OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Environmental science and pollution research international
Dec, 2022;29 (58): 87583-87601.

Revisiting environmental Kuznets curve: an investigation of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption role.

Hossein Ali Fakher, Roula Inglesi-Lotz
Author Information
  1. Hossein Ali Fakher: Department of Business Management, Ayandegan Institute of Higher Education, Tonekabon, Iran. imanfakher@yahoo.com. ORCID
  2. Roula Inglesi-Lotz: Department of Economics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. ORCID
PMID: 35816255 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-21776-9

Abstract

Empirical studies on the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis have not reached a consensus on their findings because different environmental indicators are used, among other reasons. So, this study proposes using a composite index encompassing all dimensions of environmental pollution, using the composite environmental quality index (CEQI) which is introduced by Fakher et al. (Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(43): 61096-61114, 2021b). To do so, continuously updated fully modified (CUP-FM) and continuously updated bias-corrected (CUP-BC) techniques are used for the panel of selected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and Organization in the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) from 2000 to 2019. The findings show that the EKC hypothesis is confirmed in the inverted N-patterned relationship for the OPEC countries and an inverted U-patterned relationship for the OECD countries. Our findings also declare that consumption of renewable energies (REC) significantly increases environmental quality (EQ) while consumption of non-renewable energies (NREC) adds to environmental degradation (ED). Further, the role of financial development (FD) in our composite index is respectively negative and positive for sampled OPEC and OECD economies. The positive coefficient of combined trade share (CTS) in both groups of studied countries indicates that this variable works to reduce ED. Lastly, the implications of these findings for economic-environmental policies are discussed.

Keywords

Composite environmental quality index EKC hypothesis Economic growth Renewable and non-renewable energy

