ENERJİ DÖNÜŞÜMÜ VE ÇEVRE PERFORMANSI İLİŞKİSİ: FARKLI GELİR DÜZEYİNDEKİ ÜLKELER İÇİN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI BİR ANALİZ

Abstract

Bu çalışma, enerji dönüşümü ve çevre performansı arasındaki ilişkiyi gelir düzeyine göre sınıflandırılmış ülke gruplarını kapsayan bir örneklem çerçevesinde, CS-ARDL yöntemi ile araştırmaktadır. Çalışmada enerji dönüşümü ve çevre performansı arasındaki ilişki ekonomik büyüme, sanayileşme, kentleşme ve küreselleşme faktörleri kapsamında incelenmektedir. Ampirik bulgular, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve karbondioksit emisyonları (CO2) arasındaki ilişkinin gelir gruplarına göre farklılaştığını göstermektedir. Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, düşük gelirli ülkelerde karbondioksit emisyonlarını (CO2) artırmaktadır. Üst-orta ve yüksek gelirli ülkelerde karbondioksit emisyonlarını (CO2) azaltmaktadır. Ekonomik büyüme tüm gruplarda çevresel bozulmayı artırırken, diğer değişkenlerin etkileri ülkelerin yapısal özelliklerine göre farklılaşmaktadır. Çalışma sonuçları, enerji dönüşümü ve çevre performansı arasında ilişkinin sağlanabilmesi için çok boyutlu yapısal faktörleri dikkate alan, bütüncül politika yaklaşımlarının uygulanması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Enerji
• Çevre
• CS-ARDL Yöntemi

ENERGY TRANSITION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR COUNTRIES WITH DIFFERENT INCOME LEVEL Abstract

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between energy transition and environmental performance across a sample of countries categorized by income, employing the CS-ARDL methodology. It analyzes this relationship within the frameworks of economic growth, industrialization, urbanization, and globalization. The empirical findings reveal that the link between renewable energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions differs among various income groups.In low-income countries, an increase in renewable energy consumption corresponds with a rise in CO₂ emissions. Conversely, upper-middle-income and high-income countries experience a decrease in emissions as their consumption of renewable energy increases. While economic growth is recognized as a contributing factor to environmental degradation across all income groups, the influence of other factors varies according to each country's structural characteristics. These findings highlight the importance of comprehensive policy strategies that take multiple structural factors into account. Such an approach is crucial for effectively aligning energy transition efforts with enhancements in environmental performance.

Keywords

• Energy
• Environmental
• CS-ARDL Method

References

1. Acar, Y., Gürdal, T., & Ekeryılmaz, Ş. (2018). Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 Emissions: An Analysis for Developing, Middle East, OECD and OPEC Countries. Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, 6(4), 48-58.
2. Ai, H., Tan, X., Mangla, S. K., Emrouznejad, A., Liu, F., & Song, M. (2025). Renewable Energy Transition and Sustainable Development: Evidence from China. Energy Economics, 143, 108232.
3. Ansari, M. A., Ahmad, M. R., Siddique, S., & Mansoor, K. (2020). An environment Kuznets Curve for Ecological Footprint: Evidence from GCC Countries. Carbon Management, 11(4), 355-368.
4. Bhattacharya, M., Churchill, S. A., & Paramati, S. R. (2017). The Dynamic Impact of Renewable Energy and Institutions on Economic Output and CO2 Emissions Across Regions. Renewable Energy, 111, 157-167.
5. Bilgili, F., Koçak, E., & Bulut, Ü. (2016). The Dynamic Impact of Renewable Energy Consumption on CO2 Emissions: A Revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve Approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 838-845.
6. Bölük, G., & Mert, M. (2014). Fossil & Renewable Energy Consumption, Ghgs (Greenhouse Gases) and Economic Growth: Evidence from a Panel of EU (European Union) Countries. Energy, 74, 439-446.
7. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
8. Cherniwchan, J. (2012). Economic Growth, Industrialization, and the Environment. Resource and Energy Economics, 34(4), 442-467.

