Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Energy consumption and innovation-environmental degradation nexus in BRICS countries: new evidence from NARDL approach using carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The BRICS nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—have grown significantly in importance over the past few decades, playing a vital role in the development and growth of the global economy. This expansion has not been without cost, either, since these countries’ concern over environmental deterioration has risen sharply. Both researchers and decision-makers have focused a lot of attention on the connection between economic growth and ecological sustainability. By using nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) approach, the complex relationships were analyzed between important economic indicators—such as gross domestic product (GDP), ecological innovations (EI), energy consumption (ENC), institutional performance (IP), and trade openness (TOP)—and their effect on carbon emissions and nitrous oxide emissions in the BRICS countries from 1990 to 2021, this study seeks to contribute to this important dialog. Principal component analysis is formed for technological innovations and institutional performance using six (ICT service exports as a percentage of service exports, computer communications as a percentage of commercial service exports, fixed telephone subscriptions per 100 people, internet users as a percentage of the population, number of patent applications, and R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP) and twelve (government stability, investment profile, socioeconomic conditions, internal conflict, external conflict, military in politics, control of corruption, religious tensions, ethnic tensions, law and order, bureaucracy quality, and democratic accountability) distinct indicators, respectively. The results of nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag estimation show that increase in economic growth would increase carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions. The positive and negative shocks in trade openness have positive and significant impact on carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions in BRICS countries. Furthermore, the positive shock energy consumptions have positive and significant effect on Brazil and India when carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions are used. However, EKC exists in BRICS countries when carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions are used. According to long-term estimation, energy consumption and technological innovations in the BRICS countries show a strong and adverse link with nitrous oxide and a favorable relationship with carbon dioxide emissions. In the long run, environmental indicators are seen to have a major and unfavorable impact in BRICS nations. Finally, it is proposed that BRICS nations can assure environmental sustainability if they support creative activities, enhance their institutions, and support free trade policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Graph 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data can be available on request.

References

  • Abbas S, Gui P, Chen A, Ali N (2022) The effect of renewable energy development, market regulation, and environmental innovation on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:59483–59501

    Google Scholar 

  • Adebayo TS, Kirikkaleli D (2021) Impact of renewable energy consumption, globalization, and technological innovation on environmental degradation in Japan: application of wavelet tools. Environ Dev Sustain 23:16057–16082

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahl A, Yarime M, Tanaka K, Sagawa D (2019) Review of blockchain-based distributed energy: Implications for institutional development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 107:200–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad M, Jiang P, Majeed A, Umar M, Khan Z, Muhammad S (2020) The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced panel data estimation. Resour Policy 69:101817

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed K, Ozturk I (2018) What new technology means for the energy demand in China? A sustainable development perspective. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:29766–29771

    Google Scholar 

  • Albino V, Ardito L, Dangelico RM, Petruzzelli AM (2014) Understanding the development trends of low-carbon energy technologies: a patent analysis. Appl Energy 135:836–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldakhil AM, Zaheer A, Younas S, Nassani AA, Abro MMQ, Zaman K (2019) Efficiently managing green information and communication technologies, high-technology exports, and research and development expenditures: a case study. J Clean Prod 240:118164

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali S, Yusop Z, Kaliappan SR, Chin L (2020) Dynamic common correlated effects of trade openness, FDI, and institutional performance on environmental quality: evidence from OIC countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:11671–11682

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali W, Abdullah A, Azam M (2016) The dynamic linkage between technological innovation and carbon dioxide emissions in Malaysia: an autoregressive distributed lagged bound approach. Int J Energy Econ Policy 6:389–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Aneja VP, Schlesinger WH, Li Q, Nahas A, Battye WH (2019) Characterization of atmospheric nitrous oxide emissions from global agricultural soils. SN Appl Sci 1:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001a) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91:877–908

    Google Scholar 

  • Antweiler W, Copeland R, Taylor MS (2001b) Is free trade good for the emissions: 1950–2050. Rev Econ Stat 80:15–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Aye GC, Edoja PE (2017) Effect of economic growth on CO2 emission in developing countries: evidence from a dynamic panel threshold model. Cogent Econ Financ 5:1379239

    Google Scholar 

  • Azam M, Liu L, Ahmad N (2021) Impact of institutional quality on environment and energy consumption: evidence from developing world. Environ Dev Sustain 23:1646–1667

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsalobre-Lorente D, Gokmenoglu KK, Taspinar N, Cantos-Cantos JM (2019) An approach to the pollution haven and pollution halo hypotheses in MINT countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:23010–23026

    Google Scholar 

  • Bashir MF, Ma B, Komal B, Bashir MA, Tan D, Bashir M (2020) Correlation between climate indicators and COVID-19 pandemic in New York, USA. Sci Total Environ 728:138835

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer T, Koubi V (2009) Effects of political institutions on air quality. Ecol Econ 68:1355–1365

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya S, Agarwal AK, Chanda N, Pandey A, Sen AK (2017) Environmental, chemical and medical sensors. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilgili F, Kuşkaya S, Khan M, Awan A, Türker O (2021) The roles of economic growth and health expenditure on CO2 emissions in selected Asian countries: a quantile regression model approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:44949–44972

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Breuer JL, Samsun RC, Stolten D, Peters R (2021) How to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution caused by light and heavy duty vehicles with battery-electric, fuel cell-electric and catenary trucks. Environ Int 152:106474

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown RL, Durbin J, Evans JM (1975) Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relationships over time. J Roy Stat Soc: Ser B (methodol) 37:149–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Lundström S (2003) The effects of economic and political freedom on CO2 emissions. Working Papers in Economics 29:79–94

  • Chaudhry IS, Ali S, Faheem M, Farooq F (2019) Institutional performance and trade-led growth hypothesis: evidence from Pakistan. Rev Appl Manag Soc Sci 2:59–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta P, Mäler K-G (2004) The economics of non-convex ecosystems: introduction. Springer, The economics of non-convex ecosystems

    Google Scholar 

  • Destek MA, Ulucak R, Dogan E (2018) Analyzing the environmental Kuznets curve for the EU countries: the role of ecological footprint. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:29387–29396

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74:427–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinda S (2018) Production technology and carbon emission: long-run relation with short-run dynamics. J Appl Econ 21:106–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Dou Y, Zhao J, Malik MN, Dong K (2021) Assessing the impact of trade openness on CO2 emissions: evidence from China-Japan-ROK FTA countries. J Environ Manage 296:113241

    Google Scholar 

  • Du L, Razzaq A, Waqas M (2023) The impact of COVID-19 on small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): empirical evidence for green economic implications. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30:1540–1561

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of population growth: complacency concerning this component of man’s predicament is unjustified and counterproductive. Science 171:1212–1217

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ertugrul HM, Cetin M, Seker F, Dogan E (2016) The impact of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from the top ten emitters among developing countries. Ecol Ind 67:543–555

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher KP, Thacker SC (2008) Democracy, income, and environmental quality. PERI Working Papers 124:1–27. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1135&context=peri_workingpapers

  • Garrone P, Grilli L (2010) Is there a relationship between public expenditures in energy R&D and carbon emissions per GDP? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy 38:5600–5613

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (no. w3914). National Bureau of Economic Research, pp 1–39. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3914/w3914.pdf

  • Haldar A, Sethi N (2021) Effect of institutional quality and renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions− an empirical investigation for developing countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(12):15485–15503. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-020-11532-2

  • Ibrahim MH (2015) Oil and food prices in Malaysia: a nonlinear ARDL analysis. Agric Food Econ 3:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim MH, Law SH (2016) Institutional quality and CO2 emission–trade relations: evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. South Afr J Econ 84:323–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Jafri MAH, Abbas S, Abbas SMY, Ullah S (2022) Caring for the environment: measuring the dynamic impact of remittances and FDI on CO2 emissions in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:9164–9172

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahanger A, Hossain MR, Onwe JC, Ogwu SO, Awan A, Balsalobre-Lorente D (2023a) Analyzing the N-shaped EKC among top nuclear energy generating nations: a novel dynamic common correlated effects approach. Gondwana Res 116:73–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahanger A, Ozturk I, Onwe JC, Joseph TE, Hossain MR (2023b) Do technology and renewable energy contribute to energy efficiency and carbon neutrality? Evidence from top ten manufacturing countries. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 56:103084

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalil SA, Habibullah MS (2013) Impact of Kyoto Protocol and institutional factors on carbon dioxide emissions in Asia-Pacific Region. J Emerg Econ Islamic Res (JEEIR) 1:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Katrakilidis C, Trachanas E (2012) What drives housing price dynamics in Greece: new evidence from asymmetric ARDL cointegration. Econ Model 29:1064–1069

    Google Scholar 

  • Khattak SI, Ahmad M, Khan ZU, Khan A (2020) Exploring the impact of innovation, renewable energy consumption, and income on CO2 emissions: new evidence from the BRICS economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:13866–13881

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim D-H, Lin S-C (2009) Trade and growth at different stages of economic development. J Dev Stud 45:1211–1224

    Google Scholar 

  • Law SH, Tan HB, Azman-Saini W (2014) Financial development and income inequality at different levels of institutional quality. Emerg Mark Financ Trade 50:21–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Le HP, Ozturk I (2020) The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO2 emissions in the presence of environmental Kuznets curve. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:22680–22697

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leal PH, Marques AC (2021) The environmental impacts of globalisation and corruption: evidence from a set of African countries. Environ Sci Policy 115:116–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Li M, Wang Q (2017) Will technology advances alleviate climate change? Dual effects of technology change on aggregate carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Sustain Dev 41:61–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Li R, Jiang H, Sotnyk I, Kubatko O, Almashaqbeh YAI (2020) The CO2 emissions drivers of post-communist economies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Atmosphere 11:1019

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liao X, Dogan E, Baek J (2017) Does corruption matter for the environment? Panel evidence from China. Economics 11(1):20170027. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2017-27

  • Lin B, Zhu J (2019) The role of renewable energy technological innovation on climate change: empirical evidence from China. Sci Total Environ 659:1505–1512

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lin F (2017) Trade openness and air pollution: city-level empirical evidence from China. China Econ Rev 45:78–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Liobikienė G, Butkus M (2019) Scale, composition, and technique effects through which the economic growth, foreign direct investment, urbanization, and trade affect greenhouse gas emissions. Renew Energy 132:1310–1322

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu W, Xu J, She S (2023) Green economic development by increasing efficiency of natural resource consumption. Resour Policy 85:103961

    Google Scholar 

  • Managi S, Hibiki A, Tsurumi T (2009) Does trade openness improve environmental quality? J Environ Econ Manag 58:346–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehmood U, Tariq S, Ul-Haq Z, Meo MS (2021) Does the modifying role of institutional quality remains homogeneous in GDP-CO2 emission nexus? New evidence from ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:10167–10174

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mensah CN, Long X, Boamah KB, Bediako IA, Dauda L, Salman M (2018) The effect of innovation on CO2 emissions of OCED countries from 1990 to 2014. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:29678–29698

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mngumi F, Shaorong S, Shair F, Waqas M (2022) Does green finance mitigate the effects of climate variability: role of renewable energy investment and infrastructure. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:59287–59299

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohsin M, Naseem S, Zia-ur-Rehman M, Baig SA, Salamat S (2023) The crypto-trade volume, GDP, energy use, and environmental degradation sustainability: an analysis of the top 20 crypto-trader countries. Int J Financ Econ 28:651–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Mongo M, Belaid F, Ramdani B (2021) The effects of environmental innovations on CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from Europe. Environ Sci Policy 118:1–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Muhammad S, Long X (2021) Rule of law and CO2 emissions: a comparative analysis across 65 belt and road initiative (BRI) countries. J Clean Prod 279:123539

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mujtaba A, Jena PK (2021) Analyzing asymmetric impact of economic growth, energy use, FDI inflows, and oil prices on CO2 emissions through NARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:30873–30886

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyangchak N (2022) Emerging green industry toward net-zero economy: a systematic review. J Clean Prod 378:1–19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652622041944?via%3Dihub

  • Ojekemi OS, Rjoub H, Awosusi AA, Agyekum EB (2022) Toward a sustainable environment and economic growth in BRICS economies: do innovation and globalization matter? Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:57740–57757

    Google Scholar 

  • Padhan H, Padhang PC, Tiwari AK, Ahmed R, Hammoudeh S (2020) Renewable energy consumption and robust globalization (s) in OECD countries: do oil, carbon emissions and economic activity matter? Energ Strat Rev 32:100535

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Economet 16:289–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips PC, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75:335–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman SU, Chaudhry IS, Meo MS, Sheikh SM, Idrees S (2022) Asymmetric effect of FDI and public expenditure on population health: new evidence from Pakistan based on non-linear ARDL. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1–16. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-17525-z

  • Raiser K, Naims H, Bruhn T (2017) Corporatization of the climate? Innovation, intellectual property rights, and patents for climate change mitigation. Energy Res Soc Sci 27:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs JD, Warner A (1995) Natural resource abundance and economic growth (no. w5398). National Bureau of Economic Research, pp 1–47. https://www.nber.org/papers/w5398

  • Sahu SK, Kamboj S (2019) Decomposition analysis of GHG emissions in emerging economies. J Econ Dev 44(3):59–77. https://jed.cau.ac.kr/archives/44-3/44-3-4.pdf

  • Saleem H, Khan MB, Shabbir MS (2020) The role of financial development, energy demand, and technological change in environmental sustainability agenda: evidence from selected Asian countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:5266–5280

