Skip to main content

Nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption, trade openness, and environmental quality in G-7 countries: the conditional role of technological progress

Environmental Science and Pollution Research volume 28, pages 45212–45229 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

The present study empirically investigates the tripartite impacts of renewable energy (RE), nonrenewable energy (NRE), and trade openness (TO) with the conditioning role of technology on environmental quality (CO2 emission) for the G-7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, USA, and United Kingdom) for the period straddling 1990–2019. The empirical analyses are anchored on a set of estimation procedures including; cross-sectional dependence test, second generation panel unit root test, Westerlund cointegration test, Hausman test, and pooled mean group (PMG). The following results emanate from the findings. First, the presence of cross-sectional dependence and long-run relationships are confirmed for the countries. Second, RE significantly lessens the prevalence of carbon emissions across the estimated models. This further underscores the mitigating effects of RE on CO2 emissions for the G-7 countries. Third, the impacts of NRE and TO are found to contribute to surge in CO2 emissions. Fourth, the effects of technological progress captured by research and development (RD) and eco-innovation significantly reduce the stock of CO2 emissions using both unconditional (single effect) and conditional (interactive effect) methods. Fifth, the existence of Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) receives empirical support for the G-7 countries. Other covariates such as foreign direct investment (FDI), Gross Fixed Capital Formation (GCFC), and service value-added (SVA) exert diverging impacts on CO2 emissions. Sixth, the country-level analyses show the heterogeneous nature of the G-7 countries as evident from each country’s findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  • Adom PK, Kwakwa PA (2014) Effects of changing trade structure and technical characteristics of the manufacturing sector on energy intensity in Ghana. Renew Sust Energ Rev 35:475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad M, Khattak SI (2020) Is aggregate domestic consumption spending (ADCS) per capita determining CO2 emissions in South Africa? A new perspective. Environ Resour Econ 75(3):529–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad M, Hengyi H, Rahman ZU, Khan ZU, Khan S, & Khan Z (2018). Carbon emissions, energy use, gross domestic product and total population in China. Ekonomia i środowisko.

  • Ahmad M, Khattak SI, Khan A, Rahman ZU (2020) Innovation, foreign direct investment (FDI), and the energy–pollution–growth nexus in OECD region: a simultaneous equation modeling approach. Environ Ecol Stat 27(2):203–232

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad M, Khan Z, Rahman ZU, Khattak SI, Khan ZU (2021) Can innovation shocks determine CO2 emissions (CO2e) in the OECD economies? A new perspective. Econ Innov New Technol 30(1):89–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajide, K. B., & Ibrahim, R. L. (2021). Threshold effects of capital investments on carbon emissions in G20 economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 1-19.

  • Ajide K, Ridwan I (2018) Energy consumption, environmental contaminants, and economic growth: the G8 experience. Appl Econ 51:58–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Mulali U, Sheau-Ting L (2014) Econometric analysis of trade, exports, imports, energy consumption and CO2 emission in six regions. Renew Sust Energ Rev 33:484–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez-Herranz A, Balsalobre-Lorente D, Shahbaz M, Cantos JM (2017) Energy innovation and renewable energy consumption in the correction of air pollution levels. Energy Policy 105:386–397

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91(4):877–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auteri, M., Constantini, M., 2005. Intratemporal substitution and government spending: unit root and cointegration tests in a cross section correlated panel. In: 17th Conference Paper, Societa Italiana Di Economia Pubblica (Pavia, Universita).

  • Awodumi OB, Adewuyi AO (2020) The role of non-renewable energy consumption in economic growth and carbon emission: evidence from oil producing economies in Africa. Energy Strategy Rev 27:100434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azam M, Khan AQ, Zafeiriou E, Arabatzis G (2016) Socio-economic determinants of energy consumption: an empirical survey for Greece. Renew Sust Energ Rev 57:1556–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bai J, Ng S (2004) A panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica 72:1127–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi BH, Feng Q, Kao C (2012) A Lagrange Multiplier test for cross-sectional dependence in a fixed effects panel data model. J Econ 170(1):164–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri L (2009) Panel unit root tests under cross-sectional dependence: an overview. J Stat: Advances in Theory and Applications 1(2):117–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Bildirici ME, Gökmenoğlu SM (2017) Environmental pollution, hydropower energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from G7 countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 75:68–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgili F, Öztürk İ, Koçak E, Bulut Ü, Pamuk Y, Muğaloğlu E, Bağlıtaş HH (2016) The influence of biomass energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a wavelet coherence approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(19):19043–19061

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandi C, Schwab J, Berger A, Morin JF (2020) Do environmental provisions in trade agreements make exports from developing countries greener? World Dev 129:104899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in Econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47:239–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherniwchan J (2017) Trade liberalization and the environment: evidence from NAFTA and US manufacturing. J Int Econ 105:130–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi I (2002) Combination unit root tests for cross-sectionally correlated panels. Mimeo, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

  • Churchill SA, Inekwe J, Ivanovski K, Smyth R (2018) The environmental Kuznets curve in the OECD: 1870–2014. Energy Econ 75:389–399

  • Churchill SA, Inekwe J, Smyth R, Zhang X (2019) R&D intensity and carbon emissions in the G7: 1870–2014. Energy Econ 80:30–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill SA, Inekwe J, Ivanovski K, Smyth R (2020) The environmental Kuznets curve across Australian states and territories. Energy Econ 90:104869

  • Cole MA, Elliott RJ (2003) Determining the trade–environment composition effect: the role of capital, labor, and environmental regulations. J Environ Econ Manag 46(3):363–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland BR (2013) Trade and the environment. In: In Palgrave handbook of international trade. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 423–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland BR, & Taylor MS (2004). Trade, tragedy, and the commons (No. w10836). National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Destek MA, Sarkodie SA (2019) Investigation of environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Sci Total Environ 650:2483–2489

  • Destek MA, Aslan A (2020) Disaggregated renewable energy consumption and environmental pollution nexus in G-7 countries. Renew Energy 151:1298–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Destek MA, Sinha A (2020) Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. J Clean Prod 242:118537

  • Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding Q, Khattak SI, Ahmad M (2021) Towards sustainable production and consumption: assessing the impact of energy productivity and eco-innovation on consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions (CCO2) in G-7 nations. Sustain Prod Consump 27:254–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eregha PB, & Mesagan EP (2017). Energy consumption, oil price and macroeconomic performance in energy dependent African countries. Прикладная эконометрика, (2 (46)).

  • Eregha PB, Mesagan EP (2020) Oil resources, deficit financing and per capita GDP growth in selected oil-rich African nations: a dynamic heterogeneous panel approach. Res Policy 66:101615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel JA, Rose AK (2005) Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):85–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasanov FJ, Liddle B, Mikayilov JI (2018) The impact of international trade on CO2 emissions in oil exporting countries: territory vs consumption emissions accounting. Energy Econ 74:343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman JA (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica: J Econ Soc 1251-1271.

  • Ibrahim RL, & Ajide KB (2020). Trade facilitation, institutional quality, and sustainable environment: renewed evidence from Sub-Saharan African Countries. J Afr Bus 1-23.

  • Im KS, Pesaran MH, Shin Y (1997) ìTesting for Unit Roots in Heterogenous Panelsî, DAE, Working Paper 9526. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

  • Inglesi-Lotz R, Dogan E (2018) The role of renewable versus non-renewable energy to the level of CO2 emissions a panel analysis of sub-Saharan Africa’s Βig 10 electricity generators. Renew Energy 123:36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Q, Khattak SI, Ahmad M, Lin P (2021) Mitigation pathways to sustainable production and consumption: examining the impact of commercial policy on carbon dioxide emissions in Australia. Sustain Prod Consump 25:390–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J, Yang Y, Bai Y (2018) The impact of inter-industry R&D technology spillover on carbon emission in China. Nat Hazards 91(3):913–929. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3161-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan Z, Malik MY, Latif K, Jiao Z (2020a) Heterogeneous effect of eco-innovation and human capital on renewable & non-renewable energy consumption: disaggregate analysis for G-7 countries. Energy 209:118405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, Z., Ali, S., Umar, M., Kirikkaleli, D., & Jiao, Z. (2020b). Consumption-based carbon emissions and international trade in G7 countries: the role of environmental innovation and renewable energy. Science of The Total Environment, 138945.

  • Kirton J (2012). The G7/8 system and evolution. G8 Information Centre, University of Toronto. 2004a. Available at http://www. g8. utoronto. ca/g8online/2004/english/lectures/lecture01. html Accessed November.

  • Kolcava D, Nguyen Q, Bernauer T (2019) Does trade liberalization lead to environmental burden shifting in the global economy? Ecol Econ 163:98–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komen MH, Gerking S, Folmer H (1997) Income and environmental R&D: empirical evidence from OECD countries. Environ Dev Econ 2(4):505–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liddle B (2018) Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions nexus. Energy Econ 69:71–78

    Article  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(29):29678–29698

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesagan EP, Isola WA, Ajide KB (2019) The capital investment channel of environmental improvement: evidence from BRICS. Environ Dev Sustain 21(4):1561–1582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon R, Perron B (2004) Testing for unit root in panels with dynamic factors. J Econ 122:81.126

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Donnell D, 2015. G7 in figures: summit of the G7 States in Elmau 2015 Fed. Statistical Office of Germany.

  • Oke DM, Ibrahim RL, Bokana KG (2021) Can renewable energy deliver African quests for sustainable development? J Dev Areas 55(1)

  • Pata UK (2018) The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey. Energy 160:1115–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedroni P (1999) Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61(S1):653–670

  • Pedroni P (2004) Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econom Theory  20(3):597–625

  • Pesaran MH (2004), General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels, Cambridge working papers in Economics, No. 435, University of Cambridge, and CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229.

  • Pesaran MH (2007) A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. J Appl Econ 22(2):265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Smith R (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Econ 68(1):79–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RP (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):621–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips PCB, Sul D (2003) Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence. Econ J 6:217–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Qingquan J, Khattak SI, Ahmad M, Ping L (2020) A new approach to environmental sustainability: assessing the impact of monetary policy on CO2 emissions in Asian economies. Sustain Dev 28(5):1331–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman ZU, Cai H, & Ahmad M (2019). A new look at the remittances-FDI-energy-environment nexus in the case of selected Asian nations. Singap Econ Rev 1-19.

  • Ridwan-Lanre I, Eregha PB, Sampson H (2019) Determinants of e-banking adoption in Lagos State. NDIC Quarter 34:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkodie SA, Adom PK (2018) Determinants of energy consumption in Kenya: a NIPALS approach. Energy 159:696–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shariff NSM, Hamzah NA (2015) A robust panel unit root test in the presence of cross sectional dependence. J Mod Appl Stat Methods 14(2):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme (2019) Emissions gap report 2019. UNEP, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerlund J (2008) Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. J Appl Econ 23:193–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2017). World Bank development indicators. Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/. Accessed 12 Jan 2021

  • World Development Indicators (2020) https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators. Accessed 12 March 2021

  • Wurlod JD, Noailly J (2018) The impact of green innovation on energy intensity: an empirical analysis for 14 industrial sectors in OECD countries. Energy Econ 71:47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Retrieved from: http://pku.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0-58. Accessed 12 Jan 2021

  • Yang L, Li Z (2017) Technology advance and the carbon dioxide emission in China – empirical research based on the rebound effect. Energy Policy 101:150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.020

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao Y, Ivanovski K, Inekwe J, Smyth R (2019) Human capital and energy consumption: evidence from OECD countries. Energy Econ 84:104534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J (2020) International production fragmentation, trade in intermediate goods and environment. Econ Model 87:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in: World Bank Development Indicators (WDI): https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.

Energy information administration

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.php

Funding

No fund is received in favor of this study.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria

    Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim & Kazeem Bello Ajide

Authors
  1. Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazeem Bello Ajide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RLI develops the background and methodology.

KBA works on the literature, background, and proofreads.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ridwan Lanre Ibrahim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Highlights

•The study investigates the impacts of renewable energy (RE), nonrenewable energy (NRE), trade openness (TO), and technological progress on environmental quality (CO2 emission) of the G-7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, USA, and United Kingdom).

• Second generation methodologies are employed.

•RE significantly lessens the prevalence of CO2 emission.

•NRE and TO significantly contribute to the surge in CO2 emission.

•The unconditional and conditional effects of technology captured by research and development, and environment-related technology significantly reduce CO2 emission.

Responsible Editor: Roula Inglesi-Lotz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ibrahim, R.L., Ajide, K.B. Nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption, trade openness, and environmental quality in G-7 countries: the conditional role of technological progress. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 45212–45229 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13926-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13926-2

Keywords

  • Energy
  • Trade openness
  • Technology
  • Environmental quality
  • G-7