Sera Gazı Emisyonları, Enerji Kullanımı ve Ülke Riski: Türkiye’nin CDS Primlerinden ARDL–ECM Bulguları (2005–2023)

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 182 - 193, 26.03.2026

Bige Kucukefe , Nilüfer Kaya Kanlı

https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.1792565

https://izlik.org/JA84NS69CE

Öz

Bu çalışma, çevresel faktörlerin Türkiye’nin CDS primleri üzerindeki etkisini 2005–2023 dönemi için incelemektedir. Kişi başına sera gazı emisyonları, kişi başına enerji kullanımı ve beş yıllık CDS primlerine ilişkin yıllık veriler kullanılarak, hem kısa hem de uzun dönem dinamiklerini yakalamak amacıyla Otoregresif Dağıtılmış Gecikme (ARDL) sınır testi yaklaşımı ve buna bağlı Hata Düzeltme Modeli (ECM) uygulanmıştır. Birim kök testleri değişkenlerin farklı bütünleşme derecelerine sahip olduğunu göstermiş, bu da ARDL çerçevesini uygun kılmıştır. Ampirik sonuçlar, artan sera gazı emisyonlarının hem kısa hem de uzun dönemde CDS primlerini anlamlı şekilde yükselttiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Kişi başına enerji kullanımı ise daha karmaşık bir rol üstlenmektedir: eşanlı artışlar daha güçlü ekonomik kapasiteyi yansıtarak CDS primlerini düşürürken, gecikmeli etkilerde kısmi bir tersine dönüş gözlemlenmektedir. ECM sonuçları, uzun dönem dengesine hızlı bir uyum olduğunu teyit etmektedir; sapmaların yarısından fazlası bir yıl içinde düzelmektedir. Genel olarak bulgular, Türkiye’nin çevresel performansının egemen borçlanma maliyetlerinin bir belirleyicisi olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Politika açısından bakıldığında, sera gazı emisyonlarının azaltılması ve daha temiz enerji kaynaklarına geçiş, yalnızca çevresel açıdan değil, aynı zamanda uluslararası kredi piyasalarında egemen risk primlerini azaltarak finansal açıdan da rasyonel bir tercih olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

CDS primi , ülke riski , sera gazı emsiyonları , Türkiye

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Use, and Sovereign Risk: ARDL–ECM Evidence from Turkey’s CDS Spreads (2005–2023)

https://izlik.org/JA84NS69CE

Öz

This study investigates the impact of environmental factors on Turkey’s sovereign credit default swap (CDS) spreads over the period 2005–2023. Using annual data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per capita, energy use per capita, and five-year CDS spreads, we apply the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bounds testing approach and its associated Error Correction Model (ECM) to capture both short-run and long-run dynamics. Unit root tests reveal mixed integration orders, justifying the ARDL framework. The empirical results show that higher GHG emissions significantly increase CDS spreads in both the short and long run. Energy use per capita exhibits a more nuanced role: while contemporaneous increases reduce CDS spreads by signaling stronger economic capacity, lagged effects reveal partial reversal. The ECM results confirm a rapid adjustment toward long-run equilibrium, with over half of deviations corrected within one year. Overall, the findings underscore that Türkiye’s environmental performance is a determinant of its sovereign borrowing costs. From a policy perspective, reducing emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources are not only environmentally essential but also financially prudent, as they can mitigate sovereign risk premiums in international credit markets.

