Türkiye’de Küreselleşme ve Enerji Tüketiminin Karbon Ekolojik Ayak İzi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Çevresel Sürdürülebilirlik Perspektifi

Öz

Yeni milenyumdaki çevresel sürdürülebilirlik bakış açısıyla yenilenebilir enerjiye geçişin, karbon ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki baskıyı hafifletme potansiyelini göz önünde bulundurarak bu çalışma Türkiye’de küreselleşme ve enerji tüketiminin karbon ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki etkilerini sürdürülebilirlik perspektifinden analiz etmektedir. Araştırmada, sosyoekonomik etkileri de kapsayacak şekilde STIRPAT model yapısı kullanılmış ve 1981-2022 dönemine ait veriler ARDL sınır testi ile incelenmiştir. Tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve zaman serisi grafikleri incelenmiş; bu grafiklerde bazı kırılmalar gözlemlenmiş ve değişkenlerin trend yapıları analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, modelde yer alan değişkenler arasında uzun dönemli anlamlı ilişkiler olduğunu ortaya koymuş; kısa dönem ilişkiler de istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuş ve modelin 0.58 yıl sonra uzun dönem denge ilişkisine ulaşacağı öngörülmüştür. Granger nedensellik testi sonuçları ise %95 güven düzeyinde GSYH ile RE, P ile RE ve P ile EE değişkenleri arasında nedensel ilişkiler olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak, bulgular küreselleşme ve enerji tüketiminin ekolojik ayak izi üzerindeki kısa ve uzun vadeli sosyoekonomik ve sürdürülebilirlik etkileri tespit edilmiş ve bu doğrultuda politika önerilerinin geliştirilmesi gerekliliği vurgulanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ekolojik ayak izi
• Çevresel etkiler
• Zaman serisi analizi
• ARDL sınır testi
• İkim değişimi

The Effects of Globalizatiom and Energy Consumptionon Tehe Carbon Ecological Footprint in Turkey: An Environmental Sustainabilty Perspective

Öz

This study analyzes the impact of globalization and energy consumption on the carbon ecological footprint in Turkey from a sustainability perspective, taking into account the potential of transitioning to renewable energy to alleviate pressure on the carbon ecological footprint from an environmental sustainability viewpoint. The research employs the STIRPAT model structure, which includes socioeconomic impacts, and examines data from the period 1981–2022 using the ARDL bounds test approach. Descriptive statistics and time series graphs were analyzed, revealing certain structural breaks and examining the trend structures of the variables. The findings demonstrate significant long-term relationships among the variables in the model, while short-term relationships were also found to be statistically significant, with the model projected to reach a long-term equilibrium relationship after approximately 0.58 years. Granger causality test results at a 95% confidence level indicate causal relationships between GDP and RE, P and RE, and P and EE variables. In conclusion, the findings reveal both the short- and long-term socioeconomic and sustainability impacts of globalization and energy consumption on the ecological footprint, underscoring the necessity of developing policy recommendations accordingly.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ecolocical footprint
• Environmental impacts
• Time series analysis
• ARDL bounds test
• Climate change

Kaynakça

1. Ayad, H. (2023, 10 Ekim). Investigating the fishing grounds load capacity curve in G7 nations: Evaluating the influence of human capital and renewable energy use. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 194, 115413.
2. Bekhet, H.A., & Othman, N.S. (2018). The role of renewable energy to validate dynamic interaction between CO2 emissions and GDP toward sustainable development in Malaysia. Energy Economics, 72, 47-61.
3. Çaglar, A. E., & Ulug, M. (2022). The role of government spending on energy efficiency R&D budgets in the green transformation process: insight from the top-five countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(50), 76-67
4. Çaglar, A.E., Yavuz, E., Mert, M., & Kilic, E. (2022). The ecological footprint facing asymmetric natural resources challenges: Evidence from the USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14. Envıronmental Scıence and Pollutıon Research, 29(7), 10521-10534.
5. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American statistical Association, 74(366a), 427-431.
6. Dietz, T., & Rosa, E.A. (1997). Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(1), 175-179.
7. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196-199.
8. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424-438.

