Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 23, pp 22641–22657 | Cite as

The impact of biomass energy consumption on pollution: evidence from 80 developed and developing countries

  • Sakiru Adebola SolarinEmail author
  • Usama Al-Mulali
  • Gerald Goh Guan Gan
  • Muhammad Shahbaz
Research Article


The aim of this research is to explore the effect of biomass energy consumption on CO2 emissions in 80 developed and developing countries. To achieve robustness, the system generalised method of moment was used and several control variables were incorporated into the model including real GDP, fossil fuel consumption, hydroelectricity production, urbanisation, population, foreign direct investment, financial development, institutional quality and the Kyoto protocol. Relying on the classification of the World Bank, the countries were categorised to developed and developing countries. We also used a dynamic common correlated effects estimator. The results consistently show that biomass energy as well as fossil fuel consumption generate more CO2 emissions. A closer look at the results show that a 100% increase in biomass consumption (tonnes per capita) will increase CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) within the range of 2 to 47%. An increase of biomass energy intensity (biomass consumption in tonnes divided by real gross domestic product) of 100% will increase CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) within the range of 4 to 47%. An increase of fossil fuel consumption (tonnes of oil equivalent per capita) by 100% will increase CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) within the range of 35 to 55%. The results further show that real GDP urbanisation and population increase CO2 emissions. However, hydroelectricity and institutional quality decrease CO2 emissions. It is further observed that financial development, foreign direct investment and openness decrease CO2 emissions in the developed countries, but the opposite results are found for the developing nations. The results also show that the Kyoto Protocol reduces emission and that Environmental Kuznets Curve exists. Among the policy implications of the foregoing results is the necessity of substituting fossil fuels with other types of renewable energy (such as hydropower) rather than biomass energy for reduction of emission to be achieved.


Biomass energy consumption CO2 emissions Generalised method of moments (GMM) 


  1. Adewuyi AO, Awodumi OB (2017) Biomass energy consumption, economic growth and carbon emissions: fresh evidence from West Africa using a simultaneous equation model. Energy 119:453–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I, Lean HH (2015) The influence of economic growth, urbanization, trade openness, financial development, and renewable energy on pollution in Europe. Nat Hazards 79(1):621–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Mulali U, Solarin SA, Ozturk I (2016a) Biofuel energy consumption-economic growth relationship: an empirical investigation of Brazil. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 10(6):753–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I, Solarin SA (2016b) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in seven regions: the role of renewable energy. Ecol Indic 67:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Mulali U, Solarin SA, Sheau-Ting L, Ozturk I (2016c) Does moving towards renewable energy causes water and land inefficiency? An empirical investigation. Energy Policy 93:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2):277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental-variable estimation of error components models. J Econ 68:29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bento JPC, Moutinho V (2016) CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55:142–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bildirici ME (2017) The effects of militarization on biofuel consumption and CO2 emission. J Clean Prod 152:420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü (2016) The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited Environmental Kuznets Curve approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:838–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bloomberg (2016) China to slow green growth for first time after record boom. Bloomberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econ 87:115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryce P (2016) Corn Ethanol Is Now a Climate-Change Scandal. Energy & Environment: Climate, Regulations. Available at
  14. Chudik A, Pesaran MH (2015a) Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. J Econ 188(2):393–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chudik A, Pesaran MH (2015b) Large panel data models with cross-sectional dependence: a survey. In The Oxford handbook of panel data. Baltagi BH (eds), chap. 1, pp 2–45. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Chum HL, Warner E, Seabra JEA, Macedo IC (2014) A comparison of commercial ethanol production systems from Brazilian sugarcane and US corn. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 8(2):205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeCicco JM, Liu DY, Heo J, Krishnan R, Kurthen A, Wang L (2016) Carbon balance effects of U.S. biofuel production and use. Clim Chang 138(3):667–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dietz T, Rosa EA (1997) Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94(1):175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ditzen J (2016) xtdcce: Estimating dynamic common correlated effects in Stata. The Spatial Economics and Econometrics Centre (SEEC). Available at
  20. Dogan E, Ozturk I (2017) The influence of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and real income on CO2 emissions in the USA: evidence from structural break tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(11):10846–10854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dreher A (2006) Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Appl Econ 38(10):1091–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Energy Information Administration (2016) Energy information administration analysis. Retrieved from
  23. Flórez-Orrego D, da Silva JAM, Velásquez H, de Oliveira S (2015) Renewable and non-renewable exergy costs and CO2 emissions in the production of fuels for Brazilian transportation sector. Energy 88:18–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goel RK, Herrala R, Mazhar U (2013) Institutional quality and environmental pollution: MENA countries versus the rest of the world. Econ Syst 37(4):508–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill J, Tajibaeva L, Polasky S (2016) Climate consequences of low-carbon fuels: the United States Renewable Fuel Standard. Energy Policy 97:351–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hondroyiannis G (2006) Private saving determinants in European countries: a panel cointegration approach. Soc Sci J 43(4):553–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. International Renewable Energy Agency (2012) Biomass for power generation. International Renewable Energy Agency Working Paper Series, 1, (5/5), pp 1–50Google Scholar
  28. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change - Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, Stechow CV, Zwickel T, Minx JC (Series edn). Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Iwata H, Okada K (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions and the role of the Kyoto protocol. Environ Econ Policy Stud 16(4):325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jaforullah M, King A (2015) Does the use of renewable energy sources mitigate CO2 emissions? A reassessment of the US evidence. Energy Econ 49:711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jebli MB, Belloumi M (2017) Investigation of the causal relationships between combustible renewables and waste consumption and CO2 emissions in the case of Tunisian maritime and rail transport. Renew Sust Energ Rev 71:820–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jebli MB, Youssef SB (2017) The role of renewable energy and agriculture in reducing CO2 emissions: evidence for North Africa countries. Ecol Indic 74:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jebli MB, Youssef SB, Ozturk I (2015) The role of renewable energy consumption and trade: environmental Kuznets curve analysis for sub-Saharan Africa countries. Afr Dev Rev 27(3):288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jebli MB, Youssef SB, Ozturk I (2016) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol Indic 60:824–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johansen S (2002) A small sample correction for the test of cointegrating rank in the vector autoregressive model. Econometrica 70(5):1929–1961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kao C, Chiang MH (2001) On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. In Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 179–222Google Scholar
  37. Ouyang X, Lin B (2017) Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during urbanization: a comparative study between China and Japan. J Clean Prod 143:356–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Özbuğday FC, Erbas BC (2015) How effective are energy efficiency and renewable energy in curbing CO2 emissions in the long run? A heterogeneous panel data analysis. Energy 82:734–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pedroni P (2000) Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. Adv Econ 15:93–130Google Scholar
  40. Pesaran MH (2006) Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica 74(4):967–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pesaran MH, Smith R (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Econ 68(1):79–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. REN21 (2005) Renewables 2005 Global status report. Retrieved from Paris:
  43. REN21 (2017) Renewables 2017 Global Status Report. Retrieved from Paris.
  44. Rosenzweig C, Casassa G, Karoly DJ, Imeson A, Liu C, Menzel A, Rawlins S, Root TL, Seguin B, Tryjanowski P (2007) Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Linden PJVD, Hanson CE (eds) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 79–131Google Scholar
  45. Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Sbia R, Bibi S (2015a) Does energy intensity contribute to CO2 emissions? A trivariate analysis in selected African countries. Ecol Indic 50:215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shahbaz M, Nasreen S, Abbas F, Anis O (2015b) Does foreign direct investment impede environmental quality in high-, middle-, and low-income countries? Energy Econ 51:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shahbaz M, Nasreen S, Ahmed K, Hammoudeh S (2017) Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: the importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels. Energy Econ 61:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Solarin S (2015) Assessing the effectiveness of the policies to boost hydropower consumption. Int J Energy Sect Manag 9(2):136–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Solarin SA (2017) The role of urbanisation in the economic development process: evidence from Nigeria. J Appl Econ Res 11(3):223–255Google Scholar
  50. Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Musah I, Ozturk I (2017) Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation. Energy 124:706–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. The Guardian (2012) Has the Kyoto protocol made any difference to carbon emissions? Retrieved from
  52. Tiba S, Omri A (2017) Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:1129–1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Timilsina GR, Shrestha A (2011) How much hope should we have for biofuels? Energy 36(4):2055–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. UNFCCC (2017a) Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved from
  55. UNFCCC (2017b) Status of the Doha Amendment. Retrieved from
  56. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from
  57. Windmeijer F (2005) A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. J Econ 126(1):25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. World Bank (2017) Hydropower Overview. Retrieved from
  59. Xu B, Lin B (2017) Does the high–tech industry consistently reduce CO2 emissions? Results from nonparametric additive regression model. Environ Impact Assess Rev 63:44–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving forces of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ 46(3):351–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhu Q, Peng X (2012) The impacts of population change on carbon emissions in China during 1978–2008. Environ Impact Assess Rev 36:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zoundi Z (2017) CO2 emissions, renewable energy and the Environmental Kuznets Curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72:1067–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sakiru Adebola Solarin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Usama Al-Mulali
    • 1
  • Gerald Goh Guan Gan
    • 1
  • Muhammad Shahbaz
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of BusinessMultimedia UniversityMelakaMalaysia
  2. 2.Montpellier Business SchoolMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations