The impact of agricultural intensification on carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption: A comparative study of developing and developed nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy consumption has become a necessity in today’s world, and economies in developing nations cannot thrive without it. Countries with less developed economies face the same challenges of achieving sustained economic growth as those with more advanced economies. Herein, we examine the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by looking at the interplay between GDP growth, energy use, agricultural output, and the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. From 1991 to 2016, we used panel and quantile regression analyses to compare emissions in nine developing countries with those in 13 developed countries. There is the beginning of a reverse U-shaped relationship between agricultural energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the verified EKC hypothesis paves the way for a watershed moment in the progress of industrialized nations’ economies. The estimated results of agriculture have a favorable impact on CO2 emissions by 15.16 percent but a negative influence of 2.92 percent on CO2 emissions from using liquid fuels, leading to more severe environmental deterioration. Additionally, in developing countries, feed cropping, deforestation, biomass burning, and deep soil and cropping all have detrimental consequences on the ecosystem. There is a negative correlation between CO2 emissions and economic growth in developing countries and their energy consumption. Although the EKC hypothesis for CO2 emissions was rejected at lower quantiles, it was validated for Qatar, Canada, China, and other high-emitting economies according to the empirical estimation of quantile regression. The findings of this study have important policy implications for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, suggesting that policymakers account for the stage of economic growth currently being experienced when formulating measures to cut energy use and protect the environment. Possible solutions to mitigate environmental degradation include enactment of policies to reduce energy consumption.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".