9. Gujarati, D.N., & Porter, D.C. (2012). Temel ekonometri (H. Şenesen, G. Günlük Şenesen, Çev.). İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.
10. Hassan, S. T., Batool, B., Wang, P., Zhu, B. & Sadiq, M. (2023). Impact of economic complexity index, globalization, and nuclear energy consumption on ecological footprint: first insights in OECD context. Energy, 263, 125628.
11. Khan, M.K., Teng, J.Z., Khan, M.I., & Khan, M. O. (2019). Impact of globalization, economic factors and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Pakistan. Science of the Total Environment, 688, 424-436.
12. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P.C., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1-3), 159-178.
13. Lu, R., Yang, Y., Liu, J., & Ayub, A. (2024). Exploring the impact of financial globalization, good governance and renewable energy consumption on environmental pollution: Evidence from BRICS-T countries. Heliyon, 10(13), 1-15.
14. Li, X., & Ullah, S. (2022). Caring for the environment: how CO2 emissions respond to human capital in BRICS economies?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(12), 18036-18046.
15. Mert, M., ve Çağlar, A. E. (2023). Eviews ve Gauss uygulamalı zaman serileri analizi. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
16. Mert, M., Bölük, G., Çağlar, A. E. (2019). Interrelationships among foreign direct investments, renewable energy, and CO2 emissions for different European country groups: A panel ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 21495-21510.
17. Narayan, P.K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics, 37(17), 1979-1990.
18. Nathaniel, S.P., Ahmed, Z., Shamansurova, Z., & Fakher, H.A. (2024). Linking clean energy consumption, globalization, and financial development to the ecological footprint in a developing country: Insights from the novel dynamic ARDL simulation techniques. Heliyon, 10(5), e27095.
19. Öztok, D., ve Tapan, D. (Ed.). (2012). Türkiye'nin ekolojik ayak izi raporu. İstanbul: WWF Yayınevi.
20. 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.
21. Phillips, P.C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
22. Frodyma, K., Papież, M., & Śmiech, S. (2022). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in the European Union countries. Energy, 241, 122899.
23. Solarin, S.A., Nathaniel, S.P., Bekun, F.V., Okunola, A.M., & Alhassan, A. (2021). Towards achieving environmental sustainability: Environmental quality versus economic growth in a developing economy on ecological footprint via dynamic simulations of ARDL. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28, 17942-17959.
24. Sun, Q., Ma, R., Xi, Z., Wang, H., Jiang, C., & Chen, H. (2023). Nonlinear impacts of energy consumption and globalization on ecological footprint: empirical research from BRICS countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 396, 136488.
25. Şeviktekin, M., ve Nargeleçenler, M. (2010). Eviews uygulamalı ekonomertik zaman serileri kitabı. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
26. T.C. Dışişleri Bakanlığı (2024). Paris anlaşması. Erişim adresi: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/paris-anlasmasi.tr.mfa.
27. WWF (2022). Yaşayan gezegen raporu 2022 – Doğa ile uyumlu bir toplum inşa etmek ( Almond, R.E.A., Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli, D. & Petersen, T. Eds). İsviçre:Gland.
28. Wang, Y., Kang, Y., Wang, J., & Xu, L. (2017). Panel estimation for the impacts of population-related factors on CO2 emissions: A regional analysis in China. Ecological Indicators, 78, 322-330.
29. Xie, H., & Bui, W. K. T. (2024). Impact of globalization and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in China: Implications for energy transition. Finance Research Letters, 67, 105939.
30. Zafar, M. W., Saleem, M. M., Destek, M. A., & Caglar, A. E. (2022). The dynamic linkage between remittances, export diversification, education, renewable energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions in top remittance‐receiving countries. Sustainable Development, 30(1), 165-175.
31. Zheng, Y., Tarczyński, W., Jamróz, P., Raza, S.A., & Tiwari, S. (2024). Impacts of mineral resources, economic growth and energy consumption on environmental sustainability: Novel findings from global south region. Resources Policy, 92, 105019.
32. Zivot, E., & Andrews, D.W.K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 10, 251-270.