Basket of environmental (de)merits of the BRICS and eBRICS states
BRICSおよび拡大BRICS諸国の環境的（不）利益のバスケット (AI 翻訳)
Ali Çeli̇k, Kayode Kolawole Eluwole, Andrew Adewale Alola, Taiwo Temitope Lasisi, Uju Violet Alola
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本研究は、BRICSと拡大BRICS（eBRICS）諸国における二酸化炭素排出の要因を1995年から2021年にかけて計量分析した。結果、BRICSでは一次エネルギー消費のみが排出を増加させるが、eBRICSでは経済成長や天然資源レントも排出を押し上げることが示された。貿易要因は環境質に有意な影響を与えず、国別の政策洞察が重要であると結論づけた。
English
This study econometrically analyzes drivers of carbon emissions for BRICS and extended BRICS (eBRICS) from 1995 to 2021. It finds that only primary energy usage increases emissions in BRICS, while in eBRICS primary energy, economic growth, and natural resource rents contribute. Trade has no significant effect. The results provide country-specific policy insights for climate mitigation.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
BRICSの拡大に伴う環境負荷の増大は、日本企業のサプライチェーンや国際協調にも影響を与える可能性がある。本研究は排出要因を国別に分析しており、日本の対BRICS政策立案や投資判断に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As BRICS expands, understanding the environmental footprint of new members is crucial for global climate governance. This study offers empirical evidence on emission drivers, supporting more targeted climate policies and trade-environment linkages.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides econometric evidence on emission drivers in BRICS and eBRICS, useful for comparative environmental policy research.
🏢実務担当者:Companies with supply chains in eBRICS countries can assess regulatory and carbon risks based on these findings.
🏛政策担当者:Highlights need for differentiated national climate strategies within expanded BRICS and suggests enhancing trade's environmental contribution.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Purpose With the expansion of Brazil, Russia Federation, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) countries, i.e. extending membership to Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates to now extended BRICS (eBRICS), there are concerns about how the basket of environmental merits and demerits of the BRICS and that of the new entrants would be inherited by the now eBRICS. Design/methodology/approach Therefore, this study focuses on environmental sustainability to compare the circumstantial drivers of carbon emission for BRICS and eBRICS over the period 1995 to 2021. Findings By using an econometric approach, the results show that only primary energy usage causes the surge of carbon emission (by elasticity of 1.06) in the BRICS panel, but consumption of primary energy alongside economic growth and rent from natural resources increases carbon emission in the entire eBRICS panel by respective elasticities of 0.72, 0.21 and 0.07. Furthermore, from the panel perspective, the trade factor, which is a critical and unifying policy statement of BRICS and/or eBRICS does not have a significant effect on environmental quality. However, the outcomes indicate vital country-specific policy insight. For instance, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates demonstrate similar pattern of response of carbon emission to all the examined factors and presumably influencing the contribution of rents from natural resources to environmental quality in China, India and South Africa. Originality/value For overall policy insight, while encouraging member countries of eBRICS to make more pragmatic nationally determined contributions, trade activities would need to be more environmentally harnessed through climate change mitigation and adaptation measures by the member countries.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1108/meq-02-2025-0125first seen 2026-07-26 05:01:04
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。