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.
Similar content being viewed by others
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Antweiler W, Copeland BR, Taylor MS (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91(4):877–908
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
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
Bai J, Ng S (2004) A panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica 72:1127–1177
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
Barbieri L (2009) Panel unit root tests under cross-sectional dependence: an overview. J Stat: Advances in Theory and Applications 1(2):117–158
Bildirici ME, Gökmenoğlu SM (2017) Environmental pollution, hydropower energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from G7 countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 75:68–85
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
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
Breusch TS, Pagan AR (1980) The Lagrange multiplier test and its application to model specifications in Econometrics. Rev Econ Stud 47:239–253
Cherniwchan J (2017) Trade liberalization and the environment: evidence from NAFTA and US manufacturing. J Int Econ 105:130–149
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
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
Copeland BR (2013) Trade and the environment. In: In Palgrave handbook of international trade. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 423–496
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
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
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
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
Frankel JA, Rose AK (2005) Is trade good or bad for the environment? Sorting out the causality. Rev Econ Stat 87(1):85–91
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
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
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
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
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
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
Komen MH, Gerking S, Folmer H (1997) Income and environmental R&D: empirical evidence from OECD countries. Environ Dev Econ 2(4):505–515
Liddle B (2018) Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions nexus. Energy Econ 69:71–78
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
Mesagan EP, Isola WA, Ajide KB (2019) The capital investment channel of environmental improvement: evidence from BRICS. Environ Dev Sustain 21(4):1561–1582
Moon R, Perron B (2004) Testing for unit root in panels with dynamic factors. J Econ 122:81.126
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
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
Pesaran MH, Smith R (1995) Estimating long-run relationships from dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Econ 68(1):79–113
Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RP (1999) Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic heterogeneous panels. J Am Stat Assoc 94(446):621–634
Phillips PCB, Sul D (2003) Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence. Econ J 6:217–259
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
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
Sarkodie SA, Adom PK (2018) Determinants of energy consumption in Kenya: a NIPALS approach. Energy 159:696–705
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
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
United Nations Environment Programme (2019) Emissions gap report 2019. UNEP, Nairobi
Westerlund J (2008) Panel cointegration tests of the Fisher effect. J Appl Econ 23:193–233
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
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
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
Zhang J (2020) International production fragmentation, trade in intermediate goods and environment. Econ Model 87:1–7
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
Funding
No fund is received in favor of this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RLI develops the background and methodology.
KBA works on the literature, background, and proofreads.
Corresponding author
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
Responsible Editor: Roula Inglesi-Lotz
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13926-2