Enerji İkilemi: E7 Ülkelerinde Yenilenebilir Enerji Geçişi, Enerji Verimliliği ve Küreselleşmenin Çevre Kalitesi Üzerindeki Etkisi

Abstract

Enerji sektörünün çevresel bozulmada en büyük paya sahip olduğu düşünüldüğünde, temiz ve verimli enerjiye geçişin çevresel kaliteyi sağlama açısından kritik önemi vardır. Ayrıca, küreselleşmenin tüketim kalıplarını değiştirerek toplumu ve politika yapıcılarını etkileme potansiyeline sahip olduğu göz önüne alınmalıdır. Bu araştırma, 1990-2020 döneminde enerji yoğunluğu, yenilenebilir enerji geçişi ve küreselleşmenin E7 ülkelerinde çevre kalitesi üzerindeki etkilerini açıklığa kavuşturmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu çerçevede, çevresel kalitenin belirleyicileri panel eşbütünleşme ve uzun dönem tahmin edicileri ile araştırılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, enerji yoğunluğunun Brezilya, Çin, Hindistan, Rusya, Türkiye ve panelde çevre kalitesini olumsuz etkilediğini, küreselleşmenin Brezilya ve Hindistan'da olumlu bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ve yenilenebilir enerji geçişinin ise Çin, Endonezya ve panelde çevre kalitesine katkı sağladığını göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, enerji yoğunluğu ile yenilenebilir enerji geçişi arasındaki dengeyi vurgulayarak, olumsuz etkileri azaltmak ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma yollarını teşvik etmek için stratejik müdahalelerin önemini vurgulamaktadır. Bu bağlamda, E7 ülkelerinin küreselleşmenin olumlu yönlerinden faydalanması ve yenilenebilir enerji geçişini hızlandırarak enerji yoğunluğunun olumsuz etkilerini tersine çevirmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

• Enerji Verimliliği
• Yenilenebilir Enerji Geçişi
• Küreselleşme
• Çevresel Kalite

Energy Dilemma: Renewable Energy Transition, Energy Efficiency and The Impact of Globalization on Environmental Quality in E7 Countries

Abstract

Considering that the energy sector has the largest share of environmental degradation, the transition to clean and efficient energy is critical to ensuring environmental quality. Additionally, it should be taken into account that globalization has the potential to influence society and policymakers by changing consumption patterns. This research aims to clarify the effects of energy intensity, renewable energy transition, and globalization on environmental quality in E7 countries during the period 1990-2020. In this context, the determinants of environmental quality were investigated using panel cointegration and long-run estimators. Research results show that energy intensity negatively affects environmental quality in Brazil, China, India, Russia, Turkey, and the panel; globalization has a positive impact in Brazil and India; and renewable energy transitions contribute to environmental quality in China, Indonesia, and the panel. These findings highlight the balance between energy intensity and the renewable energy transition, highlighting the importance of strategic interventions to reduce negative impacts and promote sustainable development pathways. In this context, it is recommended that E7 countries benefit from the positive aspects of globalization and reverse the negative effects of energy intensity by accelerating the renewable energy transition.

Keywords

• Energy Efficiency
• Renewable Energy Transition
• Globalization
• Environmental Quality

References

1. Afshan, S., Ozturk, I., ve Yaqoob, T. (2022). Facilitating renewable energy transition, ecological innovations and stringent environmental policies to improve ecological sustainability: evidence from MM-QR method. Renewable Energy, 196, 151-160.
2. Ahmad, M., Dai, J., Mehmood, U., ve Abou Houran, M. (2023). Renewable energy transition, resource richness, economic growth, and environmental quality: Assessing the role of financial globalization. Renewable Energy, 216, 119000.
3. Ahmed Z., Cary M., Ali S., Murshed M., Ullah H. ve Mahmood H. (2022) Moving toward a green revolution in Japan: symmetric and asymmetric relationships among clean energy technology development investments, economic growth, and CO2 emissions. Energy Environment, 33(7),1417–1440
4. Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M., ve Ali, N. (2019). Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 18565-18582.
5. Alam, M. M., Destek, M. A., Haque, A., Kirikkaleli, D., Pinzón, S., ve Khudoykulov, K. (2024). Can undergoing renewable energy transition assist the BRICS countries in achieving environmental sustainability?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(6), 9700-9712
6. Apergis, N., Degirmenci, T., ve Aydin, M. (2023). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, energy technology investment, green technological innovation, and environmental sustainability in the United States: Testing the EKC and LCC hypotheses with novel Fourier estimation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(60), 125570-125584.
7. Aydin, M. (2023). The dynamic relationships between nuclear energy consumption, nuclear reactors and load capacity factor: time and frequency domain panel data analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-12.
8. Aydin, M., Degirmenci, T., ve Yavuz, H. (2023). The influence of multifactor productivity, research and development expenditure, renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in G7 countries: Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis. Environmental Modeling & Assessment,28,693-708.