References

  1. Acheampong AO (2019) Modelling for insight: does financial development improve environmental quality? Energy Econ 83:156–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.06.025 [DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.06.025]
  2. Acheampong AO, Dzator J, Savage DA (2021) Renewable energy, CO2 emissions and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa: does institutional quality matter? J Policy Model 43(5):1070–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.03.011 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2021.03.011]
  3. Acheampong AO, Amponsah M, Boateng E (2020) Does financial development mitigate carbon emissions? Evidence from heterogeneous financial economies. Energy Econ 88:104768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104768 [DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104768]
  4. Ahmed Z, Cary M, Shahbaz M, Vo XV (2021a) Asymmetric nexus between economic policy uncertainty, renewable energy technology budgets, and environmental sustainability: Evidence from the United States. J Clean Prod 313:127723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127723 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127723]
  5. Ahmed Z, Cary M, Ali S, Murshed M, Ullah H, Mahmood H (2021b) Moving toward a green revolution in Japan: symmetric and asymmetric relationships among clean energy technology development investments, economic growth, and CO2 emissions. Energy Environ. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X211041780
  6. Ahmed Z, Le HP (2021) Linking Information Communication Technology, trade globalisation index, and CO emissions: evidence from advanced panel techniques. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:8770–8781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11205-0 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-11205-0]
  7. Ahmed Z, Wang Z, Mahmood F, Hafeez M, Ali N (2019) Does globalisation increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:18565–18582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9]
  8. Ahmed Z, Zafar MW, Ali S, Danish (2020) Linking urbanisation, human capital, and the ecological footprint in G7 countries: an empirical analysis. Sustain Cities Soc 55:102064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102064
  9. Altıntaş H, Kassouri Y (2020) Is the environmental Kuznets Curve in Europe related to the per-capita ecological footprint or CO2 emissions? Ecol Indic 113:106187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106187 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106187]
  10. Anwar A, Siddique M, Dogan E, Sharif A (2021) The moderating role of renewable and non-renewable energy in environment-income nexus for ASEAN countries: evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Renew Energy 164:956–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.128 [DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.128]
  11. Asici AA (2013) Economic growth and its impact on environment: a panel data analysis. Ecol Indic 24:324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.01910.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.019 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.01910.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.019]
  12. Bai J, Kao C, Ng S (2009) Panel cointegration with global stochastic trends. J Econ 149(1):82–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.10.012 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2008.10.012]
  13. Bai J, Kao C (2006) Chapter 1 on the estimation and inference of a panel cointegration model with cross-sectional dependence. Contrib Econ Anal 274:3–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0573-8555(06)74001-9
  14. Bekhet HA, Othman NS (2018) The role of renewable energy to validate dynamic interaction between CO2 emissions and GDP toward sustainable development in Malaysia. Energ Econ 72:47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.03.028 [DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.03.028]
  15. BP Statistical Review (2020) Statistical review of world energy. http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview . Accessed 3 Jun 2020
  16. Charoenkit S, Kumar S (2014) Environmental sustainability assessment tools for low carbon and climate-resilient low-income housing settlements. Renew Sust Energ Rev 38:509–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.06.012
  17. Chen J, Li Z, Song M, Dong Y (2021) Decomposing the global carbon balance pressure index: evidence from 77 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:7016–7031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11042-1 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-11042-1]
  18. Danish, Ulucak R, Khan SU-D (2020) Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanisation. Sustain Cities Soc 54:101996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101996
  19. Danish, Wang Z (2019) Does biomass energy consumption help to control environmental pollution? Evidence from BRICS countries. Sci Total Environ 670:1075–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.268
  20. Destek MA, Sinha A (2020) Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from Organization for economic Co-operation and Development countries. J Clean Prod 242:118537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118537]
  21. Dogan E, Ulucak R, Kocak E, Isik C (2020) The use of ecological footprint in estimating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis for BRICST by considering cross-section dependence and heterogeneity. Sci Total Environ 723:138063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138063 [DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138063]
  22. Ekeocha DO (2021) Urbanisation, inequality, economic development and ecological footprint: searching for turning points and regional homogeneity in Africa. J Clean Prod 291(1):125244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125244 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125244]
  23. El-Aasar KM, Hanafy SA (2018) Investigating the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in Egypt: The role of renewable energy and trade in mitigating GHGs. Int J Energ Econ Policy 8(3):177–184. Available at: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/view/6316 . Accessed 4 July 2022