9. Chudik, A., & 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.
10. Dogan, E., & Seker, F. (2016). Determinants of CO2 Emissions in the European Union: The Role of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy. Renewable Energy, 94, 429-439.
11. EDGAR-Emissions database for global atmospheric research. (2023). https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/, (Erişim Tarihi: 20.05.2023).
12. EIA- U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023). https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world, (Erişim Tarihi: 21.05.2023).
13. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A.B. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. NBER, 3914.
14. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., & Sturm, J. E. (2019). The KOF Globalisation Index-Revisited. The Review of International Organizations, 14, 543-574.
15. Hanif, I. & Gago-de-Santos, P. (2017). The Importance of Population Control and Macroeconomic Stability to Reducing Environmental Degradation: An Empirical Test of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Developing Countries. Environmental Development, 23, 1-9.
16. Hasanov, F. J., Liddle, B., & Mikayilov, J. I. (2018). The impact of international trade on CO2 emissions in oil exporting countries: Territory vs consumption emissions accounting. Energy Economics, 74, 343-350.
17. Hernandez-Serrano, P. V., & Zaveri, A. (2020). Venturing the Definition of Green Energy Transition: A Systematic Literature Review. Arxiv Preprint. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.10562, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.05.2023).
18. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53-74.
19. Ito, K. (2017). CO2 Emissions, Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption, and Economic Growth: Evidence from Panel Data for Developing Countries. International Economics, 151, 1-6.
20. Jebli, M. B., Farhani, S., & 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.
21. KOF Swiss Economic Institute. (2023). KOF Globalisation Index. https://kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html, (Erişim Tarihi: 23.05.2023).
22. Le, H. P., & Ozturk, I. (2020). The Impacts of Globalization, Financial Development, Government Expenditures, and Institutional Quality on CO2 Emissions in the Presence of Environmental Kuznets Curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 22680-22697.
23. Le, T. H., Le, H. C., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2020). Does Financial Inclusion Impact CO2 Emissions? Evidence from Asia. Finance Research Letters, 34, 101451.
24. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties. Journal of econometrics, 108(1), 1-24.
25. Lv, Z., & Xu, T. (2018). Is Economic Globalization Good or Bad for the Environmental Quality? New Evidence from Dynamic Heterogeneous Panel Models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 137, 340-343.
26. Moon, H., & Perron, B. (2004). Testing for a Unit Root in Panels with Dynamic Factors. Journal of Econometrics, 122, 81-126.
27. O’Connor, P. A. (2010). Energy Transitions. The Pardee Papers, No.12.
28. Pala Kılınç, B. K. (2024). Küresel Enerji Dönüşümü: Yeşil Enerji Kavrami ve Teşvik Programları Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(90), 599-610.
29. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development. International Labour Organization Working Paper, No. 292778.
30. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93.
31. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, 265-312.
32. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. P. (1999). Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 621–634.
33. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A Bias-Adjusted LM Test of Error Cross-Section Independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127.
34. Poumanyvong, P., & Kaneko, S. (2010). Does Urbanization Lead to Less Energy Use and Lower CO2 Emissions? A Cross-Country Analysis. Ecological Economics, 70, 434-444.
35. Raheem, I. D., & Ogebe, J. O. (2017). CO2 Emissions, Urbanization and Industrialization: Evidence from a Direct and Indirect Heterogeneous Panel Analysis. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 28(6), 851-867.
36. Saidi, K., & Mbarek, M. B. (2017). The Impact of Income, Trade, Urbanization, and Financial Development on CO2 Emissions in 19 Emerging Economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(14), 12748-12757.
37. Salim, R. A., Rafiq, S., & Shafiei, S. (2017). Urbanization, Energy Consumption, and Pollutant Emission in Asian Developing Economies: An Empirical Analysis ADBI Working Paper, No. 718.
38. Selden, T. M., & Song, D. (1994). Environmental Quality and Development: Is There a Kuznets Curve for Air Pollution Emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and management, 27(2), 147-162.
39. Shahbaz, M., Shahzad, S. J., Mahalik, M. K., & Hammoudeh, S. (2018). Does Globalisation Worsen Environmental Quality in Developed Economies? Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 23(2), 141-156.
40. Sharif, A., Raza, S. A., Ozturk, I., & Afshan, S. (2019). The Dynamic Relationship of Renewable and Nonrenewable Energy Consumption with Carbon Emission: A Global Study with the Application of Heterogeneous Panel Estimations. Renewable Energy, 133, 685-691.
41. Singh, H. V., Bocca, R., Gomez, P., Dahlke, S., & Bazilian, M. (2019). The Energy Transitions Index: An Analytic Framework for Understanding the Evolving Global Energy System. Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, 100382.
42. Sovacool, B. K. (2016). How Long Will It Take? Conceptualizing the Temporal Dynamics of Energy Transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 202-215.
43. Suri, V., & Chapman, D. (1998). Economic Growth, Trade and Energy: Implications for the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecological Economics, 25(2), 195-208.
44. UNCTAD-The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2023). UNCADSTAT-Data Center. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.05.2023).
45. Van Tran, N. (2020). The Environmental Effects of Trade Openness in Developing Countries: Conflict or Cooperation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 19783-19797.
46. Wang, Q. J., Geng, Y., & Xia, X. Q. (2021). Revisited Globalization’s Impact on Total Environment: Evidence Based on Overall Environmental Performance Index. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11419.
47. Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A Panel Bootstrap Cointegration Test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185-190.
48. World Bank- The World Bank Atlas Method. (2023). https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/378832-the-world-bank-atlas-method-detailed-methodology, (Erişim Tarihi: 15.05.2023).
49. Yiğit, S. (2020). Küreselleşmenin Ulusların Çevresel Performansı Üzerindeki Etkisi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (64), 162-174.