9. Bashir, M. F., Pan, Y., Shahbaz, M., ve Ghosh, S. (2023). How energy transition and environmental innovation ensure environmental sustainability? Contextual evidence from Top-10 manufacturing countries. Renewable Energy, 204, 697-709.
10. Bekun, F. V., Alola, A. A., Gyamfi, B. A., ve Yaw, S. S. (2021). The relevance of EKC hypothesis in energy intensity real-output trade-off for sustainable environment in EU-27. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(37), 51137-51148.
11. Bekun, F. V., Gyamfi, B. A., Onifade, S. T., ve Agboola, M. O. (2021). Beyond the environmental Kuznets Curve in E7 economies: accounting for the combined impacts of institutional quality and renewables. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, 127924.
12. Bilgili, F., Ulucak, R., Koçak, E., ve İlkay, S. Ç. (2020). Does globalization matter for environmental sustainability? Empirical investigation for Turkey by Markov regime switching models. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 1087-1100.
13. Breitung, J. (2001). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels içinde (ss. 161-177). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
14. Breitung, J., ve Das, S. (2005). Panel unit root tests under cross‐sectional dependence. Statistica Neerlandica, 59(4), 414-433.
15. Chu, L. K., ve Le, N. T. M. (2022). Environmental quality and the role of economic policy uncertainty, economic complexity, renewable energy, and energy intensity: the case of G7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(2), 2866-2882.
16. Chudik, A., ve Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of econometrics, 188(2), 393-420.
17. Danish, Ulucak, R., ve Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Relationship between energy intensity and CO2 emissions: does economic policy matter?. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1457-1464.
18. Değirmenci, T., Aydın, M., ve Kızılkaya, O. (2024). BRICS-T Ülkelerinde Ekonomik Küreselleşme, Vergi Yükü ve Yatırım Özgürlüğünün Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırımlara Etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(1), 228-243.
19. Doğan, H., ve Yılankırkan, N. (2015). Türkiye’nin enerji verimliliği potansiyeli ve projeksiyonu. Gazi University Journal of Science Part C: Design and Technology, 3(1), 375-384.
20. El Anshasy, A. A., ve Katsaiti, M. S. (2014). Energy intensity and the energy mix: What works for the environment?. Journal of environmental management, 136, 85-93.
21. Figge, L., Oebels, K., ve Offermans, A. (2017). The effects of globalization on Ecological Footprints: an empirical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19, 863-876.
22. Gedik, Y. (2020). Sosyal, ekonomik ve çevresel boyutlarla sürdürülebilirlik ve sürdürülebilir kalkinma. Uluslararası Ekonomi Siyaset İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(3), 196-215.
23. Hasan, M. M., ve Adnan, A. T. M. (2023). Nexus between environmental sustainability, energy intensity and food security: evidence from emerging economies. Journal of Business and Socio-economic Development.
24. He, Y., ve Lin, B. (2019). Investigating environmental Kuznets curve from an energy intensity perspective: empirical evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 234, 1013-1022.
25. Kazemzadeh, E., Fuinhas, J. A., Salehnia, N., Koengkan, M., Shirazi, M., ve Osmani, F. (2024). Factors driving CO2 emissions: the role of energy transition and brain drain. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(1), 1673-1700.
26. Khan, H. A., ve Khan, H. A. (2018). Governance, public administration, and the challenges of globalization. Globalization and the Challenges of Public Administration. Governance, Human Resources Management, Leadership, Ethics, E-Governance and Sustainability in the 21st Century, 5-31.
27. Khan, I., Hou, F., Zakari, A., Irfan, M., ve Ahmad, M. (2022). Links among energy intensity, non-linear financial development, and environmental sustainability: New evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330, 129747.
