Avrupa Birliği’nde Teknoloji, Verimlilik ve Çevresel Sürdürülebilirliğe Yeni Bir Bakış Açısı

Öz

Bu çalışma, 1996–2021 yılları arasında seçilmiş Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde ekonomik büyüme, enerji tüketimi, teknoloji ve verimlilik odaklı teknolojinin çevresel bozulma üzerindeki etkisini incelemektedir. Çalışmada, çevresel gösterge olarak yük kapasite faktörü kullanılarak ve kesitselolarak genişletilmiş gecikmesi dağıtılmış otoregresif (CS-ARDL) methodu uygulanarak, çevresel kuznets eğrisi (EKC) hipotezi doğrulanmıştır; bu da ekonomik büyümenin çevre üzerindeki baskısını sürdürdüğünü göstermektedir. Enerji tüketiminin çevresel bozulmaya önemli ölçüde katkıda bulunduğu tespit edilirken, yaygın kanının aksine, teknolojik gelişmelerin tek başına bu sorunu azaltmadığı belirlenmiştir. Bunun yerine, çalışmada verimlilik odaklı teknolojilerin çevresel bozulmayı azaltmada daha etkili olduğu vurgulanmaktadır. Politika önerileri, yeşil büyüme stratejileri, enerji verimliliği artırımı, sektörel enerji kotaları ve teknoloji paylaşımında uluslararası iş birliği ihtiyacını öne çıkarmaktadır. Teknolojik gelişmelerin verimliliği artırması ve çevresel bozulmayı azaltması gerektiğine özellikle dikkat edilmelidir. Bu bulgular, sürdürülebilir çevresel sonuçlar için verimlilik ve teknolojik ilerlemenin uyumlu hale getirilmesinin önemini literatüre kazandırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ekonomik büyüme
• teknoloji
• verimlilik yoğun teknoloji
• çevresel kalite
• enerji tüketimi

A New Perspective on Technology, Productivity, and Environmental Sustainability in the European Union

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, technology, and productivity intensive technology in the context of environmental degradation across selected European Union countries from 1996 to 2021. Utilizing the cross sectionally augmented autoregressive distributed lag model (CS-ARDL) and the load capacity factor as an environmental proxy, the findings confirm environmental kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis indicating that economic growth continues to exert pressure on the environment. While energy consumption significantly contributes to environmental degradation, contrary to popular belief, technological advancements alone do not mitigate this issue. Instead, the study highlights that productivity intensive technologies are more effective in reducing environmental degradation. Policy recommendations emphasize the need for green growth strategies, energy efficiency improvements, sectoral energy quotas, and international cooperation in technology sharing. Special attention should be given to ensuring that technological development increases productivity and reduces environmental degradation. The findings contribute to the literature by highlighting the significance of aligning productivity and technological advancement for sustainable environmental outcomes.

Keywords

• economic growth
• technology
• productivity intensive technology
• environmental quality
• energy consumption

Kaynakça

1. Abid, A., Mehmood, U., Tariq, S., & Haq, Z. U. (2022). The effect of technological innovation, FDI, and financial development on CO2 emission: Evidence from the G8 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(8), 11654–11662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15993-x
2. Acaroğlu, H., Kartal, H. M., & García Márquez, F. P. (2023). Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in terms of ecological footprint and CO2 emissions through energy diversification for Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(22), 63289–63304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26278-w
3. Addai, K., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2023). Insights from Poland on the long-run effect of energy productivity on environmental degradation: A Fourier ARDL-based approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(23), 63453–63463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26595-0
4. Addai, K., Kirikkaleli, D., & Altuntaş, M. (2023). Energy productivity and environmental degradation in the Netherlands: Evidence from the novel Fourier-based estimators. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(30), 75943–75956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27535-8
5. Addai, K., Ozbay, R. D., Castanho, R. A., Genc, S. Y., Couto, G., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2022). Energy Productivity and Environmental Degradation in Germany: Evidence from Novel Fourier Approaches. Sustainability, 14(24), 16911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416911
6. Adebayo, T. S., & Kirikkaleli, D. (2021). Impact of renewable energy consumption, globalization, and technological innovation on environmental degradation in Japan: Application of wavelet tools. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 16057–16082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01322-2
7. Adebayo, T. S., Oladipupo, S. D., Adeshola, I., & Rjoub, H. (2022). Wavelet analysis of impact of renewable energy consumption and technological innovation on CO2 emissions: Evidence from Portugal. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(16), 23887–23904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17708-8
8. Adedoyin, F. F., Alola, A. A., & Bekun, F. V. (2020). An assessment of environmental sustainability corridor: The role of economic expansion and research and development in EU countries. Science of The Total Environment, 713, 136726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136726

9. Ahmad, M., Jiang, P., Murshed, M., Shehzad, K., Akram, R., Cui, L., & Khan, Z. (2021). Modelling the dynamic linkages between eco-innovation, urbanization, economic growth and ecological footprints for G7 countries: Does financial globalization matter? Sustainable Cities and Society, 70, 102881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102881
10. Ajmi, A. N., & Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2021). Revisiting the Kuznets curve hypothesis for Tunisia: Carbon dioxide vs. Ecological footprint. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 16(5), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2020.1850923
11. Ali, S., Yusop, Z., Kaliappan, S. R., & Chin, L. (2021). Trade-environment nexus in OIC countries: Fresh insights from environmental Kuznets curve using GHG emissions and ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(4), 4531–4548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10845-6
12. Alola, A. A., & Ozturk, I. (2021). Mirroring risk to investment within the EKC hypothesis in the United States. Journal of Environmental Management, 293, 112890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112890
13. Alper, A. E., Alper, F. O., Ozayturk, G., & Mike, F. (2022). Testing the long-run impact of economic growth, energy consumption, and globalization on ecological footprint: New evidence from Fourier bootstrap ARDL and Fourier bootstrap Toda–Yamamoto test results. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(15), 42873–42888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18610-7
14. Altıntaş, H., & Kassouri, Y. (2020). Is the environmental Kuznets Curve in Europe related to the per-capita ecological footprint or CO2 emissions? Ecological Indicators, 113, 106187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106187
15. Ansari, M. A. (2022). Re-visiting the Environmental Kuznets curve for ASEAN: A comparison between ecological footprint and carbon dioxide emissions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, 112867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112867
16. Anser, M. K., Hanif, I., Vo, X. V., & Alharthi, M. (2020). The long-run and short-run influence of environmental pollution, energy consumption, and economic activities on health quality in emerging countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(26), 32518–32532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09348-1
17. Ayad, H., Shuaib, M., Hossain, Md. E., Haseeb, M., Kamal, M., & Ur Rehman, M. (2024). Re-examining the Environmental Kuznets Curve in MENA Countries: Is There Any Difference Using Ecological Footprint and CO2 Emissions? Environmental Modeling & Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-024-09977-7
18. Azam, M., Liu, L., & Ahmad, N. (2021). Impact of institutional quality on environment and energy consumption: Evidence from developing world. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(2), 1646–1667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00644-x
19. Bai, J., & Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration. Econometrica, 72(4), 1127–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00528.x
20. Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D., & Farhani, S. (2018). How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions? Energy Policy, 113, 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.050
21. Bilgili, F., Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Kuşkaya, S., Alnour, M., Önderol, S., & Hoque, M. E. (2023). Are research and development on energy efficiency and energy sources effective in the level of CO2 emissions? Fresh evidence from EU data. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03641-y
22. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange Multiplier Test and its Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
23. Caglar, A. E., Destek, M. A., & Manga, M. (2024). Analyzing the load capacity curve hypothesis for the Turkiye: A perspective for the sustainable environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 444, 141232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141232
24. Chen, F., Ali, S., Ma, J., Arshad, S., & Ahmad, S. (2023). Material productivity and environmental degradation: Moderating role of environment-related technologies in achieving carbon neutrality. Gondwana Research, 117, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.01.010
25. Chen, Y., & Lee, C.-C. (2020). Does technological innovation reduce CO2 emissions?Cross-country evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121550
26. Cheng, C., Ren, X., Wang, Z., & Yan, C. (2019). Heterogeneous impacts of renewable energy and environmental patents on CO2 emission—Evidence from the BRIICS. Science of The Total Environment, 668, 1328–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.063
27. Chudik, A., Mohaddes, K., Pesaran, M. H., & Raissi, M. (2016). Long-Run Effects in Large Heterogeneous Panel Data Models with Cross-Sectionally Correlated Errors. In G. GonzÁlez-Rivera, R. C. Hill, & T.-H. Lee (Eds.), Advances in Econometrics (Vol. 36, pp. 85–135). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0731-905320160000036013
28. Chudik, A., & Pesaran, M. H. (2015). 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
29. Daigneault, A., Sohngen, B., & Sedjo, R. (2012). Economic Approach to Assess the Forest Carbon Implications of Biomass Energy. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(11), 5664–5671. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2030142
30. Destek, M. A., Ulucak, R., & Dogan, E. (2018). Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: The role of ecological footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(29), 29387–29396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2911-4
31. Dogan, E., & Inglesi-Lotz, R. (2020). The impact of economic structure to the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis: Evidence from European countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(11), 12717–12724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07878-2
32. EIA. (2016). International Energy Outlook 2016. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2016).pdf
