Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Türkiye: A dynamic ARDL analysis of energy consumption and carbon emissions

Öz

This study investigates the relation among economic growth, energy consumption, and environmental degradation in Türkiye within the framework of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. Using annual data for the 1980-2024 period, the model incorporates carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions as the dependent variable; per capita gross domestic product (GDP), squared GDP, and energy consumption (EC) are included as independent variables. The analytical findings reveal a long-term relationship among the variables. Long-run coefficients show that a 1% increase in energy consumption drives up carbon emissions by approximately 0.68%. Similarly, a 1% rise in per capita income leads to a roughly 2.40% surge in carbon emissions. Conversely, the negative coefficient for squared per capita income (-0.09) suggests that economic growth can mitigate environmental degradation beyond a certain threshold, thereby validating the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis. Short-term estimates mirror these findings, confirming the augmenting impact of both energy consumption and economic expansion on carbon emissions. The error correction term, calculated as -0.79, signifies that nearly 79% of short-term disequilibria are corrected in the subsequent period, guiding the system back toward its long-run equilibrium. These empirical dynamics show that while Türkiye’s current economic expansion remains essentially coupled with carbon-intensive energy structures, advancing beyond critical income thresholds possesses the capacity to catalyze environmental recovery. Accelerating this process necessitates structural policy shifts aimed at decoupling growth from fossil fuel dependence, prioritizing renewable capacity development, and enforcing stringent efficiency regulations to align with long-term sustainable development objectives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Environmental Kuznets curve
• Carbon emissions
• ARDL bounds test

Kaynakça

1. [1] Kışlalıoğlu M, Berkes F. Çevre ve Ekoloji (18. basım). Remzi Kitabevi. İstanbul, 2020.
2. [2] Stern DI. The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development 2004; 32(8): 1419-1439.
3. [3] Dinda S. Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics 2004; 49(4): 431-455.
4. [4] Grossman GM, Krueger AB. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (NBER Working Paper No. 3914). National Bureau of Economic Research, 1991.
5. [5] Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S. Economic growth and environmental quality: Time-series and cross-country evidence (Working Paper Vol. 904). World Bank Publications, 1992.
6. [6] Melikoğlu M. Vision 2023: Assessing the feasibility of electricity and energy production targets of Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014; 31: 712-720.
7. [7] TURKSTAT-Turkish Statistical Institute. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Statistics, 1990-2022. June 5, 2024. (https://veriportali.tuik.gov.tr/en/press/53701).
8. [8] Esseghir A, Khouni LH. Economic growth, energy consumption and sustainable development: The case of the Union for the Mediterranean countries. Energy 2014; 71: 218-225.

9. [9] Kuznets S. Economic growth and income inequality. The American Economic Review 1955; 45(1): 1-28.
10. [10] Panayotou T. Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development (Wep Research Working Paper No. 238). International Labour Organization, 1993.
11. [11] Zhang J. Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis on CO2 emissions: Evidence for China. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 2021; 14(3): 93-109.
12. [12] Grossman GM, Krueger AB. Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1995; 110(2): 353-377.
13. [13] Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier EB. Economic growth and environmental degradation: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and sustainable development. World Development 1996; 24(7): 1151-1160.
14. [14] Kaika D, Zervas E. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory—Part A: Concept, causes and the CO2 emissions case. Energy Policy 2013; 62: 1392-1402.
15. [15] Kaygusuz K. Energy policy and climate change in Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management 2003; 44(10): 1671-1688.
16. [16] Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS. Is free trade good for the environment? American Economic Review 2001; 91(4): 877-908.
17. [17] Bölük G, Mert M. The renewable energy, growth and Environmental Kuznets Curve in Turkey: An ARDL approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015; 52: 587-595.
18. [18] Pata UK. Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: Testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. Journal of Cleaner Production 2018; 187: 770-779.
19. [19] Panayotou T. Demystifying the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Turning a black box into a policy tool. Environment and Development Economics 1997; 2(4): 465-484.
20. [20] Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN. Technological change and the environment. In: Mäler K-G, Vincent JR (Eds.), Handbook of environmental economics. Resources for the Future (Elsevier), Washington, 2003: 461-516.
21. [21] EMRA-Energy Market Regulatory Authority. [Enerji Piyasası Düzenleme Kurumu-EPDK]. Elektrik Piyasası Resmi İstatistikleri Listesi. June 2026. (https://www.epdk.gov.tr/Detay/Icerik/3-0-167/resmi-istatistikleri).
22. [22] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Towards Green Growth. OECD Publishing, Paris, 2011. (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/towards-green-growth_9789264111318-en.html).
23. [23] Koçak E. Türkiye’de Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği: ARDL Sınır Testi yaklaşımı. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi 2014; 2(3): 62-73.
24. [24] Halıcıoğlu F. An econometric study of CO2 Emissions, energy consumption, income, and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 2009; 37(3): 1156-1164.
25. [25] Akbostancı E, Tunç GI, Türüt-Aşık S. The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: Is there an Environmental Kuznets Curve? Energy Policy 2009; 37(3): 861-867.
26. [26] Saatçi M, Dumrul Y. Çevre kirliliği ve ekonomik büyüme ilişkisi: Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisinin Türk ekonomisi için yapısal kırılmalı eş-bütünleşme yöntemiyle tahmini. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 2011; 37: 65-86.
27. [27] Suri V, Chapman D. Economic growth, trade and energy: implications for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecological Economics, 1998; 25(2): 195-208.
28. [28] Öztürk I, Acaravcı A. The Long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Economics 2013; 36: 262-267.
29. [29] Pata UK. Environmental Kuznets Curve and trade openness in Turkey: Bootstrap ARDL approach with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2019; 26(20): 20264-20276.
30. [30] Hussain M, Khan AR. The impact of economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness on carbon emissions in Pakistan. Journal of Energy and Environmental Policy Options, 2022; 5(3): 1-6.
31. [31] Wani MJ, G., Alami IA, Ghazwani M, Ahmed I, Alkaraan F, Khan MA. Asymmetric effect of green energy and economic growth on the environmental deterioration and the environmental Kuznets curve validation in MENA countries. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 2025; 30(4): 3553-3568.
32. [32] Erdoğan İ, Türköz K, Görüş MŞ. Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Geçerliliği. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2015; (44):113-123.
33. [33] Gürlük S, Karaer F. Türkiye’de ekonomik büyüme ile çevre kirliliği ilişkisinin incelenmesi. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi 2004; 10(1–2): 43-54.
34. [34] Karaca C. Ekonomik kalkınma ve çevre kirliliği ilişkisi: Gelişmekte olan ülkeler üzerine ampirik bir analiz. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2012; 21(3): 139-156.
35. [35] Özpolat A, Nakıpoğlu Özsoy F. Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynakları Çevresel Bozulmayı Azaltıyor Mu? Türkiye Örneği. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 2021; 13(24): 49-60.
36. [36] Naimoğlu M, Özbek S. Testing The Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis under Structural Breaks: The Case of Turkey. Alanya Akademik Bakış 2022; 6(3): 3069-3084.
37. [37] Özbek S, Oğul B. Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin geçerliliği: Türkiye üzerine ampirik bir çalışma. Akademik Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi (AKAD) 2022; 14(26): 35-46.
38. [38] Atalay AÇ, Akan Y. OECD ülkelerinin yeşil ekonomi verilerinin çevresel kuznets eğrisi hipotezine göre test edilmesi. Trends in Business and Economics 2023; 37(1): 57-67.
39. [39] Cil N. Re-examination of pollution haven hypothesis for Turkey with Fourier approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023; 30(4): 10024-10036.
40. [40] Kaya Kanlı N, Küçükefe B. Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis valid? A global analysis for carbon dioxide emissions. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2023; 25(3): 2339-2367.
41. [41] Ojaghlou M, Ugurlu E, Kadłubek M, Thalassinos E. Economic activities and management issues for the environment: an Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and STIRPAT analysis in Turkey. Resources 2023; 12(5): 57.
42. [42] Göksu S, Göçoğlu V. Effects of urbanization, forestation, internet use, energy consumption, and gross domestic product on environmental degradation in Türkiye. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2023; 20(10): 11373-11390.
43. [43] Dickey DA, Fuller WA. Likelihood ratio statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with a unit root. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 1981: 1057-1072.
44. [44] Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2001; 16(3): 289-326.
45. [45] Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 1987; 52(3): 317-332.
46. [46] Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics 1978: 461-464.
47. [47] Narayan PK. The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from cointegration tests. Applied Economics 2005; 37(17): 1979-1990.
48. [48] Energy Institute. Statistical Review of World Energy 2025, Energy Institute, London. 2025. https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/home
49. [49] International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook Database. 2024. (https://www.imf.org/en/publications/sprolls/world-economic-outlook-databases).
50. [50] MacKinnon JG. Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics 1996; 11(6): 601-618.