28. Koyuncu, T., Beşer, M. K., ve Alola, A. A. (2021). Environmental sustainability statement of economic regimes with energy intensity and urbanization in Turkey: a threshold regression approach. Environmental science and pollution research, 28, 42533-42546.
29. Lafferty, W. M. (2004). From environmental protection to sustainable development: the challenge of decoupling through sectoral integration. Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 191-220.
30. Langnel, Z., ve Amegavi, G. B. (2020). Globalization, electricity consumption and ecological footprint: an autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 63, 102482.
31. Li, R., Wang, Q., ve Guo, J. (2024). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis of carbon emissions: exploring the impact of geopolitical risks, natural resource rents, corrupt governance, and energy intensity. Journal of Environmental Management, 351, 119663.
32. Lu, Y., Khan, Z. A., Alvarez-Alvarado, M. S., Zhang, Y., Huang, Z., ve Imran, M. (2020). A critical review of sustainable energy policies for the promotion of renewable energy sources. Sustainability, 12(12), 5078.
33. Miçooğulları, S. A. (2023). Küreselleşme Çevre Kirliliğini Etkiler mi? Küreselleşmenin Farklı Boyutları ile G7 Ülkelerinden Kanıtlar. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(22), 761-781.
34. Mir, U. R., Hassan, S. M., ve Qadri, M. M. (2014). Understanding globalization and its future: An analysis. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 34(2), 607-624.
35. Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., ve Hák, T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological indicators, 17, 4-13.
36. Murshed, M., Ahmed, R., Kumpamool, C., Bassim, M., ve Elheddad, M. (2021). The effects of regional trade integration and renewable energy transition on environmental quality: Evidence from South Asian neighbors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 4154-4170.
37. Onwe, J. C., Bandyopadhyay, A., Hamid, I., Rej, S., ve Hossain, M. E. (2023). Environment sustainability through energy transition and globalization in G7 countries: What role does environmental tax play?. Renewable Energy, 218, 119302.
38. Özbek, S. (2023). Küreselleşme Sürecinde Çevresel Bozulma: Türkiye Üzerine Ampirik Bulgular. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 41(3), 533-554.
39. Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric reviews, 34(6-10), 1089-1117.
40. Pesaran, M. H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
41. Shokoohi, Z., Dehbidi, N. K., ve Tarazkar, M. H. (2022). Energy intensity, economic growth and environmental quality in populous Middle East countries. Energy, 239, 122164.
42. Sun, Y., Bao, Q., Siao-Yun, W., ul Islam, M., ve Razzaq, A. (2022). Renewable energy transition and environmental sustainability through economic complexity in BRICS countries: fresh insights from novel Method of Moments Quantile regression. Renewable Energy, 184, 1165-1176.
43. Şahin, L., ve Öztürk, M. (2011, January). Küreselleşme Sürecinde Sivil Toplum Kuruluşları ve Türkiye'deki Durumu. Journal of Social Policy Conferences (No. 54, pp. 3-29). Istanbul University.
44. Tekbaş, M. (2022). Ekonomik Büyüme ve Ekonomik Küreselleşmenin Çevre Kalitesi Üzerindeki Etkisi: Geçiş Ekonomileri Örneği. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3), 528-538.
45. Westerlund, J., ve Edgerton, D. L. (2008). A simple test for cointegration in dependent panels with structural breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 70(5), 665-704.
46. Wu, C. F., Chang, T., Wu, T. P., Leng, K. J., Lin, M. C., ve Huang, S. C. (2022). Impact of globalization on the environment in major CO2-emitting countries: Evidence using bootstrap ARDL with a Fourier function. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 907403
47. Yenilmez, M. İ., Erkut, M., ve Günay, E. K. (2024). Küreselleşme ve ekolojik ayak izi arasındaki ilişki: MIKTA ülkeleri örneği. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 25(1), 14-26.
48. Yıldırım, M., Özpolat, A., ve Özsoy, F. N. (2021). MIST ve BRICS ülkelerinde uluslararası ticaret, küreselleşme ve fosil enerji kullanımı çevresel bozulmayı nasıl etkiliyor?: Panel veri analizi tahmini. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 24(2), 475-484.