33. European Central Bank. (2024). Digitalisation and productivity: A report by the ESCB expert group on productivity, innovation and technological change. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2866/907812
34. Eurostat. (2022). R&D expenditure. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=R%26D_expenditure&oldid=551418#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20EU%20research%20and,year%20when%20it%20recorded%202.27%20%25.&text=In%202022%2C%20the%20EU%20spent,compared%20with%202.08%20%25%20in%202012.
35. Frodyma, K., Papież, M., & Śmiech, S. (2022). Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve in the European Union countries. Energy, 241, 122899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.122899
36. Global Footprint Network. (2017). How Ecological Footprint accounting helps us recognize that engaging in meaningful climate action is critical for our own success. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/2017/11/09/ecological-footprint-climate-change/#:~:text=Currently%2C%20the%20carbon%20Footprint%20makes,60%25%20of%20humanity's%20Ecological%20Footprint.
37. Global Footprint Network. (2024). Global Footprint Network. https://data.footprintnetwork.org/?_ga=2.133828806.951887049.1748634600-1863298122.1707051840#/
38. Gormus, S., & Aydin, M. (2020). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using innovation: New evidence from the top 10 innovative economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(22), 27904–27913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09110-7
39. Grossman, G., & Krueger, A. (1991). Environmental Impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (No. w3914; p. w3914). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w3914
40. IEA. (2019). World Energy Outlook 2019. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2019
41. Javed, A., Rapposelli, A., Khan, F., & Javed, A. (2023). 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, 191, 122534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122534
42. Jóźwik, B., Gavryshkiv, A.-V., Kyophilavong, P., & Gruszecki, L. E. (2021). Revisiting the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Case of Central Europe. Energies, 14(12), 3415. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14123415
43. Kar, A. K. (2022). Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions in Baltic countries: An empirical investigation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(31), 47189–47208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19103-3
44. Khan, A. A., Khan, S. U., Ali, M. A. S., Safi, A., Gao, Y., Ali, M., & Luo, J. (2022). Role of institutional quality and renewable energy consumption in achieving carbon neutrality: Case study of G-7 economies. Science of The Total Environment, 814, 152797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152797
45. Kirikkaleli, D., Ali, M., Kondoz, M., & Dördüncü, H. (2022). The linear and nonlinear effects of energy productivity on environmental degradation in Cyprus. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(4), 9886–9897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22880-6
46. Koçak, E., & Ulucak, Z. Ş. (2019). The effect of energy R&D expenditures on CO2 emission reduction: Estimation of the STIRPAT model for OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(14), 14328–14338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04712-2
47. Kuznets, S. (1955). Economic Growth and Income Inequality. The American Economic Review, 45(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1811581
48. Larcher, D., & Tarascon, J.-M. (2015). Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical energy storage. Nature Chemistry, 7(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2085
49. Li, R., Wang, X., & Wang, Q. (2022). Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 346, 131207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131207
50. Liu, P.-Z., Narayan, S., Ren, Y.-S., Jiang, Y., Baltas, K., & Sharp, B. (2022). Re-Examining the Income–CO2 Emissions Nexus Using the New Kink Regression Model: Does the Kuznets Curve Exist in G7 Countries? Sustainability, 14(7), 3955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073955
51. Mohsin, M., Naseem, S., Sarfraz, M., & Azam, T. (2022). Assessing the effects of fuel energy consumption, foreign direct investment and GDP on CO2 emission: New data science evidence from Europe & Central Asia. Fuel, 314, 123098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2021.123098
52. Mongo, M., Belaïd, F., & Ramdani, B. (2021). The effects of environmental innovations on CO2 emissions: Empirical evidence from Europe. Environmental Science & Policy, 118, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.004
53. Mushafiq, M., & Prusak, B. (2023). Resource productivity and environmental degradation in EU-27 countries: Context of material footprint. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(20), 58536–58552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-26631-z
54. Nathaniel, S. P., & Bekun, F. V. (2020). Environmental management amidst energy use, urbanization, trade openness, and deforestation: The Nigerian experience. Journal of Public Affairs, 20(2), e2037. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2037
55. OECD. (2024). Multifactor productivity. https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/multifactor-productivity.html
56. Oluc, I., Ben Jebli, M., Can, M., Guzel, I., & Brusselaers, J. (2023). The productive capacity and environment: Evidence from OECD countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(2), 3453–3466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22341-0
57. Osobajo, O. A., Otitoju, A., Otitoju, M. A., & Oke, A. (2020). The Impact of Energy Consumption and Economic Growth on Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Sustainability, 12(19), 7965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197965 Our World in Data. (2024). Data Catalog. https://ourworldindata.org/data
58. Panayotou, T. (1993). Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. International Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/1993/93B09_31_engl.pdf
