Consumption‐based CO2 emissions in Denmark: The role of financial stability and energy productivity

Abstract

AbstractClimate change can be mitigated and policies can be catalyzed with the aid of financial institutions. By maintaining and strengthening financial stability, the financial sector's resilience could help mitigate climate‐related risks and uncertainties. Hence, an empirical investigation on the effect of financial stability on consumption‐based CO2 emissions (CCO2E) in Denmark is long overdue. This study investigates the financial risk‐emissions relationship in the presence of energy productivity, energy consumption, and economic growth in Denmark. Furthermore, by adopting an asymmetric approach to analyze the time series data for the period between 1995 and 2018, this study helps bridge this major gap in the literature. By adopting the nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag approach (NARDL), we discovered that the positive variation in financial stability causes a reduction in CCO2E, but the neutral connection was reported between the negative shock in financial stability and CCO2E. The positive shock in economic growth and energy consumption intensifies CCO2E; however, a neutral interaction exists between the negative shock in economic growth and CCO2E. The negative shock in energy consumption has a positive effect on CCO2E, indicating a mitigating implication on environmental degradation. In addition, a positive shock in energy productivity enhances environmental quality, while a negative shock in energy productivity increases environmental degradation. In light of the results, we suggest some robust policies for Denmark and other smaller but wealthy nations. Moreover, in order to develop sustainable finance markets, policymakers in Denmark need to mobilize both public and private finance while maintaining a balance with other economic needs of the nation. The country must also identify and understand potential avenues for scaling up private financing for mitigating climate risk. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:1485–1494. © 2023 SETAC