Anahtar Kelimeler

CDS premiums , sovereign risk , greenhouse gas emissions , Türkiye

Kaynakça

• Battiston, S., Mandel, A., Monasterolo, I., Schütze, F., & Visentin, G. (2017). A climate stress-test of the financial system. Nature Climate Change, 7(4), 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3255
• BIS (Bank for International Settlements). (2025). Climate change and sovereign risk: Evidence from bond yields. BIS Working Papers, No. 1275. https://www.bis.org
• Beirne, J., Renzhi, N., & Volz, U. (2021). Feeling the heat: Climate risks and the cost of sovereign borrowing. European Central Bank Working Paper Series No. 2554. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecb.wp2554~1cda0c1e5b.en.pdf
• Blasberg, A., Kiesel, R., & Taschini, L. (2024). Carbon default swap–disentangling the exposure to carbon risk through CDS. CESifo Working Paper No. 10016 CESifo Munich
• Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. (2021). Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 517–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.008
• Çevik, S., & Jalles, J. T. (2022). This changes everything: Climate shocks and sovereign bonds. Energy Economics, 107, 105856.
• de Boyrie, M. E., & Pavlova, I. (2020). Analysing the link between environmental performance and sovereign credit risk. Applied Economics, 52(54), 5949-5966.
• Diarra, I., & Jaber, A. (2022). Sovereign default risk and climate change: is it hot enough?. Available at SSRN 4193896.
• ECB (European Central Bank). (2023). Climate risk and the pricing of euro area sovereign bonds. ECB Occasional Paper, No. 317. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecb.op317~c96b1fdd3e.en.pdf
• Flammer, C. (2021). Corporate green bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.009
• Gratcheva, E. M., Gurhy, B., Skarnulis, A., Stewart, F. E., & Wang, D. (2022). Credit worthy: ESG factors and sovereign credit ratings. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/812471642603970256/pdf/Credit-Worthy-ESG-Factors-and-Sovereign-Credit-Ratings.pdf
• IMF. (2023). Climate change and sovereign risk: Fiscal and debt implications. International Monetary Fund Departmental Paper No. 23/12. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/DP/Issues/2023/05/03/Climate-Change-and-Sovereign-Risk-532353
• ISDA. (2023, May). CDS on U.S. Sovereign Debt: FAQ. International Swaps and Derivatives Association
• Jung, J., Herbohn, K., & Clarkson, P. (2018). Carbon risk, carbon risk awareness and the cost of debt financing. Journal of business ethics, 150(4), 1151-1171.
• Kling, G., Volz, U., Murinde, V., & Ayas, S. (2021). The impact of climate vulnerability on sovereign risk. Nature Climate Change, 11(10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01131-6
• Kozak, S. (2021). Will the reduction of co2 emissions lower the cost of debt financing? The case of EU countries. Energies, 14(24), 8361. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248361
• Longstaff, F. A., Pan, J., Pedersen, L. H., & Singleton, K. J. (2011). How sovereign is sovereign credit risk?. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3(2), 75-103.
• Moody’s Investors Service. (2022). Sovereign methodology update: Incorporating ESG considerations. Moody’s Corporation. https://ratings.moodys.com
• MSCI. (2017). ESG and sovereign credit risk. MSCI Research Insight Report. Retrieved from https://www.msci.com
• Naifar, N. (2023). Does climate change affect sovereign credit risk? International evidence. Borsa Istanbul Review, 23, S84-S95.
• NGFS (Network for Greening the Financial System). (2022). Scenarios for central banks and supervisors: Climate scenarios and macro-financial risks. NGFS Publications. https://www.ngfs.net
• Nguyen, H., & Phan, H. (2020). Corporate carbon risk and bankruptcy: Evidence from Altman Z-score analysis. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(6), 1181–1200.
• OECD. (2023). Climate-related transition risks and sovereign financing conditions. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264856547
• Pan, J., & Singleton, K. J. (2008). Default and recovery implicit in the term structure of sovereign CDS spreads. The Journal of Finance, 63(5), 2345-2384.
• 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.
• Semet, R., Roncalli, T., & Stagnol, L. (2021). ESG and sovereign risk: what is priced in by the bond market and credit rating agencies?. Available at SSRN 3940945.
• UNEP FI. (2022). Environmental risk integration in sovereign credit (E-RISC): Assessing the impact of environmental factors on sovereign credit risk. United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. https://www.unepfi.org/publications/environmental-risk-integration-in-sovereign-credit-e-risc
• Wang A, Zhang M., & Zhou S. (2022). Air Pollution, Environmental Violation Risk, and the Cost of Debt: Evidence from China. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health, 19(6), 3584. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19063584.
• Yao, S., Pan, Y., Sensoy, A., Uddin, G. S., & Cheng, F. (2021). Green credit policy and firm performance: What we learn from China. Energy Economics, 101, 105415.
• Zenios, S. A. (2022). The risks from climate change to sovereign debt. Climatic Change, 172(3), 30.
• Zerbib, O. D. (2019). The effect of pro-environmental preferences on bond prices: Evidence from green bonds. Journal of Banking & Finance, 98, 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2018.10.012
• Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., & Wang, H. (2023). How credit default swap market measures carbon risk. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(34), 82696-82716.
• Zhang, L., & Zhao, B. (2022). Carbon emissions and credit risk: Evidence from corporate CDS spreads. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 79, 101582.