Çevreyle İlgili Teknolojilerin ve Çevresel Politika Katılığının Çevresel Bozulmaya Etkisi

Abstract

Küresel ısınma ve çevre kirliliğinin artışı ekolojik bozulmayı hızlandırmakta ve dünya genelinde hükümetleri ekonomik büyümeyi korurken çevresel zorlukları ele almayı amaçlayan politikalara yöneltmektedir. Bu bağlamda, 1990-2022 dönemi 38 OECD ülkesine ait panel verileri kullanan bu çalışmada, çevre teknolojilerinin ve politika katılığının CO₂ emisyonlarını nasıl etkilediği araştırılmaktadır. Sabit etkiler ve Driscoll-Kraay (1998) tahmincilerine dayanan analiz, kişi başına düşen GSYİH'nin, ihracatın, endüstriyel faaliyetlerin, fosil yakıt tüketiminin ve eğitim harcamalarının ekonomik genişlemeyi desteklediğini ancak aynı zamanda daha yüksek emisyon seviyelerine de katkıda bulunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Çıkan sonuçlara göre hem enerji kullanımı hem de politika katılığı emisyon sonuçlarını önemli ölçüde etkilemektedir. Çevresel teknolojilerin oranı emisyonları azaltırken, patent sayısının gösterdiği beklenmedik pozitif yönlü ilişki, patentlerin ortaya çıkması ve uygulamaya geçmesi arasındaki gecikmeye veya yüksek emisyonlu ülkelerde daha fazla patent üretilmesine bağlanabilir. Genel olarak bulgular, sadece çevresel inovasyonun emisyon azaltımları sağlamak için yeterli olmadığını; güçlü politika uygulamaları ile desteklenmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

• Çevresel Bozulma
• Karbon Emisyonu
• Çevre Teknolojisi Yenilikleri
• Çevresel Politika Katılığı
• Dinamik Panel Veri

The Impact of Environmental Technologies and Environmental Policy Stringency on Environmental Degradation

Abstract

The increase in global warming and environmental pollution accelerates ecological degradation and prompts governments worldwide to adopt policies aimed at addressing environmental challenges while maintaining economic growth. In this context, this study examines how environmental technologies and policy stringency affect CO₂ emissions using panel data from 38 OECD countries for the period 1990-2022. The analysis, based on fixed effects and Driscoll-Kraay (1998) estimators, reveals that per capita GDP, exports, industrial activities, fossil fuel consumption, and education expenditures support economic expansion but also contribute to higher emission levels. The results indicate that both energy use and policy stringency significantly impact emission outcomes. While the proportion of environmental technologies reduces emissions, the unexpected positive relationship shown by the number of patents may be attributed to the time lag between the implementation of patents or to the production of more patents in high-emission countries. Overall, the findings indicate that environmental innovation alone cannot achieve emission reductions; it must be supported by strong policy implementation.

Keywords

• Environmental Degradation
• Carbon Emission
• Environmental Technology Innovations
• Environmental Policy Stringency
• Dynamic Panel Data

References

1. Adebayo, T.S., Agyekum, E.B., Altuntaş, M., Khudoyqulov, S., Zawbaa, H.M. and Kamel, S. (2022). Does information and communication technology impede environmental degradation? Fresh insights from non-parametric approaches. Heliyon, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09108
2. Ahmad, N., Youjin, L., Žiković, S. and Belyaeva, Z. (2023). The effects of technological innovation on sustainable development and environmental degradation: Evidence from China. Technology in Society, 72, 102184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102184
3. Ajeigbe, K.B. and Ganda, F. (2024). The impact of pollution and carbon emission control on financial development, environmental quality, and economic growth: A global analysis. Sustainability, 16(20), 8748. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208748
4. Akyol, M. and Mete, E. (2021). Çevresel teknolojik inovasyonların CO₂ emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi: OECD ülkeleri örneği. İstanbul İktisat Dergisi, 71(2), 569-590. https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2021-935480
5. Albaker, A., Abbasi, K.R., Haddad, A.M., Radulescu, M., Manescu, C. and Bondac, G.T. (2023). Analyzing the impact of renewable energy and green innovation on carbon emissions in the MENA region. Energies, 16(16), 6053. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16166053
6. Albulescu, C.T., Boatca-Barabas, M.E. and Diaconescu, A. (2022). The asymmetric effect of environmental policy stringency on CO2 emissions in OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(18), 27311-27327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18267-8
7. Arellano, M. and Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968.
8. Assamoi, G.R. and Wang, S. (2023). Asymmetric effects of economic policy uncertainty and environmental policy stringency on environmental quality: Evidence from China and the United States. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(11), 29996-30016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24082-6