  24. Elsalih O, Sertoglu K, Besim M (2020) Environmental performance, comparative advantage of crude oil and the role of institutional quality. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:3489–3496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06838-9 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-06838-9]
  25. Ehigiamusoe KU, Leanb HH, Smythc R (2020) The moderating role of energy consumption in the carbon emissions-income nexus in middle-income countries. Appl Energy 261:114215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114215 [DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114215]
  26. Fakher HA, Ahmed Z, Alvarado R, Murshed M (2022) Exploring renewable energy, financial development, environmental quality, and economic growth nexus: new evidence from composite indices for environmental quality and financial development. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20709-w [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20709-w]
  27. Fakher HA, Panahi M, Emami K, Peykarjou K, Zeraatkish SY (2021a) Investigating marginal effect of economic growth on environmental quality based on six environmental indicators: does financial development have a determinative role in strengthening or weakening this effect? Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(38):53679–53699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14470-9 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-14470-9]
  28. Fakher HA, Panahi M, Emami K, Peykarjou K, Zeraatkish SY (2021b) New insight into examining the role of financial development in economic growth effect on a composite environmental quality index. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(43):61096–61114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15047-2 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-15047-2]
  29. Fakher HA (2019) Investigating the determinant factors of environmental quality (based on ecological carbon footprint index). Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(10):10276–10291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04452-3 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-04452-3]
  30. Fakher HA, Ahmadian M, Abedi Z, Shaygani B (2018) Bayesian econometrics approach in determining of effecting factors on pollution in developing countries (based on Environmental Performance Index). Pollution 4(3):447–457. https://doi.org/10.22059/poll.2018.243987.335
  31. Fu Q, Chen YE, Jang CL, Chang CP (2020) The impact of international sanctions on environmental performance. Sci Total Environ 745:141007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141007 [DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141007]
  32. Ganda F (2019) The environmental impacts of financial development in OECD countries: a panel GMM approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:6758–6772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04143-z [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-04143-z]
  33. Gnègnè Y (2009) Adjusted net saving and welfare change. Ecol Econ 68(4):1127–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.002 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.002]
  34. Godil DI, Sharif A, Rafique S, Jermsittiparsert K (2020) The asymmetric effect of tourism, financial development, and globalisation on ecological footprint in Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:40109–40120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09937-0 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09937-0]
  35. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Natl Bur Econ Res Work. Pap Ser No 3914:1–57. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914 [DOI: 10.3386/w3914]
  36. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443 [DOI: 10.2307/2118443]
  37. Hao LN, Umar M, Khan Z, Ali W (2021) Green growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: how critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is? Sci Total Environ 752:141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141853 [DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141853]
  38. Ho HC, Wong MS, Man HY, Shi Y, Abbas S (2019) Neighborhood-based subjective environmental vulnerability index for community health assessment: development, validation and evaluation. Sci Total Environ 654(2019):1082–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.136 [DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.136]
  39. IEA (2020) Data and statistics. https://www.iea.org/countries . Accessed 12 Apr 2020
  40. Khan Z, Sisi Z, Siqun Y (2019) Environmental regulations an option: asymmetry effect of environmental regulations on carbon emissions using non-linear ARDL. Energy Sour Part A: Recover Utilization Environ Effects 41(2):137–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2018.1504145 [DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2018.1504145]
  41. Khan Z, Ali M, Jinyu L, Shahbaz M, Siqun Y (2020a) Consumption-based carbon emissions and trade nexus: evidence from nine oil exporting countries. Energy Econ 89:104806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104806 [DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104806]
  42. Khan Z, Ali M, Kirikkaleli D, Wahab S, Jiao Z (2020b) The impact of technological innovation and public-private partnership investment on sustainable environment in China: consumption-based carbon emissions analysis. Sustain Dev 28(5):1317–1330. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2086 [DOI: 10.1002/sd.2086]
  43. Khan Z, Ali S, Umar M, Kirikkaleli D, Jiao Z (2020c) Consumption-based carbon emissions and international trade in G7 countries: the role of Environmental innovation and Renewable energy. Sci Total Environ 730:138945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138945 [DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138945]
  44. Khan I, Hou F, Le HP (2021a) The impact of natural resources, energy consumption, and population growth on environmental quality: fresh evidence from the United States of America. Sci Total Environ 754:142222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142222 [DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142222]
  45. Khan Z, Ali S, Dong K, Li RYM (2021b) How does fiscal decentralisation affect CO2 emissions? The roles of institutions and human capital. Energy Econ 94:105060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105060 [DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105060]
  46. Khan Z, Murshed M, Dong K, Yang S (2021c) The roles of export diversification and composite country risks in carbon emissions abatement: evidence from the signatories of the regional comprehensive economic partnership agreement. Appl Econ 53(41):4769–4787. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2021.1907289 [DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2021.1907289]
  47. Koc S, Bulus GC (2020) Testing validity of the EKC hypothesis in South Korea: role of renewable energy and trade openness. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:29043–29054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09172-7 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09172-7]
  48. Lee Y, Lin S (2020) Vulnerability and ecological footprint: a comparison between urban Taipei and rural Yunlin. Taiwan Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:34624–34637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05251-6 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-05251-6]
  49. Long X, Ji X (2019) Economic growth quality, environmental sustainability, and social welfare in China - provincial assessment based on Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). Ecol Econ 159:157–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.002 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.01.002]
  50. Ma Q, Murshed M, Khan Z (2021) The nexuses between energy investments, technological innovations, emission taxes, and carbon emissions in China. Energy Policy 155:112345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112345 [DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112345]
  51. Murshed M, Haseeb M, Alam MS (2021) The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for carbon and ecological footprints in South Asia: the role of renewable energy. Geo Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10370-6 [DOI: 10.1007/s10708-020-10370-6]
  52. Musa MS, Jelilov G, Iorember PT, Usman O (2021) Effects of tourism, financial development, and renewable energy on environmental performance in EU-28: does institutional quality matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:53328–53339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14450-z [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-14450-z]
  53. Myers N, Kent J (2001) Perverse subsidies: how tax dollars can undercut the environment and the economy. Washington, DC: Island Press
  54. Naqvi SAA, Shah SAR, Anwar S, Raza H (2021) Renewable energy, economic development, and ecological footprint nexus: fresh evidence of renewable energy environment Kuznets curve (RKC) from income groups. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(2):2031–2051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10485-w [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-10485-w]
  55. Nathaniel SP, Barua S, Ahmed Z (2021) What drives ecological footprint in top ten tourist destinations? Evidence from advanced panel techniques. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:8322–38331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13389-5 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-13389-5]
  56. Nathaniel S, Anyanwu O, Shah M (2020) Renewable energy, urbanisation, and ecological footprint in the Middle East and North Africa region. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:14601–14613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08017-7 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-08017-7]
  57. Nathaniel SP (2020) Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanisation linkage in Indonesia. GeoJournal 86:2057–2070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10175-7 [DOI: 10.1007/s10708-020-10175-7]
  58. Neagu O, Ardelean DI, Lazar V (2017) How is environmental performance associated with economic growth? A world cross-country analysis. Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldis” Arad Econ Ser 27(3):15–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/sues-2017-0010
  59. NFA (2019) Global footprint network.  https://data.footprintnetwork.org/
  60. Nwani C, Omoke PC (2020) Does bank credit to the private sector promote low-carbon development in Brazil? An extended STIRPAT analysis using dynamic ARDL simulations. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:31408–31426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09415-7 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09415-7]
  61. Olafsson S, Cook D, Davidsdottir B, Johannsdottir L (2014) Measuring countries׳ environmental sustainability performance – a review and case study of Iceland. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 39:934–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.101 [DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.101]
  62. Ozcan B, Tzeremes PG, Tzeremes NG (2020) Energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in OECD countries. Econ Model 84:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.04.010 [DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2019.04.010]
  63. Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in presence of cross section dependence. J Appl Econom 22:265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951 [DOI: 10.1002/jae.951]
  64. Hess P (2010) Determinants of the adjusted net saving rate in developing economies. Int Rev Appl Econ 24(5):591–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692170903426070 [DOI: 10.1080/02692170903426070]
  65. Popova L, Rasoulinezhad E (2016) Have sanctions modified Iran’s trade policy? An evidence of Asianization and de-Europeanization through the gravity model. Economies 4(4):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies4040024 [DOI: 10.3390/economies4040024]
  66. Salahuddin M, Gow J (2019) Effects of energy consumption and economic growth on environmental quality: evidence from Qatar. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:18124–18142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05188-w [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-05188-w]