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2019) A review on environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using bibliometric and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 649:128–145

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs L, Rivera C (2008) Political regimes, democratic institutions and environmental sustainability: a cross-national analysis. In: Proceedings of the Midwest Political Science Association Meeting in Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, vol 36, pp 1–39

  • Shahbaz M, Nasir MA, Roubaud D (2018) Environmental degradation in France: the effects of FDI, financial development, and energy innovations. Energy Econ 74:843–857

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin Y, Yu B, Greenwood-Nimmo M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. Festschrift in honor of Peter Schmidt. Econometric methods and applications, 281–314. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9

  • Shtudiner ZE, Klein G, Kantor J (2018) How religiosity affects the attitudes of communities towards tourism in a sacred city: the case of Jerusalem. Tour Manage 69:167–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabassum N, Rahman SU, Zafar M, Ghaffar M (2023) Institutional quality, employment, trade openness on environment (Co2) nexus from top Co2 producing countries; panel ARDL approach. Rev Educ Adm Law 6:211–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang YM, Chau KY, Fatima A, Waqas M (2022) Industry 4.0 technology and circular economy practices: business management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29:49752–49769

    Google Scholar 

  • Twum FA, Long X, Salman M, Mensah CN, Kankam WA, Tachie AK (2021) The influence of technological innovation and human capital on environmental efficiency among different regions in Asia-Pacific. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:17119–17131

    Google Scholar 

  • Uddin GA, Salahuddin M, Alam K, Gow J (2017) Ecological footprint and real income: panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecol Ind 77:166–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Usman M, Rahman SU, Shafique MR, Sadiq A, Idrees S (2023) Renewable energy, trade and economic growth on nitrous oxide emission in G-7 countries using panel ARDL approach. J Soc Sci Rev 3:131–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasylieva T, Lyulyov O, Bilan Y, Streimikiene D (2019) Sustainable economic development and greenhouse gas emissions: the dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption, GDP, and corruption. Energies 12:3289

    Google Scholar 

  • Villanthenkodath MA, Mahalik MK (2022) Technological innovation and environmental quality nexus in India: does inward remittance matter? J Public Aff 22:e2291

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund J (2007) Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 69:709–748

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2018) Global economic prospects, January 2018: broad-based upturn, but for how long? The World Bank. https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-1-4648-1163-0

  • Yang S, Jahanger A, Hossain MR (2023) How effective has the low-carbon city pilot policy been as an environmental intervention in curbing pollution? Evidence from Chinese industrial enterprises. Energy Econ 118:106523

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu Y, Du Y (2019) Impact of technological innovation on CO2 emissions and emissions trend prediction on ‘new normal’ economy in China. Atmos Pollut Res 10:152–161

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeraibi A, Jahanger A, Adebayo TS, Ramzan M, Yu Y (2023) Greenfield investments, economic complexity, and financial inclusion-environmental quality nexus in BRICS countries: does renewable energy transition matter? Gondwana Res 117:139–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu L, Fang W, Rahman SU, Khan AI (2023) How solar-based renewable energy contributes to CO2 emissions abatement? Sustainable environment policy implications for solar industry. Energy Environ 34:359–378

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was sponsored in part by Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China (No.2022J01991).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Management, Fujian Business University, Fuzhou, 350012, China

    Bing Li

  2. Faculty of Economics & Commerce, Superior University Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan

    Saif Ur Rahman & Somia Younas

  3. Sunway Business School, Sunway University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

    Sahar Afshan

  4. Adnan Kassar School of Business, Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon

    Sahar Afshan

  5. School of Economics, Hainan University, Haikou, 570228, Hainan, China

    Azka Amin

  6. Institute of Energy Policy and Research, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang, 43000, Malaysia

    Azka Amin

  7. International Business School, Hainan University, Haikou, 570228, Hainan, China

    Azka Amin

Authors
  1. Bing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saif Ur Rahman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sahar Afshan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Azka Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Somia Younas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Bing Li; conceptualization and data curation. Saif Ur Rahman; methodology, writing—original draft, and data curation. Sahar Afshan; visualization, supervision, and editing. Azka Amin; writing—review and editing, and software. Somia Younas; conceptualization and original draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bing Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

We declare that we have no human participants, human data, or human tissues.

Consent for publication

N/A.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Arshian Sharif

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, B., Rahman, S.U., Afshan, S. et al. Energy consumption and innovation-environmental degradation nexus in BRICS countries: new evidence from NARDL approach using carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 113561–113586 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29927-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29927-2

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation