Türkiye’de Yenilenebilir ve Yenilenemez Enerji Tüketimlerine Dayalı CO2 Emisyonları Öngörüsü

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Türkiye’de yenilenebilir ve yenilenemeyen enerji tüketiminin CO2 emisyonları üzerindeki etkisi ve 2030 Paris Anlaşması’nda hedeflenen CO2 emisyon düzeyine ulaşma potansiyeli ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. İlk aşamada, 1965-2022 yıllık verileri kullanılarak AARDL model yaklaşımıyla eşbütünleşme ilişkisi analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, uzun vadede yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi CO2 emisyonlarını artırmakta, yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi ise CO2 emisyonlarını azaltmaktadır. Araştırmanın ikinci aşamasında yenilenebilir ve yenilenemez enerji tüketiminin her biri için üç senaryo hazırlanmıştır. Bu senaryoların kombinasyonlarını içeren dokuz senaryo için 2030 yılına kadar oluşabilecek CO2 emisyonları, ekonometrik simülasyon yöntemi kullanılarak tahmin edilmiştir. Tahmin sonuçlarına göre, düşük yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi ve yüksek yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi senaryosu, 2030 yılına kadar CO2 emisyonunu en fazla azaltabilecek senaryo olarak belirlenmiştir. Ancak bu durumda bile 2030 CO2 emisyon azaltım hedefine ulaşılamayacağından yenilenebilir enerjiye daha fazla yatırım yapılması gerekeceği anlaşılmaktadır. Bu nedenle, politika yapıcıların hem kamu hem de özel sektörde yenilenebilir enerji üretimine yönelik teşvikleri artıracak politikalar yürürlüğe koymaları ve gerekli altyapıyı iyileştirmeye yönelik adımlar atmaları gerekmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CO2 Emisyonları
• Yenilenebilir Enerji
• Yenilenemez Enerji
• Ekonometrik Simülasyon
• AARDL Modeli

CO2 Emissions Forecast Based on Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy Consumption in Türkiye

Abstract

This study aims to reveal the impact of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Türkiye and the potential to reach the CO2 emission level targeted in the 2030 Paris Agreement. In the first stage, the cointegration relationship was analyzed with the AARDL model approach using annual data for 1965-2022. According to the results of the analysis, in the long run, non-renewable energy consumption increases CO2 emissions, while renewable energy consumption decreases CO2 emissions. In the second phase of the research, three scenarios were prepared for each of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. For nine scenarios, including combinations of these scenarios, CO2 emissions that may occur until 2030 were estimated using the econometric simulation method. According to the estimation results, the low non-renewable energy consumption and high renewable energy consumption scenario was determined as the scenario that can reduce CO2 emissions the most until 2030. However, even in this case, it is understood that more investment in renewable energy will be required since the 2030 CO2 emission reduction target will not be achieved. Therefore, policymakers need to enact policies to increase incentives for renewable energy generation in both the public and private sectors and take steps to improve the necessary infrastructure.

Keywords

• CO2 Emissions
• Renewable Energy
• Non-Renewable Energy
• Econometric Simulation
• AARDL Model

References

1. Acaravcı, A., & Erdoğan, S. (2018). Yenilenebilir enerji, çevre ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Seçilmiş ülkeler için ampirik bir analiz. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 13(1), 53-64.
2. Ağbulut, Ü. (2022). Forecasting of transportation-related energy demand and CO2 emissions in Turkey with different machine learning algorithms. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 141-157.
3. Ahmed, K., & Long, W. (2012). Environmental Kuznets curve and Pakistan: An empirical analysis. Procedia Economics and Finance, 1, 4-13.
4. Akhtar, R., Masud, M. M., Al-Mamun, A., & Saif, A. N. M. (2023). Energy consumption, CO2 emissions, foreign direct investment, and economic growth in Malaysia: An NARDL technique. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30 (22), 63096-63108.
5. 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. Renewable Energy, 164, 956-967.
6. Anwar, A., Sinha, A., Sharif, A., Siddique, M., Irshad, S., Anwar, W., & Malik, S. (2022). The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy consumption, financial development, and CO2 emissions: Evidence from selected Asian countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 6556-6576.
7. Apergis, N., & Payne, J. E. (2009). CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in central America. Energy Policy, 37(8), 3282-3286.
8. Apergis, N., Jebli, M.B., & Youssef, S.B. (2018). Does renewable energy consumption and health expenditures decrease carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence for Sub-Saharan Africa Countries. Renewable Energy, 127, 1011-1016.

