The Renewable Energy-Environmental Quality Relationship in E7 Economies: A Panel Data Analysis

Öz

The E7 economies represent a group of countries experiencing a rapidly increasing trend in CO₂ emissions while simultaneously achieving remarkable progress in renewable energy use, economic growth, globalization, and industrialization. Therefore, this study examines the relationship between renewable energy use, globalization, economic growth, industrialization, and CO₂ emissions in E7 economies over the period 1990–2022. The findings indicate the presence of cointegration among these variables. The CCE-MG estimates reveal that renewable energy use and globalization mitigate CO₂ emissions, whereas economic growth and industrialization contribute to higher emission levels. Accordingly, the first two variables improve environmental quality, while the latter two deteriorate it. The Dumitrescu-Hurlin causality analysis shows a bidirectional causal relationship between all explanatory variables and CO₂ emissions. These findings suggest that E7 economies should promote renewable energy adoption and globalization while designing growth and industrialization strategies that incorporate environmental sustainability. Given that E7 countries account for nearly half of global CO₂ emissions, such policies are of critical importance for improving global environmental quality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Renewable Energy
• CO2 Emissions
• Environmental Quality
• E7 Economies
• CCE-MG

E7 Ekonomilerinde Yenilenebilir Enerji-Çevre Kalitesi İlişkisi: Bir Panel Veri Analizi

Öz

E7 ekonomileri, CO₂ emisyonları hızla artan bir trende sahip olup yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı, ekonomik büyüme, küreselleşme ve sanayileşme süreçlerinde önemli ilerleme kaydeden ülkeler grubunu temsil etmektedir. Bu nedenle bu çalışma, 1990-2022 döneminde E7 ekonomileri için yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı, küreselleşme, ekonomik büyüme ve sanayileşme ile CO₂ emisyonları arasındaki ilişkiyi test etmektedir. Çıktılar, söz konusu değişkenler arasında bir eşbütünleşmenin varlığına işaret etmektedir. CCE-MG tahminleri, bir taraftan yenilenebilir enerji kullanımı ve küreselleşmenin CO₂ emisyonlarını engellediğini, diğer taraftan ise ekonomik büyüme ve endüstrileşmenin CO₂ emisyonlarını desteklediğini ortaya koymaktadır. Dolayısıyla ilk iki değişken çevre kalitesini iyileştirirken, son iki değişken çevre kalitesini bozucu bir etki göstermektedir. Dumitrescu-Hurlin nedensellik analizi, tüm açıklayıcı değişkenler ile CO₂ emisyonları arasında iki yönlü bir nedenselliğin bulunduğunu göstermektedir. Bu sonuçlar, E7 ekonomilerinin yenilenebilir enerji kullanımını ve küreselleşmeyi destekleyerek çevre kalitesini artırıcı, aynı zamanda ekonomik büyüme ve sanayileşme süreçlerinde çevresel sürdürülebilirliği gözeten politikalar geliştirmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. E7 ülkeleri küresel karbon emisyonlarının yaklaşık yarısını oluşturduklarından, bu politikaların küresel çevre kalitesinin iyileştirilmesi açısından da kritik öneme sahip olduğu değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yenilenebilir Enerji
• CO2 Emisyonları
• Çevre Kalitesi
• E7 Ekonomileri
• CCE-MG

Kaynakça

1. Abdi, A.H. (2023). Toward a sustainable development in sub-Saharan Africa: Do economic complexity and renewable energy improve environmental quality? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(19), 55782-55798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26364-z
2. Abdi, A.H., Siyad, S.A., Sugow, M.O. and Omar, O.M. (2025). Approaches to ecological sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa: Evaluating the role of globalization, renewable energy, economic growth, and population density. Research in Globalization, 10, 100273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2025.100273
3. Adebayo, T.S. (2022). Impact of financial globalization on environmental degradation in the E7 countries: Application of the hybrid nonparametric quantile causality approach. Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development, 2, 148-160. https://doi.org/10.35784/pe.2022.2.16
4. Adeleye, B.N., Soylu, Ö.B., Ergül, M. and Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2025). Reintroducing evidence of the role of energy usage dynamics on environmental management in E7 countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 386, 125667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125667
5. Ali, M., Xiaoying, L., Mehmood, S. and Khan, M.A. (2025). Assessing the impact of FDI, CO2 emissions, economic growth, and income inequality on renewable energy consumption in Asia. Energy Strategy Reviews, 58, 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2025.101653
6. Alola, A.A., Bekun, F.V. and Sarkodie, S.A. (2019). Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Science of The Total Environment, 685, 702-709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.139
7. Apergis, N. and Payne, J. E. (2010). Renewable energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy, 38(1), 656–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.002
8. Asif, M., Amin, N., Shabbir, M.S. and Sobg, H. (2024). Balancing growth and sustainability: COP 28 policy implications of green energy, industrialization, foreign direct investment, and globalization in South Asia. Journal of Environmental Management, 369, 122290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122290

9. Asteriou, D., Pilbeam, K. and Pratiw, C.E. (2021). Public debt and economic growth: panel data evidence for Asian countries. Journal of Economics and Finance, 45, 270-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12197-020-09515-7
10. Aydın, C. (2022). Küreselleşme ve çevre kirliliği ilişkisi: Türkiye için ampirik bir analiz. Sosyoekonomi, 30(52), 155–172.
11. Bambi, P.D.R. and Pea-Assounga, J.B.B. (2024). Assessing the influence of land use, agricultural, industrialization, CO2 emissions, and energy intensity on cereal production. Journal of Environmental Management, 370, 122612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122612
12. Blomquist, J. and Westerlund, J. (2013). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels with serial correlation. Economics Letters, 121(3), 374-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.09.012
13. Breusch, T.S and Pagan, A.R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification tests in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 239-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
14. Cao, S. and Zhou, Q. (2022). Common correlated effects estimation for dynamic heterogeneous panels with non-stationary multi-factor error structures. Econometricsi 10(29). https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics10030029
15. Çetin, M., & Erdoğan, S. (2023). Yenilenebilir enerji yatırımlarının hava kalitesi üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Enerji, Ekonomi ve Politika Dergisi, 8(2), 45–60.
16. Chen, J., Feng, Y., Zhang, Z., Wang, Q. and Ma, F. (2024). Exploring the patterns of China's carbon neutrality policies. Journal of Environmental Management, 371, 123092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123092
17. Chudik, A. and Pesaran, M.H. (2025). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
18. Dean, J.M., Lovely, M.E. and Wang, H. (2009). Are foreign investors attracted to weak environmental regulations? Evaluating the evidence from China. Journal of Development Economics, 90(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2008.11.007
19. Demirbaş, N. (2022). Sanayi üretimi ve çevresel bozulma ilişkisi: Türkiye için zaman serisi analizi. Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(1), 33–49.
20. Destek, M.A. and Sarkodie, S.A. (2019). Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: The role of energy and financial development. Science of The Total Environment, 650, 2483–2489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.017
21. Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011
22. Dumitrescu, E.I. and Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29, 1450-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
23. Frankel, J.A. and Rose, A.K. (2005). Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(1), 85–91. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40042924
24. Girlovan, A., Tudor, C., Saiu, G.R. and Guse, D.D. (2025). Exploring the impact of globalization and economic-energy Dynamics on environmental sustainability in the EU. Global Transitions, 7, 41-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2024.12.002
25. Global Security Review (2025). Economicd & trade. https://globalsecurityreview.com/will-global-economic-order-2050-look-like/
26. Grossman, G.M. and Krueger, A.B. (1995). Economic growth and the Environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443
27. Gül, H., & Akbıyık, A. (2021). Ekonomik büyüme, enerji tüketimi ve karbon emisyonları arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 35(2), 401–423.
28. Güney, T. and İnce, D. (2023). Solar energy and CO2 emissions: CCEMG estimations for 26 countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 2383-2400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01337-2
29. Hundie, S.K., Abdisa, L.T. Legas, H.A., Shumetie, A. and Alemayehu, F.K. (2025). Globalization and environmental sustainability in Ethiopia: Assessing the impact of economic factors and resource management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 519, 145886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145886
30. IEA (2025). Global Energy Review-CO2 Emissions. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025/co2-emissions
31. Kakar, S.K., Ali, J., Wang, J., Wu, X., Arshed, N., Hien, T.T.L. and Yadav, R.S. (2024). Exploring the impact of industrialization and electricity use on carbon emissions: The role of green FinTech in Asian countries using an asymmetric panel quantile ARDL approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 370, 122970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122970
32. Kandır, A., & Yücel, M. (2022). Yenilenebilir enerji üretiminin karbon salınımı üzerindeki etkisi: Türkiye üzerine ampirik bulgular. Uluslararası Enerji ve Çevre Ekonomisi Dergisi, 4(1), 11–29.
33. Karagöl, E., & Turhan, E. (2020). Çevresel Kuznets Eğrisi hipotezinin Türkiye için geçerliliği. Ege Akademik Bakış, 20(3), 453–467.
34. KOF-SEI (2025). Swiss Economic Institute, Globalization Index, https://kof.ethz.ch/en/
35. Küçükkaya, H., & Yılmaz, B. (2021). Sanayileşme ve çevre kirliliği ilişkisi: Türkiye ekonomisi üzerine bir analiz. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(4), 987–1006.
36. Li, Q. and Zhang, S. (2025). Impact of globalization and industrialization on ecological footprint: do institutional quality and renewable energy matter? Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13, 1535638. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1535638
37. Liang, Y., Ur Rahman, S., Shafaqat, A., Ali, A., Ali, M.S.E., Khan, H. (2024). Assessing sustainable development in E-7 countries: technology innovation, and energy consumption drivers of green growth and environment. Scientific Reports, 14, 28636. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-79908-9
38. Lu, R., Yang, Y., Liu, J. and 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, e33398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e33398
39. Menegaki, A.N. (2011). Growth and renewable energy in Europe: A random effect model with evidence for neutrality hypothesis. Energy Economics, 33(2), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.10.004
40. Moustafa, M.M.A. and Elroukh, A.W. (2025). The impact of globalization on environmental sustainability in Saudi Arabia. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 12, 101714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101714
41. Odei, S.A., Dunyo, S.K. and Anderson, J. (2025). Research and development, economic growth, CO2 emissions and environmental Kuznets curve. Sustainable Futures, 9, 100541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100541
