the EU: A Policy Proposal","authors":"A. Cosbey, M. Mehling, A. Marcu","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3838167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3838167","url":null,"abstract":"An important element of the comprehensive suite of climate and environmental policies advanced under the “European Green Deal” (EGD) is the “Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism” (CBAM). CBAM is a policy safeguard against emissions leakage, that is, the relocation of emitting activities from the European Union (EU) to third countries due to the impact of EU climate policy ambition on production and investment decisions. A legislative proposal setting out the parameters of the CBAM is expected from the European Commission by the end of June 2021 as part of the “Fit for 55” package of initiatives operationalizing the strengthened climate target under the EGD. <br><br>As of now, the design parameters of a future EU CBAM are still uncertain. What the process so far – including a formal consultation process carried out by the European Commission – has unmistakably shown, however, are considerable divergences in the views of key EU stakeholders about the preferred CBAM design, and, in some cases, what they consider to be red lines. <br><br>This report proposes a CBAM design that seeks to balance trade-offs so as to secure its environmental and competitiveness benefits while maximizing its administrative, legal and technical viability, as well as political acceptability. An elegant technical proposal that ignores political feasibility is not one that should be taken seriously.<br><br>Beyond the mere design, this proposal also addresses important procedural aspects and the timeline of implementation, which are critical for legal and political acceptability.<br>","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129774187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This work studies the overpopulation issue and its effects on the country’s economy in Central Asia. Through the work, you will get some new up-to-date information about the situation with overpopulation and identify current problems. Research-based on primary research, in which citizens of Central Asia participated in interviews and survey.
{"title":"Climate Change in the Arctic and Future Directions for Adaptation: Views From Non-Arctic States","authors":"A. Timonin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3802303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3802303","url":null,"abstract":"This work studies the overpopulation issue and its effects on the country’s economy in Central Asia. Through the work, you will get some new up-to-date information about the situation with overpopulation and identify current problems. Research-based on primary research, in which citizens of Central Asia participated in interviews and survey.","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"212 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123065923","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Understanding and accurately estimating the effects of climate change on migration patterns may be an important concern for future climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. In this context, issues of spatial dependence are likely relevant but have largely been neglected by previous literature. Drawing on empirical methods developed in the spatial econometrics literature, the current paper attempts to shed some light on the role of spatial dependence in the climate-migration relationship using data for the United States for the years 2005 to 2019. I find modest evidence of spatial spillover effects of temperature and precipitation on state-level migration rates. In particular, I show that not accounting for potential spatial spillover effects leads to an overestimation of the effects of precipitation on migration rates.
{"title":"Spatial Dependence in the Relationship between Climate Change and Internal Migration: Evidence from the United States","authors":"M. Braun","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3906643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3906643","url":null,"abstract":"Understanding and accurately estimating the effects of climate change on migration patterns may be an important concern for future climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. In this context, issues of spatial dependence are likely relevant but have largely been neglected by previous literature. Drawing on empirical methods developed in the spatial econometrics literature, the current paper attempts to shed some light on the role of spatial dependence in the climate-migration relationship using data for the United States for the years 2005 to 2019. I find modest evidence of spatial spillover effects of temperature and precipitation on state-level migration rates. In particular, I show that not accounting for potential spatial spillover effects leads to an overestimation of the effects of precipitation on migration rates.","PeriodicalId":280806,"journal":{"name":"Climate Action eJournal","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114511817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：