9. Apergis, N., Payne, J. E., Menyah, K., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2010). On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, RE energy, and economic growth. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2255-2260.
10. Aydin, G. (2014). The Development and Validation of Regression Models to Predict Energy-related CO2 Emissions in Turkey. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 10(2), 176–182.
11. Ayvaz, B., Kusakci, A. O., & Temur, G. T. (2017). Energy-related CO2 emission forecast for Turkey and Europe and Eurasia: A discrete grey model approach. Grey Systems: Theory and Application, 7(3), 436-452.
12. Başar, S., & Temurlenk, M. S. (2007). Environmental Kuznets curve: An empirical analysis for Turkey. Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 21(1), 1-12.
13. Bekun, F. V., Gyamfi, B. A., Etokakpan, M. U., & Çakir, B. (2023). Revisiting the pollution haven hypothesis within the context of the environmental Kuznets curve. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 17(6), 1210-1231.
14. Bento, J. P. C., & Moutinho, V. (2016). CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 142-155.
15. Bilgili, F., Öztürk, I., Koçak, E., Bulut, U., Pamuk, Y., Mugaloğlu, E., & Bağlıtaş, H. H. (2016). The influence of biomass energy consumption on CO2 emissions: A wavelet coherence approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 23, 19043-19061.
16. Bölük, G., & Mert, M. (2015). The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: An ARDL approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 587-595.
17. Boontome, P., Therdyothin, A., & Chontanawat, J. (2017). Investigating the causal relationship between non-renewable and renewable energy consumption, co2 emissions and economic growth in Thailand. Energy Procedia, 138, 925-930.
18. BP (2021). Statistical review of world energy. Access address: Https://Www.Bp.Com/En/ Global/Corporate/Energy-Economics/Statistical-Review-Of-World-Energy.Html
19. Bulut, U. (2017). The impacts of non-renewable and renewable energy on CO2 emissions in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(18), 15416-15426.
20. Bulut, U. (2021). Environmental sustainability in Turkey: An environmental Kuznets curve estimation for ecological footprint. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(3), 227-237.
21. Çağlar, A. E. (2022). Türkiye'de çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin araştırılmasında çevresel patentlerin rolü: Genişletilmiş ARDL ile kanıtlar. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(4), 913-929.
22. Caglar, A. E., Zafar, M. W., Bekun, F. V., & Mert, M. (2022). Determinants of CO2 emissions in the BRICS economies: The role of partnerships investment in energy and economic complexity. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 51, 101907.
23. Canbay, Ş. (2019). Türkiye'de iktisadi büyüme ile yenilenebilir enerji tüketiminin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkileri. Maliye Dergisi, 176, 140-151.
24. Çetin, M., & Saygın, S. (2019). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezi’nin ampirik analizi: Türkiye ekonomisi örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 26(2), 529-546.
25. Çetin, M., & Şeker, F. (2014). Ekonomik büyüme ve dış ticaretin çevre kirliliği üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye için bir ARDL sınır testi yaklaşımı. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 213-230.
26. Çetin, M., & Sezen, S. (2018). Türkiye'de yenilenebilir ve yenilenemeyen enerji tüketimi, ekonomik büyüme ve karbondioksit salınımı arasındaki ilişki: Bir Svar (yapısal var) analizi. Journal Of Management and Economics Research, 16(1), 136-157.
27. Çetinkaya, G., & Akar, S. (2022). Türkiye'nin küresel karbon bütçesindeki payı: Öngörü senaryoları ile bir değerlendirme. Maliye Çalışmaları Dergisi, 68, 33-50.
28. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı (2023, 23 December). Türkiye Cumhuriyeti niyet edilen ulusal olarak belirlenmiş katkı. Erişim adresi: https://yesilekonomi.com/files/The_INDC_of_ TURKEY_v_15_19_30-TR.pdf.
29. Chaudhuri, S., & Pfaff, A. (2002). Economic growth and the environment: What can we learn from household data? Working Paper. USA: Columbia University.
30. Chen, Y., Wang, Z., & Zhong, Z. (2019). CO2 emissions, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy production and foreign trade in China. Renewable Energy, 131, 208-216.
31. Cheng, C., Ren, X., Wang, Z., & Yan, C. (2019). Heterogeneous impacts of renewable energy and environmental patents on CO2 emission-evidence from the BRIICS. Science of The Total Environment, 668, 1328-1338.
32. Chica-Olmo, J., Sari-Hassoun, S., & Moya-Fernández, P. (2020). Spatial relationship between economic growth and renewable energy consumption in 26 European countries. Energy Economics, 92, 104962.
33. Coondoo, D., & Dinda, S. (2002). Causality between income and emissions: A country group-specific econometric analysis. Ecological Economics, 40(3), 351-367.
34. Coşkun, H., & Eygü, H. (2020). Ar-GE Harcamaları ve İhracat İlişkisinin İncelenmesi: Türkiye Örneği. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler), 233-242.
35. Dam, M. M. (2018). Enerji ve büyümenin çevre kirliliğine etkisi: AB ülkeleri için panel veri analizi. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 163-174.
36. Daştan, M., & Eygü, H. (2024). An empirical investigation of the link between economic growth, unemployment, and ecological footprint in Turkey: Bridging the EKC and EPC hypotheses. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26(7), 18957-18988.
37. De Bruyn, S. M. (1997). Explaining the environmental Kuznets curve: Structural change and international agreements in reducing sulphur emissions. Environment and Development Economics, 2, 485-503.
38. De Bruyn, S.M., Berg, J.C.M., & Opschoor, J.B. (1998). Economic growth and emissions: Reconsidering the empirical basis of environmental Kuznets curves. Ecological Economics, 25, 161-175.
39. Destek, M. A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 242, 118537.
40. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431-455.
41. Doğan, E., & Öztürk, I. (2017). The influence of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and real income on CO2 emissions in the USA: Evidence from structural break tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(11), 10846-10854.
42. Ellabban, O., Abu-Rub, H., & Blaabjerg, F. (2014). RE energy resources: Current status, future prospects and their enabling technology. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 748-764.
43. Erdoğan, S., Okumuş, I., & Güzel, A. E. (2020). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in OECD countries: The role of renewable, non-renewable energy, and oil prices. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(19), 23655-23663.
44. Eylasov, N., Gasim, N., Aliyev, F., & Şahinler, A. N. (2023). Impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Türkiye: Evidence from ARDL and Bayer-Hanck Cointegration Techniques. Green Economics, 1(2), 111-125.
45. Farhani, S., & Shahbaz, M. (2014). What role of renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption and output is needed to ınitially mitigate CO2 emissions in MENA region. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, 80-90.
46. Georgiev, E., & Mihaylov, E. (2015). Economic growth and the environment: Reassessing the environmental Kuznets curve for air pollution emissions in OECD countries. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, 8(1), 29-47.
47. Göv, A. ve Kapkara Kaya, S. (2023). Türkiye Örneğinde Çevresel Kalitenin Belirleyicileri: LASSO Yaklaşımı. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 54, 25-37.
48. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 3914, NBER, Cambridge.
49. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353-377.
50. Halıcıoğlu, F. (2009). An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy, 37(3), 1156-1164.
51. Hamzacebi, C., & Karakurt, I. (2015). Forecasting the Energy-related CO2 Emissions of Turkey Using a Grey Prediction Model. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 37(9), 1023–1031.
52. Hanif, I., Aziz, B., & Chaudhry, I. S. (2019). Carbon emissions across the spectrum of renewable and non-renewable energy use in developing economies of Asia. Renewable Energy, 143, 586-595.
53. Haseeb, A., Xia, E., Baloch, M. A., & Abbas, K. (2018). Financial development, globalization, and CO2 emission in the presence of EKC: Evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 31283-31296.
54. Helpman, E. (1998). Explaining the structure of foreign trade: Where do we stand?, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 134(4), 573-589.
55. IEA (2016a). Energy and Air Pollution. World Energy Outlook Special Report, Paris.
56. IEA (2016b). World Energy Outlook 2016. IEA, Paris. Access address: https://Doi.Org/10.1787/Weo2016-En
57. İmamoğlu, İ. K., & Coşkun, H. (2023). The Future of Export-Based Growth Policies in the Turkish Economy: An Econometric Simulation Approach. Erzurum Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17, 39-56.
58. İmamoğlu, İ. K., & Özdemir, D. (2023). Yönetişim, inovasyon ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki ilişkiler: Gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülke örnekleri. Külliye, 4(1), 99-133.
59. Inglesi-Lotz, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). The role of renewable versus non-renewable energy to the level of CO2 emissions a panel analysis of Sub-Saharan Africa’s βig 10 electricity generators. Renewable Energy, 123, 36-43.
60. Karaaslan, A., & Çamkaya, S. (2022). The relationship between CO2 emissions, economic growth, health expenditure, and renewable and non-renewable energy consumption: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Renewable Energy, 190, 457-466.
61. Karahasan, B. C., & Pinar, M. (2022). The environmental Kuznets curve for Turkish provinces: A spatial panel data approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(17), 25519-25531.
62. Karasoy, A., & Akçay, S. (2018). Effects of renewable energy consumption and trade on environmental pollution: The Turkish case. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 30(31), 437-455.
63. Kaya, K., Şenel, M. C., & Koç, E. (2018). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji kaynaklarinin değerlendirilmesi. Technological Applied Sciences, 13(3), 219-234.
64. Koçak E., & Şarkgüneşi, A. (2017). The renewable energy and economic growth nexus in Black Sea and Balkan Countries. Energy Policy, 100, 51–57.
65. Kronsell, A., Rosqvist, L. S., & Hiselius, L. W. (2016). Achieving climate objectives in transport policy by including women and challenging gender norms: The Swedish case. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(8), 703-711.
66. Mahalik, M. K., Mallick, H., & Padhan, H. (2021). Do educational levels influence the environmental quality? The role of RE and non-RE energy demand in selected BRICS countries with a new policy perspective. Renewable Energy, 164, 419-432.
67. Martınez-Zarzoso, I., & Bengochea-Morancho, A. (2004). Pooled mean group estimation of an environmental Kuznets curve for CO2. Economics Letters, 82(1), 121-126.
68. Mert, M. and Çağlar, A. E. (2019). Eviews ve gauss uygulamalı zaman serileri analizi. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. Narayan, P. K. (2005). The Saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979–1990.
69. Nasir, M., & Rehman, F. U. (2011). Environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Pakistan: An empirical investigation. Energy policy, 39(3), 1857-1864.
70. Öcal, O., Altınöz, B., & Aslan, A. (2020). The effects of economic growth and energy consumption on ecological footprint and carbon emissions: evidence from Turkey. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(3), 667-681.
71. Okumuş, İ. (2020). Türkiye’de yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, tarım ve CO2 emisyonu ilişkisi. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 6(1), 21-34.
72. Our World In Data (2024, 10 April). Access address: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
73. Our World İn Data. (2024, 10 April). Access address: https://Github.Com/Owid/Energy-Data.
74. Öztürk, I., & Acaravci, A. (2013). The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Economics, 36, 262-267.
75. Öztürk, Z., & Öz, D. (2016). The relationship between energy consumption, income, foreign direct investment, and CO2 emissions: the case of Turkey. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 269-288.
76. Pabuçcu, H., & Bayramoğlu, T. (2016). Yapay sinir ağlari ile CO2 emisyonu tahmini: Türkiye örneği. Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 18(3), 762-778.
77. Pao, H. T., & Tsai, C. M. (2010). CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7850-7860.
78. Pata, U. K. (2018). Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. Journal of cleaner production, 187, 770-779.
79. Pata, U. K. (2021). Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: Testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 846-861.
80. Pata, U. K., & Caglar, A. E. (2021). Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: Evidence from Augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy, 216, 119220.
