An Investigation about the Impact of Innovations in Environmental Technologies on Global Warming: Evidences from Turkey

Yıl 2024, , 478 - 494, 24.05.2024

Elif Koçak

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.1405227

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of innovations in environmental technologies on CO2 emissions. Based on the 1990-2018 observation period, an empirical study was conducted for Turkey, which is classified as a developing and newly industrializing country (NIC). CO2 emissions, financial development index, GDP, and total environmental technology are included in the empirical model. First, the ADF and PP unit root tests were used to determine whether the model contained unit roots. As a result, it was determined that all variables had unit roots at the level values but were stationary at the first difference values. The ZA unit root test with structural breaks was used to avoid ignoring structural breaks. In line with the findings, it was discovered that under structural breaks, all variables had unit roots at their level values but became stationary at the first difference values. The ARDL bounds test and the Toda-Yamamoto causality test were used to investigate the relationship between the variables. According to the study's findings, innovations in environmental technologies have a preventive effect on global warming by lowering CO2 emissions. Additionally, no causality could be determined from innovations in environmental technologies to CO2 emissions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Climate Change, Environmental Technology, Global Warming, EKC Hypothesis

Çevresel Teknolojik İnovasyonun Küresel Isınma Üzerindeki Etkisine İlişkin Bir İnceleme: Türkiye’den Kanıtlar

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, çevresel teknolojik inovasyonun CO2 emisyonu salınımı üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Bunun için gelişmekte olan ve yeni sanayileşen ülke (NIC) kategorisi içerisinde yer alan Türkiye için, 1990-2018 gözlem aralığı baz alınarak ampirik bir çalışma gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ampirik modele CO2 emisyonu, finansal gelişme endeksi, kişi başına düşen GSYİH ve toplam çevresel teknoloji dahil edilmiştir. Öncelikle modelin birim kök içerip içermediği ADF ve PP birim kök testleri ile kontrol edilmiştir. Buna göre tüm değişkenlerin düzey değerlerinde birim kök içerdiği ancak birinci fark değerlerinde durağan oldukları tespit edilmiştir. Ardından yapısal kırılmaların göz ardı edilmemesi adına ZA yapısal kırılmalı birim kök testi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular doğrultusunda yapısal kırılmalar altında tüm değişkenlerin düzey değerlerinde birim kök içerdiği ancak birinci fark değerlerinde durağan hale geldikleri saptanmıştır. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişki ise ARDL sınır testi ve Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik testi ile araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre çevresel teknolojik inovasyonların CO2 emisyonunu azaltarak küresel ısınma üzerinde önleyici bir etkisinin olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca çevresel teknolojik inovasyondan CO2 emisyonuna herhangi nedensellik saptanmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çevresel Teknoloji, EKC Hipotezi, İklim Değişikliği, Küresel Isınma

Kaynakça

• Alvarez-Herranz, A., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., & Cantos, J. M. (2017a). Energy innovation and renewable energy consumption in the correction of air pollution levels. Energy policy, 105, 386-397.
• Álvarez-Herránz, A., Balsalobre, D., Cantos, J. M., & Shahbaz, M. (2017b). Energy innovations-GHG emissions nexus: fresh empirical evidence from OECD countries. Energy Policy, 101, 90-100.
• Balsalobre, D., Álvarez, A., & Cantos, J. M. (2015). Public budgets for energy RD&D and the effects on energy intensity and pollution levels. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(7), 4881-4892.
• Bekun, F. V., Alola, A. A., & Sarkodie, S. A. (2019). Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Science of the Total Environment, 657, 1023-1029.
• Chen, J., Gao, M., Mangla, S. K., Song, M., & Wen, J. (2020). Effects of technological changes on China's carbon emissions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119938.
• Chen, W., & Lei, Y. (2018). The impacts of renewable energy and technological innovation on environment-energy-growth nexus: New evidence from a panel quantile regression. Renewable energy, 123, 1-14.
• Dickey, D. A., ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 1057-1072.
• DuBose. ,J., Frost, J. D., Chamaeau, J. A., & Vanegas, J. A. (1995). Sustainable development and technology. The environmentally educated engineer, 73-86.
• Fernandes, C. I., Veiga, P. M., Ferreira, J. J., & Hughes, M. (2021). Green growth versus economic growth: do sustainable technology transfer and innovations lead to an imperfect choice?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 2021-2037.
• Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1991). Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement.
• Ibrahiem, D. M. (2020). Do technological innovations and financial development improve environmental quality in Egypt?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(10), 10869-10881.
• IPCC, (2014). Summary for policymakers In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.
• Jin, L., Duan, K., Shi, C., & Ju, X. (2017). The impact of technological progress in the energy sector on carbon emissions: an empirical analysis from China. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(12), 1505.
• Kahouli, B. (2018). The causality link between energy electricity consumption, CO2 emissions, R&D stocks and economic growth in Mediterranean countries (MCs). Energy, 145, 388-399.
• Khan, Z., Ali, M., Kirikkaleli, D., Wahab, S., & Jiao, Z. (2020). The impact of technological innovation and public‐private partnership investment on sustainable environment in China: Consumption‐based carbon emissions analysis. Sustainable Development, 28(5), 1317-1330.
• Khattak, S. I., Ahmad, M., Khan, Z. U., & Khan, A. (2020). Exploring the impact of innovation, renewable energy consumption, and income on CO2 emissions: new evidence from the BRICS economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(12), 13866-13881.
• Koçak, E., & Ulucak, Z. Ş. (2019). The effect of energy R&D expenditures on CO 2 emission reduction: estimation of the STIRPAT model for OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26, 14328-14338.
• Kuznets, S. (2019). Economic growth and income inequality. In The gap between rich and poor (pp. 25-37). Routledge.
• Lantz, V.,& Feng, Q. (2006). Assessingincome, population, and technology impacts on CO2 emissions in Canada: where's the EKC?. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 229-238.
• Lin, B., & Zhu, J. (2019). The role of renewable energy technological innovation on climate change: Empirical evidence from China. Science of the Total Environment, 659, 1505-1512.
• Mensah, C. N., Long, X., Boamah, K. B., Bediako, I. A., Dauda, L., & Salman, M. (2018). The effect of innovation on CO 2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 29678-29698.
• Mulder, K. F. (2007). Innovation for sustainable development: from environmental design to transition management. Sustainability Science, 2(2), 253-263.
• Owusu, P. A., & Asumadu-Sarkodie, S. (2016). A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation. Cogent Engineering, 3(1), 1167990.
• Phillips, P. C., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. biometrika, 75(2), 335-346.
• Ramanathan, V., & Feng, Y. (2009). Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Atmospheric environment, 43(1), 37-50.
• Rehman, M. U.,& Rashid, M. (2017). Energy consumption to environmental degradation, the growth appetite in SAARC nations. Renewable energy, 111, 284-294.
• Salahuddin, M., Gow, J., & Ozturk, I. (2015). Is the long-run relationship between economic growth, electricity consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and financial development in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries robust?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 51, 317-326.
• Santra, S. (2017). The effect of technological innovation on production-based energy and CO2 emission productivity: evidence from BRICS countries. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 9(5), 503-512.
• Shabbir, M. N., Liyong, W., & Iftikhar, K. (2021). Trade Openness, Innovation, and Economic Growth: A causal Effect Analysis of OECD and Non-OECD Countries.
• Shoaib, H. M., Rafique, M. Z., Nadeem, A. M., & Huang, S. (2020). Impact of financial development on CO 2 emissions: a comparative analysis of developing countries (D 8) and developed countries (G 8). Environmental science and pollution research, 27, 12461-12475.Toebelmann, D., & Wendler, T. (2020). The impact of environmental innovation on carbon dioxide emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118787.
• Ulucak, R., Danish, & Khan, S. U. D. (2020). Does information and communication technology affect CO2 mitigation under the pathway of sustainable development during the mode of globalization?. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 857-867.
• Wang, X., & Luo, Y. (2020). Has technological innovation capability addressed environmental pollution from the dual perspective of FDI quantity and quality? Evidence from China. Journal of cleaner production, 258, 120941.
• Wiebe, K. S., & Yamano, N. (2016). Estimating CO2 emissions embodied in final demand and trade using the OECD ICIO 2015: methodology and results.
• Xu, X., Huang, S., & An, H. (2021). Identification and causal analysis of the influence channels of financial development on CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 153, 112277.
• Zhou, Z., Ye, X., & Ge, X. (2017). The impacts of technical progress on sulfur dioxide Kuznets curve in China: a spatial panel data approach. Sustainability, 9(4), 674.
• Zivot, E., & Andrews, D. (1992). Further evidence of the great crash, the oil-price shock and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10, 251–270.