Trade globalization, green taxation and CO2 reduction in ‎sub-Saharan Africa

Authors

  • CORDELIA ONYINYECHI OMODERO

    Department of Accounting, College of Management and Social Sciences Covenant University Ota, Ogun State, Nige-ria

Received date: March 13, 2025

Accepted date: April 9, 2025

Published date: April 16, 2025

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14419/s7b3pv74

Keywords:

Environmental Taxes; CO2 Emissions; Pollution Control Costs; Environment and Trade

Abstract

The connection between trade globalization and its environmental consequences, together with the DATA requirement to secure adequate tax revenue to bolster Sub-Saharan African economies, has become a critical concern. Authorities are focused on boosting revenue through the implementation of green taxation to meet social commitments. Simultaneously, there are efforts to attract foreign investments and engage in international trade. According to Wang et al. (2024), the acceleration of economic growth has been significantly influenced by the industrial revolution and globalization. This upward trajectory has been essential for enhancing social and economic stability; on the other hand, it has also resulted in negative environmental consequences. Yingjun et al. (2024) contend that the consequences of ecological ruin on fiscal health are considerable because it impacts vital sectors, notably agronomy, which is indispensable for food safety and engagement opportunities. Weather variation has led to aquatic shortage and life-threatening meteorological conditions that threaten agronomic output, thus distressing both food safety and fiscal permanency (Yingjun et al., 2024). Trade globalization and industrial revolution dynamics have resulted in a surge of foreign operations that pose environmental risks, leading to the destruction of forests, pollution of waterways, and degradation of farmland in most Sub-Saharan African countries. As Li et al. (2021) pointed out, global warming, air pollution, and other environmental challenges are byproducts of trade globalization, notwithstanding its role in promoting global economic growth.

References

  1. An, Q. (2024). Empirical analysis of trade costs and their impact on carbon emissions in RCEP Countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 365(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121666.
  2. Arcila, A., Chen, T., & Lu, X. (2024). The effectiveness of consumption tax on the reduction of Car pollution in China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 134(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104302.
  3. Bretschger, L., & Grieg, E. (2024). Carbon taxes, CO2 emissions, and the economy: The effects of fuel taxation in the UK. Energy Policy, 195(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114359.
  4. Ediriweera, A., & Wiewiora, A. (2021). Barriers and enablers of technology adoption in the mining Industry. Resources Policy, 73(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102188.
  5. Gill, F.L., Kuperan, K.V., & Karim, M.Z.A. (2018). The critical review of the pollution haven Hypothesis. International Journal of Energy Econom-ics and Policy, 8(1), 167-174.
  6. Hussain, M., & Dogan, E. (2021). The role of institutional quality and environment-related Technologies in environmental degradation for BRICS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 304(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127059.
  7. Ibrahim, R.L., & Ajide, K.B. (2022). Trade facilitation and environmental quality: Empirical Evidence from some selected African countries. Envi-ronment, Development and Sustainability, 24(1), 1282–1312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01497-8.
  8. Jabeen, G., Wang, D., Pinzón, S., Işık, C., Ahmad, M., Rehman, A., Anser, M.K. (2025). Promoting green taxation and sustainable energy transi-tion for low-carbon development. Geoscience Frontiers, 16(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2024.101928.
  9. Khan, H., Weili, L., Khan, I., & Khamphengxay, S. (2021). Renewable energy consumption, Trade openness, and environmental degradation: A panel data analysis of developing and developed countries. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6691046.
  10. Khan, I., Zakari, A., Dagar, V., & Singh, S. (2022). World energy trilemma and transformative Energy developments as determinants of economic growth amid environmental sustainability. Energy Economics, 108(1). 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.105884.
  11. Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). Does environmental tax matter for environmental degradation in the Netherlands? Evidence from novel Fourier-based esti-mators. Environmental Science Pollution Research, 30(1), 57481–57489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26583-4.
  12. Li, R., Wang, Q., Liu, Y., & Jiang, R. (2021). Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: The Effect of economic, energy, social, and trade struc-tural changes. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27(1), 1149-1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.031.
  13. Liu, J. (2024). Can environmental taxes and green technological investment ease environmental Pollution in China? Journal of Cleaner Production, 474(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143611.
  14. Liu, Q., & Zhu, X. (2024). How Carbon Tax Policy Affects the Carbon Emissions of Manufacturers with Green Technology Spillo-vers? Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 29(5), 971–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-024-09965-x.
  15. Lleshaj, L., & Agaj, S. (2024). Carbon emission metrics in South-eastern Europe: Empirical Analysis of trade and economic indicator effects. Envi-ronment and Ecology Research, 12(2), 131-139. https://doi.org/10.13189/eer.2024.120204.
  16. Mehta, D., & Prajapati, P. (2024). Asymmetric effect of environment tax and spending on CO2 Emissions of European Union. Environmental Sci-ence and Pollution Research, 31(18), 27416–27431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32990-y.
  17. Mignamissi, D., Possi Tebeng, E.X., & Momou Tchinda, A.D. (2024). Does trade openness Increase CO2 emissions in Africa? A revaluation using the composite index of Squalli and Wilson. Environment Systems and Decisions, 44(1), 645–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-023-09962-7.
  18. Mintz-Woo, K. (2023). Carbon tax ethics. WIREs Climate Change, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.858.
  19. Mpuure, D.M-N., Duodu, E., Abille, A.B., & Ayamga, E.A. (2024). The environmental impact of international trade in Sub-Saharan Africa: Explor-ing the role of policy and institutions for environmental sustainability. Research in Globalization, 9(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2024.100240.
  20. Noubissi, E.D., Nkengfack, H., Pondie, T.M., & Ngounou, B.A. (2023). Economic impact of the Carbon tax: Evaluation of the reduction in CO2 emissions. Natural Resources Forum, 48(3), 859 – 886. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12348.
  21. OECD (2012). Aid for trade and green growth: state of play. Retrieved on Nov 10, 2024 from: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/devel_e/a4t_e/wkshop_feb12_e/hynes.pdf.
  22. OECD (2024). Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Policy Instruments for the environment. Retrieved on Novem-ber 3, 2024 from: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/policy-instruments-for-the-environment-pine-database.html.
  23. Pigou, A. (1932). The economics of welfare (4th ed.). Macmillan.
  24. Prasad, M.N.V. (2024). Chapter 1 - Bioremediation, Bioeconomy, circular economy, and circular Bioeconomy—Strategies for sustainability. Bio-remediation and Bioeconomy (Second Edition), Elsevier, 2024, Pages 3-32, ISBN 9780443161209. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-16120-9.00025-X.
  25. Savranlar, B., Ertas, S.A., Aslan, A. (2024). The role of environmental tax on the environmental Quality in EU countries: evidence from panel vec-tor auto-regression approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(24), 35769 – 35778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33632-z.
  26. Shu, H., Wang, Y., Umar, M., & Zhong, Y. (2023). Dynamics of renewable energy research, Investment in EnvoTech and environmental quality in the context of G7 countries. Energy Economics, 120(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106582.
  27. Soto, G.H. (2024). The impact of Chinese foreign direct investment and environmental tax Revenues on air degradation in Europe: A spatial regres-sion approach, 2000-2020. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(23), 33819 – 33836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33399-3.
  28. Stameski, N., Radulescu, M., Zelenovi´c, V., Mirovi´c, V., Kalaš, B., & Pavlovi´c, N. (2024). Investigating the Effects of Environmental Tax Reve-nues on Economic Development: The Case of Nordic Countries. Sustainability, 16(18), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187957.
  29. Stern, D.I. (2018). The Environmental Kuznets Curve☆, Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09278-2.
  30. Su, L., Ji, T., Ahmad, F., Chandio, A.A., Ahmad, M., Jabeen, G., Rehman, A. (2023). Technology Innovations impact on carbon emission in Chi-nese cities: exploring the mediating role of economic growth and industrial structure transformation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(1), 46321–46335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25493-9.
  31. Sabău-Popa, C.D., Bele, A.M., Negrea, A., Coita, D.C., Giurgiu, A. (2024). Do Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions Significantly Influence Green Tax Levels in European Countries? Energies, 17(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17092186.
  32. Suleman, S., Thaker, H.M.T., & Hoh, C.C.W. (2024). Is trade relevant to the macro drivers of Carbon dioxide emissions? A study of high and low trade openness economics. Natural Resources Forum. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12543.
  33. Wang, Q., Sun, J., Li, R., & Pata, U.K. (2024). Linking trade openness to load capacity factor: The threshold effects of natural resources rent and corruption control. Gondwana Research, 129(1), 371-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.05.016 .
  34. Wang, Q., Wang, X., Li, R., & Jiang, X. (2024). Reinvestigating the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) of carbon emissions and ecological foot-print in 147 countries: a matter of trade Protectionism. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02639-9.
  35. Wang, Q., Zhang, F., & Li, R. (2023). Free trade and carbon emissions revisited: The asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade open-ness. Sustainable Development, 32(1), 876 – 901. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2703.
  36. Wijethunga, A.W.G.C.N., Rahman, M.M., & Sarker, T. (2024). Financial development and Environmental quality: Does the financial environmental Kuznets curve prevail in Australia? Heliyon, 10(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38454.
  37. Xu, B., & Lin, B. (2024). How can green finance effectively promote low-carbon cities? Evidence From 237 cities in China. Journal of Environ-mental Management, 365(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121641.
  38. Xu, Z., Farooq, U., Ahmed, A., & Masood, A. (2024). Balancing profit and planet: The effect of Corporate tax rates on environmental quality and innovation in Asian Countries. Environmental Development, 52(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101063.
  39. Yingjun, Z.; Jahan, S.; Qamruzzaman, M. (2024). Technological Innovation, Trade Openness, Natural Resources, and Environmental Sustainability in Egypt and Turkey: Evidence from Load Capacity Factor and Inverted Load Capacity Factor with Fourier Functions. Sustainability, 16(19), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198643.
  40. Zhong, S., Zhou, Z. & Jin, D. (2024). Impact of Environmental Protection Tax on carbon intensity In China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 31(20), 29695–29718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33203-2.

Downloads

How to Cite

OMODERO, C. O. (2025). Trade globalization, green taxation and CO2 reduction in ‎sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(1), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.14419/s7b3pv74

Received date: March 13, 2025

Accepted date: April 9, 2025

Published date: April 16, 2025