  67. Saud S, Chen S, Haseeb A, Sumayya (2020) The role of financial development and globalisation in the environment: accounting ecological footprint indicators for selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries. J Clean Prod 250:119518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119518
  68. Saud S, Chen S, Danish HA (2019) Impact of financial development and economic growth on environmental quality: an empirical analysis from Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(3):2253–2269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3688-1 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-3688-1]
  69. Seetanah B, Sannassee RV, Fauzel S, Soobaruth Y, Giudici G, Nguyen APH (2019) Impact of economic and financial development on environmental degradation: evidence from small island developing states (SIDS). Emerg Mark Financ Trade 55:308–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1519696 [DOI: 10.1080/1540496X.2018.1519696]
  70. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time-series and cross-country evidence. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper WPS904, Washington DC
  71. Sharif A, Baris-Tuzemen O, Uzuner G, Ozturk O, Sinha A (2020) Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustain Cities Soc 57:102138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138 [DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102138]
  72. Shah SAR, Naqvi SAA, Anwar S (2020) Exploring the linkage among energy intensity, carbon emission and urbanisation in Pakistan: fresh evidence from ecological modernisation and environment transition theories. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:40907–40929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09227-9 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09227-9]
  73. Shah SAA, Zhou P, Walasai GD, Mohsin M (2019) Energy security and environmental sustainability index of South Asian countries: a composite index approach. Ecol Indic 106:105507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105507 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105507]
  74. Shahzad U, Fareed Z, Shahzad F, Shahzad K (2021) Investigating the nexus between economic complexity, energy consumption and ecological footprint for the United States: new insights from quantile methods. J Clean Prod 279:123806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123806 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123806]
  75. Shujah-ur-Rahman CS, Saud S, Saleem N, Bari MW (2019) Nexus between financial development, energy consumption, income level, and ecological footprint in CEE countries: do human capital and biocapacity matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:31856–31872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06343-z [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-06343-z]
  76. Squalli J, Wilson KA (2011) New approach to measuring trade openness. World Econ 34(10):1745–1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2011.01404.x [DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9701.2011.01404.x]
  77. Sultana N, Rahman MM, Khanam R (2021) Environmental Kuznets curve and causal links between environmental degradation and selected socioeconomic indicators in Bangladesh. Environ Dev Sustain 24:5426–5450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01665-w [DOI: 10.1007/s10668-021-01665-w]
  78. Ulucak R, Bilgili F (2018) A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle- and low-income countries. J Clean Prod 188:144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191]
  79. Ulucak R, Danish, Khan SUD (2020) Does information and communication technology affect CO2 mitigation under the pathway of sustainable development during the mode of globalisation? Sustain Dev 28(4):857-867. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2041
  80. Usman O, Alola AA, Sarkodie SA (2020) Assessment of the role of renewable energy consumption and trade policy on environmental degradation using innovation accounting: evidence from the US. Renew Energ 15:266–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.151 [DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.12.151]
  81. Wang Q, Zhang F (2021) The effects of trade openness on decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth e Evidence from 182 countries. J Clean Prod 279:123838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123838 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123838]
  82. Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 69(6):709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x [DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x]
  83. World Development Indicators (WDI) (2019) World Bank Development Indicators database (online) available at https://data.worldbank.org/ . Accessed 24 Oct 2019
  84. Zafar MW, Saud S, Hou FJ (2019) The impact of globalisation and financial development on environmental quality: evidence from selected countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:13246–13262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04761-7 [DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-04761-7]

MeSH Term

Economic Development
Carbon Dioxide
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
Environmental Pollution

Chemicals

Carbon Dioxide
Journal Article

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0environmentalfindingsindexcountriesEKChypothesiscompositequalityOECDOPECconsumptionnon-renewableKuznetsusedusingcontinuouslyupdatedEconomicinvertedrelationshiprenewableenergiesEDrolepositiveenergyEmpiricalstudiescurvereachedconsensusdifferentindicatorsamongreasonsstudyproposesencompassingdimensionspollutionCEQIintroducedFakheretalEnvironSciPollutRes2843:61096-611142021bfullymodifiedCUP-FMbias-correctedCUP-BCtechniquespanelselectedOrganisationCo-operationDevelopmentOrganizationPetroleumExportingCountries20002019showconfirmedN-patternedU-patternedalsodeclareRECsignificantlyincreasesEQNRECaddsdegradationfinancialdevelopmentFDrespectivelynegativesampledeconomiescoefficientcombinedtradeshareCTSgroupsstudiedindicatesvariableworksreduceLastlyimplicationseconomic-environmentalpoliciesdiscussedRevisitingcurve:investigationCompositegrowthRenewable

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)