81. Pata, U. K., & Yilanci, V. (2020). Financial development, globalization and ecological footprint in G7: Further evidence from threshold cointegration and fractional frequency causality tests. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 27(4), 803-825.
82. Pata, U. K., & Yurtkuran, S. (2018). Yenilenebilir enerji tüketimi, nüfus yoğunluğu ve finansal gelişmenin CO2 salımına etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (Prof. Dr. Harun Terzi Özel Sayısı), 303-318.
83. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal Of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.
84. Qashou, Y., Samour, A., & Abumunshar, M. (2022). Does the real estate market and renewable energy induce carbon dioxide emissions? Novel evidence from Turkey. Energies, 15(3), 763.
85. Rafiq, S., & Salim, R. A. (2009). Temporal causality between energy consumption and income in six Asian emerging countries. Applied Economics Quarterly, 55(4), 335.
86. Rahman, M. M., & Alam, K. (2022). CO2 emissions in Asia–Pacific region: Do energy use, economic growth, financial development, and international trade have detrimental effects?. Sustainability, 14(9), 5420.
87. Rahman, M. M., Karim, A. A. M. E., Ahmed, Z., & Acet, H. (2021). Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) for Bangladesh: Evidence from fully modified OLS approach. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 6(2), 5-14.
88. Sam, C. Y., McNown, R., & Goh, S. K. (2019). An augmented autoregressive distributed lag bounds test for cointegration. Economic Modelling, 80, 130–141.
89. Sari Hassoun, E. S., & Ayad, H. (2020). Renewable energy and eustainable development: Evidence from 17 OECD countries. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 4(1), 41-60.
90. Sari Hassoun, E. S., Mékidiche, M., & Guellil, M. S. (2018). Examining the connection amongst renewable energy, economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions in Algeria. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 14(29), 199-223.
91. Selden, T. M., & Song, D. (1995). Neoclassical growth, the J curve for abatement, and the inverted U curve for pollution. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29 (2), 162-168.
92. Shafiei, S., & Salim, R. A. (2014). Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: A comparative analysis. Energy Policy, 66, 547-556.
93. Shahbaz, M., Lean, H. H., & Shabbir, M. S. (2012). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Pakistan: Cointegration and Granger causality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(5), 2947-2953.
94. Soğukpınar, F., Erkal, G., & Özer, H. (2023). Evaluation of renewable energy policies in Turkey with sectoral electricity demand forecasting. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(13), 35891-35912.
95. Solarin, S. A., Al-Mulali, U., & Ozturk, I. (2017). Validating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in India and China: The role of hydroelectricity consumption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 1578-1587.
96. Stern, D. I., Common, M. S., & Barbier, E. B. (1996). Economic growth and environmental degradation: The environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Development, 24(7), 1151-1160.
97. T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı. (2023, 12 December). Paris Anlaşması. Erişim adresi: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/paris-anlasmasi.tr.mfa.
98. Tiwari, A. K., Shahbaz, M., & Hye, Q. M. A. (2013). The environmental Kuznets curve and the role of coal consumption in India: Cointegration and causality analysis in an open economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 18, 519-527.
99. Türkeş, M. (2022). İklim diplomasisi ve iklim değişikliğinin ekonomi politiği. Bilim ve Ütopya, 332, 31-45. World Bank Data. (2024, 10 April). Access address: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ NY.GDP.MKTP.KD?locations=TR.
100. Yavuz, N. Ç. (2014). CO2 emission, energy consumption, and economic growth for Turkey: evidence from a cointegration test with a structural break. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 9(3), 229-235.
101. Yenisu, E. (2018). Enerji tüketimi, CO2 emisyonu ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(5), 9-29.
102. Yılmaz, M., & Dilber, İ. (2020). Elektrik tüketimi, ekonomik büyüme ve dış ticaret açıklığının CO2 emisyonu üzerine etkisi: ARDL sınır testi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(2), 459-475.