YENİLENEBİLİR ENERJİ, FİNANSAL GELİŞME, KENTLEŞME VE EKC HİPOTEZİ: ASEAN-5 ÜLKELERİNDE TÜKETİME DAYALI CO₂ EMİSYONLARI ÜZERİNE BİR ANALİZ

Abstract

Çevre kirliliği konusu, ekonomik büyüme ile ilişkili olarak ele alındığında, ülkelerin gayri safi milli hasılası (GDP) ile çevresel etkiler arasındaki bağlantıları incelemek önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı kişi başına gelir, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, kentleşme ve finansal gelişmenin tüketime dayalı karbondioksit emisyonları (CCO₂) üzerindeki etkisini ve Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi (EKC) hipotezinin varlığını 1990-2021 yılları arası için ASEAN-5 ülkeleri kapsamında incelemektir. Elde edilen panel veri analiz sonuçlarına göre serilerde kesit bağımlılığı ve heterojenlik ile karşılaşılmaktadır. Ayrıca panel eşbütünleşme testi sonucuna göre serilerin uzun dönemde birlikte hareket ettikleri sonucuna ulaşılmaktadır. Uzun dönem tahminci sonuçlarına göre yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ve kentleşmede meydana gelen artışlar CCO₂ üzerinde azaltıcı bir etki yaratmaktadır. Ekonomik büyüme ve finansal gelişmede artış olması ise CCO₂ miktarını arttırıcı bir etki meydana getirmektedir. Analiz sonucunda elde edilen bulgulara göre ise ASEAN-5 ülkeleri için EKC hipotezi doğrulanmaktadır. Ülkelerin ekonomik büyüme hedeflerine ulaşırken çevreyi korumak ve kirliliği azaltmak için yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarına daha fazla yatırım yapmaları gerekmektedir. Finansal gelişmenin çevre dostu politikaları benimsemesi ve EKC hipotezi üzerinde çalışmalar yapılması, ekonomik büyüme ile çevre koruma arasındaki dengeyi sağlamak adına önemli adımlardır.

Keywords

• Tüketime Dayalı CO2
• Finansal Gelişme
• Çveresel Kuznets Eğrisi
• ASEAN-5

RENEWABLE ENERGY, FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT, URBANIZATION AND THE EKC HYPOTHESIS: AN ANALYSIS OF CONSUMPTION-BASED CO₂ EMISSIONS IN ASEAN-5 COUNTRIES

Abstract

When the issue of environmental pollution is addressed in relation to economic growth, it becomes important to examine the connections between a country's gross domestic product (GDP) and environmental impacts. This study aims to examine the impact of per capita income, renewable energy consumption, urbanization, and development on consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions (CCO₂) and the existence of the EKC hypothesis for the period 1990-2021 in the context of ASEAN-5 countries. The panel data analysis results reveal cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity issues in the series. Additionally, according to the panel cointegration test results, it is concluded that the series will move together in the long term. According to the long-term predictive results, the increase in renewable energy consumption and urbanization has a reducing effect on CCO₂. The increase in economic growth and financial institutions has a reducing effect on the amount of CCO₂. The analysis confirms the EKC hypothesis for the ASEAN-5 countries. Countries need to invest more in renewable energy sources to protect the environment and reduce pollution while achieving their economic growth targets. The adoption of environmentally friendly policies by financial development and research on the EKC hypothesis are important steps to ensure a balance between economic growth and environmental protection.

Keywords

• Consumption Based CO2
• Financial Development
• Urbanization
• Environmental Kuznets Curve
• ASEAN-5

References

1. Acheampong, A.O., Adams, S., & Boateng, E. (2019). Do globalization and renewable energy contribute to carbon emissions mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa?. Science of The Total Environment, 677, 436-446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.353
2. Adebayo, T. S., Udemba, E. N., Ahmed, Z., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Determinants of consumption-based carbon emissions in Chile: An application of non-linear ARDL. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(32), 43908–43922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13830-9
3. Afionis, S., Sakai, M., Scott, K., Barrett, J., & Gouldson, A. (2017). Consumption-based carbon accounting: Does it have a future? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(1), e438. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.438
4. Ahmad, M., Balbaa, M.E., Zikriyoev, A., Nasriddinov, F., & Kuldasheva, Z. (2024). Energy efficiency, technological innovation, and financial development-based EKC premise: Fresh asymmetric insights from developing Asian regions. Environmental Challenges, 15, 100947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2024.100947
5. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Majeed, A., Umar, M., Khan, Z., & Muhammad, S. (2020). The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: An advanced panel data estimation. Resources Policy, 69, 101817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101817
6. Ahmed, Z., & Le, H. P. (2021). Linking information communication technology, trade globalization index, and CO₂ emissions: Evidence from advanced panel techniques. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(7), 8770–8781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11205-0
7. Ahmed, Z., Wang, Z., Mahmood, F., Hafeez, M., & Ali, N. (2019). Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 26(18), 18565–18582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05224-9
8. Aluko, O.A., & Obalade, A.A. (2020). Financial development and environmental quality in sub-Saharan Africa: Is there a technology effect? Science of The Total Environment, 747, 141515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141515

9. Amin, A., Dogan, E., & Khan, Z. (2020). The impacts of different proxies for financialization on carbon emissions in top-ten emitter countries. Science of The Total Environment, 740, 140127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140127
10. Awosusi A.A., Nkosinathi, X., Mohsen, A., Husam, R., Mehmet, A., Solomon, U., Seyi, A., & Dervis, K. (2022). The sustainable environment in Uruguay: the roles of financial development, natural resources, and trade globalization. Natural Resources, and Trade Globalization, Frontiers in Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.875577
11. Baltagi, B.H., Feng, Q., & Kao, C., (2012). A lagrange multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. Journal of Econometrics, 170(1), 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2012.04.004
12. Barak, D., Kocoglu, M., Jahanger, A., & Tan, M. (2024). Testing the EKC hypothesis for ecological and carbon intensity of well-being: The role of forest extent. The Science of the Total Environment, 945, 173794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173794
13. Beck, N., & J. N. Katz (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89, 634-47.
14. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
15. Celik, A.K., & Alola, A.A., (2024). Carbon neutrality implication of material productivity, total factor productivity and renewable energy uptake in the Nordics. Ecological Indicators, 160, 111813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111813
16. Charfeddine, L., Hussain, B., & Kahia, M. (2024). Analysis of the impact of information and communication technology, digitalization, renewable energy and financial development on environmental sustainability. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 201, 114609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114609
17. Chen, J., Huang, S., & Ajaz, T. (2022). Natural resources management and technological innovation under EKC framework: A glimmer of hope for sustainable environment in newly industrialized countries. Resources Policy, 79, 103016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103016
18. Chien, F., Ananzeh, M., Mirza, F., Bakar, A., Vu, H.M., & Ngo, T.Q. (2021). The effects of green growth, environmental-related tax, and eco-innovation towards carbon neutrality target in the US economy. Journal of Environmental Management, 299, 113633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113633
19. Chien, F., Chien, F., Hsu, C., Ozturk, I., Sharif, A., & Sadiq, M. (2022). The role of renewable energy and urbanization towards greenhouse gas emission in top Asian countries: Evidence from advance panel estimations. Renewable Energy, 186, 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.12.118
20. Çil, D. (2023). Ekonomi ve çevre etkileşimi: Türkiye'de finansal gelişim ve ulaşım kaynaklı CO₂ ilişkisi üzerine Fourier ADL analizi. Sosyal Mucit Academic Review, 4(4), 456-476. https://doi.org/10.54733/smar.1402556
21. Destek, M. A., & Manga, M. (2021). Technological innovation, financialization, and ecological footprint: Evidence from BEM economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(17), 21991–22001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11845-2
22. Doğan, B., Chu, L.K., Ghosh, S., Truong, H.H.D., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). How environmental taxes and carbon emissions are related in The G7 economies? Renewable Energy, 187, 645-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Renene.2022.01.077
23. Dogan, E., & Turkekul, B. (2016). CO₂ emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: Testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5323-8
24. Dünya Bankası (2024). World Development Report 2024: Financial Development and Environmental Sustainability. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2024
25. Ehigiamusoe, K.U., Lean, H.H., Babalola, S.J., & Poon, W.C. (2022). The roles of financial development and urbanization in degrading environment in Africa: Unravelling non-linear and moderating impacts. Energy Reports, 8, 1665-1677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.048
26. Erdogan, S. (2024). On the impact of natural resources on environmental sustainability in African countries: A comparative approach based on the EKC and LCC hypotheses. Resources Policy, 88, 104492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104492
27. Feng, H., & Li, Y. (2024). The role of fintech, natural resources, environmental taxes and urbanization on environmental sustainability: Evidence from the novel panel data approaches. Resources Policy, 92, 104970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104970
28. Grossman, G.M., & Krueger, A.B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377.
29. Hanning, W., Sial, M.S., Shunyi, L., Samad, S., & Comite, U. (2024). Asymmetric impact of energy consumption & financial development on environment using ARDL approach: Case of ASEAN countries. Energy, 305, 132241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132241
30. Hasan, B., Wieloch, J., Ali, S., Zikovic, S., & Uddin, G.S. (2023). A new answer to the old question of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC): Does it work for BRICS countries? Resources Policy, 87(B), 104332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.104332
31. Hu, B., Alola, A.A., Tauni, M.Z., Adebayo, T.S., & Abbas, S. (2023). Pathway to cleaner environment: how effective are renewable electricity and financial development approaches? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 67, 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.08.003
32. Khan, A., Chenggang, Y., Hussain, J., & Kui, Z. (2021). Impact of technological innovation, financial development and foreign direct investment on renewable energy, non-renewable energy and the environment in Belt & road initiative countries. Renewable Energy, 171, 479-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.02.075
33. Kihombo, S., Ahmed, Z., Chen, S., Adebayo, T. S., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: What is the role of technological innovation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(43), 61235–61245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14993-1
34. Koçak, S. (2023). Türkiye’de finansal gelişmenin imalat sanayi ve inşaattan kaynaklanan CO₂ emisyonları üzerindeki etkisi: Fourier ADL yaklaşımından kanıtlar. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 9(2), 367-383. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.1327831
35. Kostakis, I., Armaos, S., Abeliotis, K., & Theodoropoulou, E. (2023). The investigation of EKC within CO₂ emissions framework: Empirical evidence from selected cross-correlated countries. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, 3, 100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.samod.2023.100015
36. Lantz, V., & Feng, Q. (2006). Assessing income, population, and technology impacts on CO₂ emissions in Canada: Where's the EKC? Ecological Economics, 57(2), 229-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.006
37. Liu, H., Wong, W.K., Cong, P., Nassani, A.A., Haffar, M., & Abu-Rumman, A. (2023). Linkage among urbanization, energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: Panel data analysis for China using ARDL model. Fuel, 332(2), 126122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126122
38. Ma, B., & Ogata, S. (2024). Impact of urbanization on carbon dioxide emissions- evidence from 136 countries and regions. Sustainability, 16, 7878. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187878
39. Martínez-Zarzoso, I. (2008). The impact of urbanization on CO₂ emissions: evidence from developing countries. FEEM Working Paper No. 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1151928
40. Mensah, C. N., Long, X., Boamah, K. B., Bediako, I. A., Dauda, L., & Salman, M. (2018). The effect of innovation on CO₂ emissions of OECD countries from 1990 to 2014. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 25(29), 29678–29698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2968-0
41. Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., Ahmad, P., Rehman, A., & Alam, M. S. (2022). Pathways to Argentina's 2050 carbon-neutrality agenda: The roles of renewable energy transition and trade globalization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(20), 29949–29966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17903-7
42. Özpolat, A. (2022). How does internet use affect ecological footprint?: An empirical analysis for G7 countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(11), 12833–12849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01967-z
43. Öztürk, İ., & Acaravcı, A. (2013). The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and CO₂ emissions in Turkey. Energy Economics, 36, 688-695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.025
44. Panayotou, T., (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. Working Paper, WP238.
45. Parks, R.W. (1967). Efficient estimation of a system of regression equations when disturbances are both serially and contemporaneously correlated. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62(318), 500-509.
46. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. Cambridge Working Paper in Economics, CWPE 0435.
47. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11, 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423x.2007.00227.x
48. Pesaran, M. H. (2015). Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econometric Reviews, 34, 1089-1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956623.
49. Pata, U. K. (2018). The effect of urbanization and industrialization on carbon emissions in Turkey: Evidence from ARDL bounds testing approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(8), 7740-7747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-1088-6
50. Peters, G. P., Minx, J. C., Weber, C. L., & Edenhofer, O. (2011). Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(21), 8903-8908. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006388108
51. Rafique, M.Z., Fareed, Z., Ferraz, D., Ikram, M. & Huang, S. (2022). Exploring the heterogenous impacts of environmental taxes on environmental footprints: An empirical assessment from developed economies. Energy, 238(A), 121753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121753
52. Sadiq, M., Shinwari, R., Usman, M., Ozturk, I., & Maghyereh, A.I. (2022). Linking nuclear energy, human development and carbon emission in BRICS region: Do external debt and financial globalization protect the environment? Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 54(9), 3299-3309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.03.024
53. Sahoo, M., & Sethi, N. (2021). The intermittent effects of renewable energy on ecological footprint: Evidence from developing countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(40), 56401–56417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14600-3
54. Salahuddin, M., Ali, M. I., Vink, N., & Gow, J. (2019). The effects of urbanization and globalization on CO₂ emissions: Evidence from the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 26(3), 2699–2709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3790-4
55. Sarpong, K.A., Xu, W., Gyamfi, B.A., & Ofori, E.K. (2023). A step towards carbon neutrality in E7: The role of environmental taxes, structural change, and green energy. Journal of Environmental Management, 337, 117556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117556
56. Saud, S., Chen, & Sumayya, A.H. (2020). The role of financial development and globalization in the environment: Accounting ecological footprint indicators for selected One Belt One Road initiative countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119518
57. Shahbaz, M., Shahzad, S. J. H., & Mahalik, M. K. (2017). Is globalization detrimental to CO₂ emissions in Japan? New threshold analysis. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 23, 557-568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-017-9584-0
58. Shahzad, A.A., Anwar, M.A., Arshed, N. & Bilan, Y. (2024). Nexus between economic growth, renewable energy and climate vulnerability: A global perspective using the EKC Framework. Renewable Energy, 237(C), 121716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2024.121716
59. Sinha, A., Sengupta, T., & Alvarado, R. (2020). Interplay between Technological Innovation and Environmental Quality: Formulating the SDG Policies for Next 11 Economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118549, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118549
60. Şeyranlıoğlu, O. (2024). Türkiye’de finansal gelişmenin karbon (CO₂) emisyonlarına etkisi: Çevresel Kuznets eğrisi hipotezi çerçevesinde sektörel bir bakış. Sosyoekonomi, 32(61), 427-454. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.03.20
61. Tao, R., Umar, M., Naseer, A., & Razi, U. (2021). The dynamic effect of eco-innovation and environmental taxes on carbon neutrality target in emerging seven (E7) economies. Journal of Environmental Management, 299, 113525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113525
62. Ullah, A., Dogan, M., Pervaiz, A., Bukhari, A.A., Akkus, H.T., Dogan, H. (2024). The impact of digitalization, technological and financial innovation on environmental quality in OECD countries: Investigation of N-shaped EKC hypothesis. Technology in Society, 77, 102484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102484
63. Ullah, S., Adebayo, T. S., Irfan, M., & Abbas, S. (2023). Environmental quality and energy transition prospects for G-7 economies: The prominence of environment-related ICT innovations, financial and human development. Journal of Environmental Management, 342, 118120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118120
64. Usman, M., & Hammar, N. (2021). Dynamic relationship between technological innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and ecological footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 28(12), 15519–15536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11640-z
65. Xie, Q., Adebayo, T.S., Irfan, M., & Altuntaş, M. (2022). Race to environmental sustainability: Can renewable energy consumption and technological innovation sustain the strides for China? Renewable Energy, 197, 320-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.07.138
66. Yilanci, V., & Pata, U. K. (2020). Investigating the EKC hypothesis for China: The role of economic complexity on ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 27(26), 32683–32694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09434-4
67. Zafar, M. W., Saud, S., & Hou, F. (2019). The impact of globalization and financial development on environmental quality: Evidence from selected countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 26(13), 13246–13262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04761-7
68. Zaidi, H., Zafar, S.A., Shahbaz, M., & Hou, F. (2019). Dynamic linkages between globalization, financial development and carbon emissions: Evidence from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 533-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.210
69. Zhang, H., Chen, T., & Yu, Y. (2023). From finance to sustainability: Understanding the financial development-environment nexus with the Environmental Kuznets Curve in East-Asia and Pacific economies. Borsa Istanbul Review, 23(6), 1448-1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2023.10.003