9. Baltagi, B.H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3. ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
10. Bhatia, S.C. (2014). Advanced renewable energy systems (Part 1 & 2). India: WPI India.
11. Bilgili, F., Önderol, S., Kuşkaya, S., Alnour, M., Hoque, M.E. and Balsalobre‐Lorente, D. (2025). Renewable energy and technology adoption: Mitigating CO₂ emissions through implementation strategies. Natural Resources Forum, 49(2), 1478–1535. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12441
12. Botta, E. and Koźluk, T. (2014). Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: A composite index approach (OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1177). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2014/12/measuring-environmental-policy-stringency-in-oecd-countries_g17a2584/5jxrjnc45gvg-en.pdf
13. Cuerdo Mir, M. and Luis Montes Botella, J. (2024). Understanding the influence of energy productivity and income on CO2 emissions in Spain (1970–2017): A non-linear structural equations model approach. Sage Open, 14(2), 21582440241240904. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241240904
14. Das, S., Sultana, K.W., Ndhlala, A.R., Mondal, M. and Chandra, I. (2023). Heavy metal pollution in the environment and its impact on health: Exploring green technology for remediation. Environmental Health Insights, 17, 11786302231201259. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302231201259
15. De Angelis, E.M., Di Giacomo, M. and Vannoni, D. (2019). Climate change and economic growth: The role of environmental policy stringency. Sustainability, 11(8), 2273. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082273
16. Dharmapriya, N., Gunawardena, V., Methmini, D., Jayathilaka, R. and Rathnayake, N. (2025). Carbon emissions across income groups: Exploring the role of trade, energy use, and economic growth. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01261-
17. Driscoll, J.C. and Kraay, A.C. (1998). Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465398557825
18. Frohm, E., D’Arcangelo, F.M., Kruse, T., Pisu, M. and Sila, U. (2023). Environmental policy stringency and CO2 emissions: Evidence from cross-country sector-level data (OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1773). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/environmental-policy-stringency-and-co2-emissions_a5458d2c/53ddcef7-en.pdf
19. Ganda, F. (2019). The impact of innovation and technology investments on carbon emissions in selected organisation for economic Co-operation and Development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.235
20. Greene, W.H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th Edition). London: Pearson Education Limited.
21. Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NBER Working Paper No. 3914). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3914/w3914.pdf
22. Güler, C. and Doğan, B.Ö. (2023). Do environmental policy stringency and innovation reduce carbon emissions: Empirical evidence from G-7 countries. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(28), 847-870. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2023.034
23. Hausman, J.A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46(6), 1251-1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827.
24. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700301
25. Huo, W., Zaman, B.U., Zulfiqar, M., Kocak, E. and Shehzad, K. (2023). How do environmental technologies affect environmental degradation? Analyzing the direct and indirect impact of financial innovations and economic globalization. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 29, 102973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102973
26. Hussain, M. and Dogan, E. (2021). The role of institutional quality and environment-related technologies in environmental degradation for BRICS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 304, 127059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127059
27. IPCC. (2018). Summary for policymakers. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
28. Jebli, M.B., Farhani, S. and Guesmi, K. (2020). Renewable energy, CO₂ emissions and value added: Empirical evidence from countries with different income levels. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 53, 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.12.009
29. Jianu, I., Jeloaica, S.M. and Tudorache, M.D. (2022). Greenhouse gas emissions and its main drivers: A panel assessment for EU-27 Member States. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.00295. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2205.00295
30. Jin, C., Razzaq, A., Saleem, F. and Sinha, A. (2022). Asymmetric effects of eco-innovation and human capital development in realizing environmental sustainability in China: Evidence from quantile ARDL framework. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 4947–4970. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2019598
31. Kohlscheen, E., Moessner, R. and Takats, E. (2024). Effects of carbon pricing and other climate policies on CO2 emissions (CESifo Working Paper No. 9347). Retrieved from https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp9347.pdf
32. Kruse, T., Dechezleprêtre, A., Saffar, R. and Robert, L. (2022). Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: An update of the OECD composite EPS indicator (OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1703). Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/03/measuring-environmental-policy-stringency-in-oecd-countries_5655fe2c/90ab82e8-en.pdf
33. Kuznets, S. (2019). Economic growth and income inequality. In M.A. Seligson (Ed.), The gap between rich and poor (pp. 25-37). New York: Routledge.
34. Liu, J., Duan, Y. and Zhong, S. (2022). Does green innovation suppress carbon emission intensity? New evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(57), 86722–86743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21621-z
35. Markard, J. and Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37(4), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.004
36. Marx, L. (1992). Environmental degradation and the ambiguous social role of science and technology. Journal of the History of Biology, 25(3), 449–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352002
37. Neves, S.A., Marques, A.C. and Patricio, M. (2020). Determinants of CO2 emissions in European Union countries: Does environmental regulation reduce environmental pollution? Economic Analysis and Policy, 68, 114-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.09.005
38. OECD. (2016). How stringent are environmental policies? Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/economic-policies-to-foster-green-growth/how-stringent-are-environmental-policies.pdf
39. OECD. (2025). OECD data explorer. Retrieved from https://data-explorer.oecd.org/
40. Ouyang, X., Qinglong, S., Xiang, Z., Qingyun, H., Xiang, C. and Wei, G. (2019). Environmental regulation, economic growth and air pollution: Panel threshold analysis for OECD countries. Science of The Total Environment, 657, 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.056
41. Peng, G., Meng, F., Ahmed, Z., Ahmad, M. and Kurbonov, K. (2022). Economic growth, technology, and CO₂ emissions in BRICS: Investigating the non-linear impacts of economic complexity. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(45), 68051–68062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20647-7
42. Pigou, A.C. (1920). The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan & Co.
43. Porter, M.E. and Linde, C.V.D. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97-118. Retrieved from https://www.aeaweb.org/
44. Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00112-3
45. Samargandi, N. (2017). Sector value addition, technology and CO₂ emissions in Saudi Arabia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78, 868–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.056
46. Sharma, M.K., Sarkar, B.K., Singh, R. and Singh, V. (2024). New green technology. India: GEH Press.
47. Sikder, M., Wang, C., Yao, X., Huai, X., Wu, L., Kwame Yeboah, F., Wood, J., Zhao, Y. and Dou, X. (2022). The integrated impact of GDP growth, industrialization, energy use, and urbanization on CO2 emissions in developing countries: Evidence from the panel ARDL approach. Science of The Total Environment, 837, 155795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155795
48. Su, C.W., Xie, Y., Shahab, S., Faisal, C.M.N., Hafeez, M. and Qamri, G.M. (2021). Towards achieving sustainable development: Role of technology innovation, technology adoption and CO₂ emission for BRICS. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010277
49. Suki, N.M., Suki, N.M., Sharif, A., Afshan, S. and Jermsittiparsert, K. (2022). The role of technology innovation and renewable energy in reducing environmental degradation in Malaysia: A step towards sustainable environment. Renewable Energy, 182, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.007
50. Tang, Q., Shahla, R., Leyla, A. and Sevinj, H. (2023). Moderating role of carbon emission and institutional stability on renewable energy across developing countries. Renewable Energy, 209, 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.03.113
51. Vogelsang, T.J. (2012). Heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation, and spatial correlation robust inference in linear panel models with fixed-effects. Journal of Econometrics, 166(2012), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.10.001
52. Wang, K., Yan, M., Wang, Y. and Chang, C.P. (2020b). The impact of environmental policy stringency on air quality. Atmospheric Environment, 231, 117522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117522
53. Wang, L., Chang, H.L., Rizvi, S.K.A. and Sari, A. (2020a). Are eco-innovation and export diversification mutually exclusive to control carbon emissions in G-7 countries? Journal of Environmental Management, 270, 110829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110829
54. Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Zhang, Y. and Yin, J. (2012). Energy technology patents–CO₂ emissions nexus: An empirical analysis from China. Energy Policy, 42, 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.082
55. Wang, Z., Yen-Ku, K., Li, Z., An, N.B. and Abdul-Samad, Z. (2022). The transition of renewable energy and ecological sustainability through environmental policy stringency: Estimations from advance panel estimators. Renewable Energy, 188, 70-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.01.075
56. WIPO. (2024). Green technology book: Energy solutions for climate change. Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/green-technology-book-energy-solutions-for-climate-change/en/index.html
57. Wolde-Rufael, Y. and Mulat-Weldemeskel, E. (2020). Environmental policy stringency, renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions: Panel cointegration analysis for BRIICTS countries. International Journal of Green Energy, 17(10), 568-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2020.1779073
58. Wolde-Rufael, Y. and Mulat-Weldemeskel, E. (2021). Do environmental taxes and environmental stringency policies reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from 7 emerging economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(18), 22392-22408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11475-8
59. Wooldridge, J.M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. London: The MIT Press.
60. Wooldridge, J.M. (2013). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach (5th ed.). Mason: South-Western, Cengage Learning
61. World Bank. (2016). The cost of air pollution: Strengthening the economic case for action. Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/781521473177013155/pdf/108141-REVISED-Cost-of-PollutionWebCORRECTEDfile.pdf
62. World Bank. (2025). Data bank world development indicators Retrieved from https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
63. Yeganeh, K.H. (2020). A typology of sources, manifestations, and implications of environmental degradation. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 31(3), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-02-2019-0036
64. Zhao, Z., Zhao, Y., Shi, X., Zheng, L., Fan, S. and Zuo, S. (2024). Green innovation and carbon emission performance: The role of digital economy. Energy Policy, 195, 114344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114344