59. Paramati, S. R., Shahzad, U., & Doğan, B. (2022). The role of environmental technology for energy demand and energy efficiency: Evidence from OECD countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 153, 111735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111735
60. Pata, U. K. (2021). Do renewable energy and health expenditures improve load capacity factor in the USA and Japan? A new approach to environmental issues. The European Journal of Health Economics, 22(9), 1427–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-021-01321-0
61. Pata, U. K., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2022). Exploring the impact of tourism and energy consumption on the load capacity factor in Turkey: A novel dynamic ARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(9), 13491–13503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-16675-4
62. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.572504
63. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
64. Rasoulinezhad, E., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2020). How Is Mortality Affected by Fossil Fuel Consumption, CO2 Emissions and Economic Factors in CIS Region? Energies, 13(9), 2255. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092255
65. Rees, W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, 4(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789200400212
66. Saqib, M., & Benhmad, F. (2021). Does ecological footprint matter for the shape of the environmental Kuznets curve? Evidence from European countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(11), 13634–13648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11517-1
67. Saqib, N., Ozturk, I., Usman, M., Sharif, A., & Razzaq, A. (2023). Pollution Haven or Halo? How European countries leverage FDI, energy, and human capital to alleviate their ecological footprint. Gondwana Research, 116, 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2022.12.018
68. Sarkodie, S. A., & Strezov, V. (2019). Effect of foreign direct investments, economic development and energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. Science of The Total Environment, 646, 862–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.365
69. Science, technology and innovation in Europe (2010 ed). (2010). Publications Office of the European Union. Shafiee, S., & Topal, E. (2009). When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy Policy, 37(1), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.08.016
70. Shahbaz, M., Ozturk, I., Afza, T., & Ali, A. (2013). Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25, 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.021
71. Siche, R., Pereira, L., Agostinho, F., & Ortega, E. (2010). Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 15(10), 3182–3192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2009.10.027
72. Sun, A., Bao, K., Aslam, M., Gu, X., Khan, Z., & Fakhriddinovich Uktamov, K. (2024). Testing load capacity and environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for China: Evidence from novel dynamic autoregressive distributed lags model. Gondwana Research, 129, 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.07.018
73. Tıraşoğlu, M. (2017). Doğrusal Olmayan Panel Birim Kök Testleri: E7 Ülkelerinde Gelir Yakinsamasinin Araştirilmasi. İstanbul Üniversitesi.
74. Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.191
75. Wang, R., Mirza, N., Vasbieva, D. G., Abbas, Q., & Xiong, D. (2020). The nexus of carbon emissions, financial development, renewable energy consumption, and technological innovation: What should be the priorities in light of COP 21 Agreements? Journal of Environmental Management, 271, 111027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111027
76. Wang, R., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., Cifuentes-Faura, J., & Balsalobre-Lorente, D. (2023). Achieving ecological sustainability through technological innovations, financial development, foreign direct investment, and energy consumption in developing European countries. Gondwana Research, 119, 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.02.023
77. Wang, S., Wasif Zafar, M., Vasbieva, D. G., & Yurtkuran, S. (2024). Economic growth, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and environmental quality: Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve and load capacity curve hypothesis. Gondwana Research, 129, 490–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2023.06.009
78. Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97(3), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
79. World Bank-WDI. (2024a). GDP per capita (current US$). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2021&start=1996&view=chart
80. World Bank-WDI. (2024b). Patent applications. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IP.PAT.RESD
81. Wu, H., Xue, Y., Hao, Y., & Ren, S. (2021). How does internet development affect energy-saving and emission reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Economics, 103, 105577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105577
82. Xia, W., Apergis, N., Bashir, M. F., Ghosh, S., Doğan, B., & Shahzad, U. (2022). Investigating the role of globalization, and energy consumption for environmental externalities: Empirical evidence from developed and developing economies. Renewable Energy, 183, 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.10.084
83. Xu, C., Yiwen, Z., Cheng, B., Li, L., & Zhang, M. (2020). Study on environmental Kuznets Curve for noise pollution: A case of 111 Chinese cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 63, 102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102493
84. Zafar, M. W., Sinha, A., Ahmed, Z., Qin, Q., & Zaidi, S. A. H. (2021). Effects of biomass energy consumption on environmental quality: The role of education and technology in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 142, 110868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110868
85. Zhen, Z., Ullah, S., Shaowen, Z., & Irfan, M. (2023). How do renewable energy consumption, financial development, and technical efficiency change cause ecological sustainability in European Union countries? Energy & Environment, 34(7), 2478–2496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X221109949