42. Omri, A. and Nguyen, D.K. (2014). On the determinants of renewable energy consumption: International evidence. Energy, 72, 554–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.081
43. OWID (2025). Our World in Data, https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions
44. Patel, N. and Mehta, D. (2023). The asymmetry effect of industrialization, financial development and globalization on CO2 emissions in India. International Journal of Thermofluids, 20, 100397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2023.100397
45. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration; asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric Theory, 20, 597-625. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3533533
46. Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General diagnostic test for cross section dependence in panels. Working Paper, University of Cambridge & USC.
47. Pesaran, M.H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogenous panels with multifactor error structure. Econometrica, 74, 967-1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00692.x
48. Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of crosssection dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22 (2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.
49. Pesaran, M.H. and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142 (1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
50. PWC Report (2015). The World in 2050: Will the shift in global economic power continue?
51. Ruan, Y., Wang, W., Abubakar, M. and Ahmad, N. (2025). Global economic resilience: Developing green growth strategies, renewable energy integration, and environmental economics for sustainability. Renewable Energy, 251, 123341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.123341
52. Sadorsky, P. (2009). Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economies. Energy Policy, 37(10), 4021–4028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.003
53. Santos, F.D., Ferreira, P.L. and Pedersen, J.S.T. (2022). The climate change challenge: A review of the barriers and solutions to deliver a Paris solution. Climate, 10(75). https://doi.org/10.3390/cli10050075
54. Saqib, N., Abbas, S., Ozturk, I., Murshed, M., Tarczynska-Łuniewska, M., Alam, M.M. and Tarczynski, W. (2024). Leveraging environmental ICT for carbon neutrality: Analyzing the impact of financial development, renewable energy and human capital in top polluting economies. Gondwana Research, 126, 305-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.09.014
55. Shahbaz, M., Hye, Q.M.A., Tiwari, A.K. and Leitão, N.C. (2013). Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO₂ emissions in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.009
56. Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Zeshan, M. and Zaman, K. (2015). Does renewable energy consumption add in economic growth? An application of auto-regressive distributed lag model in Pakistan. 44, 576-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.017.
57. Sharif, A., Bashir, U., Mehmood, S., Cheong, C.W.H. and Bashir, M.F. (2024). Exploring the impact of green technology, renewable energy and globalization towards environmental sustainability in the top ecological impacted countries. Geoscience Frontiers, 15, 101895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2024.101895
58. Shivanna, K.R. (2022). Climate change and its impact on biodiversity and human welfare. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 88, 160-171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43538-022-00073-6
59. Sikder, M., Wanga, C., Yao, X., Huai, X., Wu, L., Yeboah, F.K., Wood, J., Zhao, Y. and Dou, X. (2022). The integrated impact of GDP growth, industrialization, energy use, and urbanization on CO2 emissions in developing countries: Evidence from the panel ARDL approach. Science of the Total Environment, 837, 155795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155795
60. Stern, D.I. (2004). The rise and fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development, 32(8), 1419–1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.03.004
61. UNIDO (2023). UNIDO country classification: Edition 2023. https://stat.unido.org/portal/storage/file/publications/country-classif-report-2023.pdf
62. Voumik, L.C. and Ridwan, M. (2023). Impact of FDI, industrialization, and education on the environment in Argentina: ARDL approach. Heliyon, 9, e12872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12872
63. WDI (2025). World Bank-World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
64. Westerlund, J. (2005). A panel CUSUM test of the null of cointegration. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67(2), 231-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2004.00118.x
65. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
66. Wu, K. and Ampong, S.A. (2025). The synergistic impact of renewable energy and the digital economy on CO2 emissions in Africa. Sustainable Futures, 10, 100921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100921
67. Xiu, G. (2025). Analyzing the impact of supply chain and digitalization in the Chinese economy: What is the role of energy consumption, government expenditure, and industrialization in environmental pollution? Energy Economics, 145, 108412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108412
68. Xu, X. and Lieuea, B. (2025). Contribution of modern renewables to final energy consumption, energy intensity, and environmental quality: The role of world energy balances, economic performance, and shadow economies. Energy, 332, 137191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.137191
69. Yang, Z., Kagawa, S. and Jing, L (2021). Do greenhouse gas emissions drive extreme weather conditions at the city level in China? Evidence from spatial effects analysis. Urban Climate, 37, 100812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100812
70. Yurtkuran, S. (2023). Finansal küreselleşme ve çevre kalitesi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye’den kanıtlar. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 21(2), 75–90.
71. Yurtkuran, S. (2025). The impact of energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D spending on environmental quality: Evidence from Germany by cross-quantilogram approach. Renewable Energy, 253, 123615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.123615
72. Zhang, Y., Radmehr, R., Ali, E.B. and Samour, A. (2025). Natural resources, financial globalization, renewable energy, and environmental quality: Novel findings from top natural resource abundant countries. Gondwana Research, 145, 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.12.016