Testing environmental Kuznets curve for the USA under a regime shift: the role of renewable energy

  • Umit BulutEmail author
Research Article


The goals of this paper are to examine whether the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) holds and to investigate whether renewable energy consumption can decrease CO2 emissions in the USA using monthly data spanning the period 2000:M01–2018:M07. For these purposes, the paper employs a cointegration test with a regime shift and observes the long-run coefficients before and after the regime shift. The findings support the presence of the EKC. The findings also indicate that renewable energy consumption has negative effects on CO2 emissions, while these effects are greater when the share of renewable energy consumption in total energy consumption is higher in the USA. Theoretical and practical implications for these findings are discussed.


CO2 emissions Environmental Kuznets curve The US economy Renewable energy consumption Cointegration test with a regime shift DOLS estimator 



  1. Apergis N, Payne JE, Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y (2010) On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecol Econ 69:2255–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apergis N, Christou C, Gupta R (2017) Are there environmental Kuznets curves for US state-level CO2 emissions? Renew Sust Energ Rev 69:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atasoy BS (2017) Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis across the US: evidence from panel mean group estimators. Renew Sust Energ Rev 77:731–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baek J (2015) Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: the case of Arctic countries. Energy Econ 50:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bilgili F, Kocak E, Bulut U (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
  6. Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2003) Trade and the environment: theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  7. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1981) Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49:1057–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dogan E, Turkekul B (2016) CO2 emissions, real output, energy consumption, trade, urbanization and financial development: testing the EKC hypothesis for the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:1203–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Du G, Liu S, Lei N, Huang Y (2018) A test of environmental Kuznets curve for haze pollution in China: evidence from the penal data of 27 capital cities. J Clean Prod 205:821–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Energy Information Administration (2018) October 2018 monthly energy review. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
  11. Engle RF, Granger CW (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esteve V, Requeana FA (2006) Cointegration analysis of car advertising and sales data in the presence of structural change. Int J Econ Bus 13:111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2018) Industrial production index. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
  14. Flores CA, Flores-Lagunes A, Kapetanakis D (2014) Lessons from quantile panel estimation of the environmental Kuznets curve. Econ Rev 33:815–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory AW, Hansen BE (1996) Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. J Econ 70:99–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guris B (2016) CO2 emissions and energy consumption in the US: results from a threshold error correction model. Energ Source Part B 11:314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control 12:231–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansen S, Juselius K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration-with applications to the demand for money. Oxford B Econ Stat 52:169–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45:1–28Google Scholar
  21. Lantz E, Hand M, Wiser R (2012) The past and future cost of wind energy. Accessed 20 Aug 2018
  22. Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y (2010) CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in the US. Energy Policy 38:2911–2915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2018) How climate is changing? Accessed 1 July 2018
  24. Ozbugday 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
  25. Pata UK (2018) The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey. Energy 160:1115–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perron P (1989) The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57:1361–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Phillips PC (1987) Time series regression with a unit root. Econometrica 55:277–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Phillips PCB, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2018a) A review on environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using bibliometric and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 649:128–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2018b) Empirical study of the environmental Kuznets curve and environmental sustainability curve hypothesis for Australia, China, Ghana and USA. J Clean Prod 201:98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shahbaz M, Sinha A (2018) Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emission: a literature survey. J Econ Stud 46:106–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stern DI (2004) The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev 32:1419–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stock JH, Watson M (1993) A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica 61:783–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Su ECY, Chen YT (2018) Policy or income to affect the generation of medical wastes: an application of environmental Kuznets curve by using Taiwan as an example. J Clean Prod 188:489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun S, Fang C (2018) Water use trend analysis: a non-parametric method for the environmental Kuznets curve detection. J Clean Prod 172:497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ulucak R, Bilgili F (2018) A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. J Clean Prod 188:144–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang S, Li G, Fang C (2018) Urbanization, economic growth, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions: empirical evidence from countries with different income levels. Renew Sust Energ Rev 81:2144–2159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yavuz NC (2014) CO2 emission, energy consumption, and economic growth for Turkey: evidence from a cointegration test with a structural break. Energ Source Part B 9:229–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zivot E, Andrews DWK (1992) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 10:251–270Google Scholar
  40. 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 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of EconomicsKirsehir Ahi Evran UniversityKirsehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations