Impacts of the environmental taxes on ecological footprint: Panel threshold Rregression analysis for G7 countries

Abstract

In this study, the effects of green investment, environmental tax, environmental-related technology, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth on the ecological footprint were examined with annual data for the G7 countries during the period of 2000-2021. In addition, the impact of green investments on the ecological footprint at a threshold of different environmental tax levels was investigated. For this purpose, OLS, Fixed Effect, Random Effect, FGLS, Driscoll-Kraay random effect, and Panel Threshold Regression Analysis were applied in the study. According to the results, increases in environmental-related technology, renewable energy, environmental taxes, and green investment reduce the ecological footprint. Therefore, these variables can be considered as the main drivers of reducing environmental degradation for G7 countries. A 100% increase in environmental taxes reduces the ecological footprint per capita by approximately 5%. Another implication of this study is that the impact of green investments on the ecological footprint increases at higher environmental tax levels. Therefore, the effective use of environmental taxes helps improve environmental quality by encouraging green investments. In this context, market regulatory instruments such as environmental tax is an important policy strategy to improve environmental quality.

Keywords

• Green investment
• Environmental taxes
• Renewable energy
• Ecological footprint
• G7

Kaynakça

1. [1] Kartal MT. Quantile-based effect of energy, transport, and total environmental tax on ecological footprint in EU5 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024; 31: 20033–20047.
2. [2] European Commission. EU approach to SDGs implementation. 2025. Available from: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/sustainable-development-goals/eu-approach-sdgs-implementation_en
3. [3] Nathaniel S, Anyanwu O, Shah M. Renewable energy, urbanization, and ecological footprint in the Middle East and North Africa region. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2020; 27: 14601–14613.
4. [4] Adebayo TS, Kartal MT, Aga M, Al-Faryan MAS. Role of country risks and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: Evidence from MINT countries. Journal of Environmental Management 2023; 327(1): 116884.
5. [5] Zhang H, Shao Y, Han X, Chang H-L. A road towards ecological development in China: The nexus between green investment, natural resources, green technology innovation, and economic growth. Resources Policy 2022; 77: 102746.
6. [6] Tabrizi A, Yousefi H, Abdoos M, Ghasempour R. Evaluating renewable energy adoption in G7 countries: A TOPSIS‑based multi‑criteria decision analysis. Discover Energy 2025; 5(2).
7. [7] Khasru SM, Brodjonegoro B, Meddeb R, Ibrekk HO, Weisberg M. SDG 7 and renewable energy innovations: The road ahead for green growth and sustainable trade, and energy security, Task Force 3: Environment, Energy and Sustainable Development 2025.
8. [8] Andersson M, Köhler-Ulbrich P, Nerlich C. Green investment needs in the EU and their funding. European Central Bank 2025.

9. [9] Johnstone N, Hascic I. Environmental policy, technological innovation and patents. OECD Studies on Environmental Innovation 2008.
10. [10] Destek MA, Özkan O, Tiwari S. Market-based and non-market-based policies: A quantile approach to environmental technology innovation in G-7 countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2025; 217: 124173.
11. [11] Cao X, Hayyat M, Henry J. Green energy investment and technology innovation for carbon reduction: Strategies for achieving SDG’s in the G7 countries. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2025; 114: 209–220.
12. [12] Sunanda G. Environmental technology market. 2025. Available from: https://www.kingsresearch.com/environmental-technology-market-2318
13. [13] International Energy Agency (IEA). Achieving net zero electricity sectors in G7 members. 2025.
14. [14] Altieri K, Jones D. The G7 should set a goal to triple their renewable capacity. Ember Energy 2024.
15. [15] Esen Ö, Yıldırım DÇ, Yıldırım S. Pollute less or tax more? Asymmetries in the EU environmental taxes-ecological balance nexus. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2021; 91: 106662.
16. [16] Eurostat. Environmental taxes statistics. 2025. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/page/ENV_AC_TAX?lang=en
17. [17] Deng W, Kharuddin S, Ashhari ZM. Green finance transforms developed countries’ green growth: Mediating effect of clean technology innovation and threshold effect of environmental tax. Journal of Cleaner Production 2024; 448: 141642.
18. [18] Pigou AC. The economics of welfare. Macmillan, London, 1920.
19. [19] Bozatli O, Akca H. The effects of environmental taxes, renewable energy consumption and environmental technology on the ecological footprint: Evidence from advanced panel data analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 2023; 345: 118857.
20. [20] Rybak A, Joostberens J, Manowska A, Pielot J. The impact of environmental taxes on the level of greenhouse gas emissions in Poland and Sweden. Energies 2022; 15(12): 4465.
21. [21] Wackernagel M, Rees W. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the earth. New Society Publishers 1998.
22. [22] Sun Y, Guan W, Razzaq A, Shahzad M, An BN. Transition towards ecological sustainability through fiscal decentralization, renewable energy and green investment in OECD countries. Renewable Energy 2022; 190: 385-395.
23. [23] Qian C, Madni GR Encirclement of natural resources, green investment, and economic complexity for mitigation of ecological footprints in BRI countries. Sustainability 2022; 14: 15269.
24. [24] Madni GR. Meditation for role of productive capacities and green investment on ecological footprint in BRI countries. Environment Science and Pollution Research 2023; 30: 72308-72318.
25. [25] Aslam B, Zhang G, Amjad MA, Guo S, Guo R, Soomro A. Towards sustainable initiatives: Evidence from green finance mitigating ecological footprint in East Asia and Pacific Nations. Energy & Environment 2024; 0(0): 1-25.
26. [26] Pradhan P, Behera P, Sethi L, Rath BN, Sethi N. Can green growth and ecological footprint mitigation go hand on hand? The role of sectoral energy consumption, green innovation, and greenfield investment in emerging economies. Economic Change and Restructuring 2025; 58: 18.
27. [27] Uddin GA, Salahuddin M, Alam K, Gow J. Ecological footprint and real income: panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecological Indicators 2017; 77: 166–175.
28. [28] Destek MA, Sarkodie SA. Investigation of environmental kuznets curve for ecological footprint: The role of energy and financial development. Science of The Total Environment 2019; 650: 2483–2489.
29. [29] Ahmad M, Jiang P, Murshed M, Shehzad K, Akram R, Cui L, Khan Z. Modelling the dynamic linkages between eco-innovation, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprints for G7 countries: Does financial globalization matter? Sustainable Cities and Society 2021; 70: 102881.
30. [30] Xue L, Haseeb M, Mahmood H, Alkhateeb TTY, Murshed M. Renewable energy use and ecological footprints mitigation: Evidence from selected South Asian economies. Sustainability 2021; 13: 1613.
31. [31] Shahnazi R, Dehghan Shabani Z. The effects of renewable energy, spatial spillover of CO2 emissions and economic freedom on CO2 emissions in the EU. Renewable Energy 2021; 169(C): 293-307.
32. [32] Ozturk I, Al-Mulali U, Saboori B. Investigating the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of tourism and ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2016; 23(2): 1916–1928.
33. [33] Destek MA, Sinha A. 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 2020; 242: 118537.
34. [34] Javed A, Rapposelli A, Khan F, Javed A. The impact of green technology innovation, environmental taxes, and renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Italy: Fresh evidence from novel dynamic ARDL simulations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2023; 191: 122534.
35. [35] Telatar OM, Birinci N. The effects of environmental tax on ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions: A nonlinear cointegration analysis on Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022; 29: 44335-44347.
36. [36] Fang G, Yang K, Chen G, Tian L. Environmental protection tax superseded pollution fees, does china effectively abate ecological footprints? Journal of Cleaner Production 2023; 388: 135846.
37. [37] Alola AA, Bekun FV, Sarkodie SA. Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Science of The Total Environment 2019; 685: 702–709.
38. [38] Felix R. Renewable energy contribution to economic growth in OECD countries. İzmir Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2020; 1(2): 86-93.
39. [39] Pata UK. Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renewable Energy 2021; 173(C): 197-208.
40. [40] Sinha A, Sengupta T. Impact of natural resource rents on human development: what is the role of globalization in Asia Pacific countries? Resources Policy 2019; 63: 101413.
41. [41] Ulucak R, Danish D, Ozcan B. Relationship between energy consumption and environmental sustainability in OECD countries: The role of natural resources rents. Resources Policy 2020; 69: 101803.
42. [42] Zeraibi A, Balsalobre-Lorente D, Murshed M. The Influences of renewable electricity generation, technological innovation, financial development, and economic growth on ecological footprints in ASEAN-5 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2021; 28: 51003–51021.
43. [43] Chi J. Exploring the drivers of ecological footprint: ımpacts of road transportation ınfrastructure, transport tax, and environment Technologies. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 2024; 18(11): 920–934.
44. [44] Chu LK. Determinants of ecological footprint in OCED countries: Do environmental-related technologies reduce environmental degradation?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022; 29: 23779–23793.
45. [45] Hussain M, Arshad Z, Bashir A. Do economic policy uncertainty and environment-related technologies help in limiting ecological footprint?. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022; 29: 46612–46619.
46. [46] Jin X, Guo C, Ahmad W, Ameen MS, Abbas S. Evaluating the symmetric and asymmetric effectiveness of low carbon energy consumption for ecological footprint in China: The role of environment-related technological innovation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024; 31: 1926–1940.
47. [47] Sharif A, Kocak S, Khan HHA, Uzuner G, Tiwari S. Demystifying the links between green technology innovation, economic growth, and environmental tax in ASEAN-6 countries: The dynamic role of green energy and green investment. Gondwana Research 2023; 115: 98-106.
48. [48] Dauda L, Long X, Mensah CN, Salman M. The effects of economic growth and innovation on CO2 emissions in different regions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2019; 26: 15028-15038.
49. [49] Koçak E, Ulucak ZS. The effect of energy R&D expenditures on CO2 emission reduction: Estimation of the STIRPAT model for OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2019; 26: 14328-14338.
50. [50] Villanthenkodath MA, Mahalik MK. Technological innovation and environmental quality nexus in India: Does inwardremittance matter? Journal of Public Affairs 2020.
51. [51] Chunling L, Memon JA, Thanh TL, Ali M, Kirikkaleli D. The impact of public-private partnership investment in energy and technological innovation on ecological footprint: The case of Pakistan. Sustainability 2021; 13(18): 10085.
52. [52] Song Z. Economic growth and carbon emissions: Estimation of a panel threshold model for the transition process in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021; 278: 123773
53. [53] Aye GC, Edoja PE. Effect of economic growth on CO2 emission indeveloping countries: Evidence from a dynamicpanel threshold model. Cogent Economics & Finance 2017; 5: 1379239.
54. [54] Wang Y, Zuo Y, Li W, Kang Y, Chen W, Zhao M, Chen H. Does environmental regulation affect CO2 emissions? Analysis based on threshold effect model. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 2019; 21: 565–577.
55. [55] Li R, Lin L, Jiang L, Lee C-C. Does technology advancement reduce aggregate carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence from 66 countries with panel threshold regression model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2021; 28: 19710–19725.
56. [56] Chen C, Pinar M, Stengos T. Renewable energy and CO2 emissions: New evidence with the panel threshold model. Renewable Energy 2022; 194: 117-128.
57. [57] Ostadzad AH. Innovation and carbon emissions: Fixed-effects panel threshold model estimation for renewable energy. Renewable Energy 2022; 198: 602–617.
58. [58] Kurt M. Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde yenilenebilir enerji ekonomik büyüme ilişkisinde çevre vergilerinin rolü: Panel veri analizi. Maliye Dergisi 2024; 187:121-143.
59. [59] Kurt M. Yeşil çevre politikaları ve yeşil vergilerin karbon emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi: Panel eşik regresyon analizi. Sosyoekonomi 2024; 32(62): 455-477.
60. [60] Ecological Footprint Network. Ecological footprint statistics. 2025. Available from: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/
61. [61] OECD. Patents on environment technologies. 2025. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/patents-on-environment-technologies.html
62. [62] Worldbank. World Development Indicators. 2025. Available from: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
63. [63] International Energy Agency (IEA). 2025. Available from: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/dfe5daf4-dbc1-4533-abeb-fafb1faee0f9/WorldEnergyOutlook2025.pdf
64. [64] Driscoll JC, Kraay AC. Consistent covariance matrix estimation with spatially dependent panel data. Review of Economics and Statistic 1998; 80: 549–560.
65. [65] Hansen BE. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and infer-ence. Journal of Econometrics 1999; 93(2): 345-368.
66. [66] Wang Q. Fixed-effect panel threshold model using Stata. The Stata Journal 2015; 15(1): 121-134.
67. [67] Ullah A, Ahmed M, Raza SA, Ali S. A threshold approach to sustainable development: Nonlinear relationship between renewable energy consumption, natural resource rent, and ecological footprint. Journal of Environmental Management 2021; 295: 113073.
68. [68] Pesaran MH, Yamagata T. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics 2008; 142(1): 50-93.
69. [69] Blomquist J, Westerlund J. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Economics Letters 2013; 121(3): 374-378.
70. [70] Hansen BE. Sample splitting and threshold estimation. Econometrica 2000; 68(3): 575–603.