The Impact of Renewable Energy Share on CO₂ Emissions in D8 Countries
Authors/Creators
Description
This study investigates the impact of the share of renewable energy on carbon emissions in D8 countries over the period 2000–2025, employing a panel data framework. The empirical analysis is conducted within a two-way fixed effects model, accounting for cross-sectional dependence, heteroskedasticity, and serial correlation through the use of country-clustered and Driscoll–Kraay standard errors. The renewable energy variable is operationalized in two distinct ways: as the share of renewable sources in electricity generation and as the share of renewables in total final energy consumption, each examined separately to ensure robustness. The findings indicate that the results are sensitive to the definition of the renewable energy indicator. While the lagged share of renewables in electricity generation does not exhibit a statistically significant mitigating effect on emissions, an increase in the share of renewables in total energy consumption is associated with a reduction in carbon emissions. These results suggest that limiting the energy transition to the electricity sector alone may be insufficient; rather, a comprehensive transformation of the overall energy mix appears to be more consequential for environmental outcomes. The estimated coefficients for income and its squared term display signs consistent with the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis, implying a nonlinear relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation. Moreover, the strong and statistically significant effect of total energy consumption on emissions underscores the importance of scale effects in shaping environmental pressures. Country-specific assessments further reveal a heterogeneous pattern of energy transition across D8 economies. In countries with a high dependence on fossil fuels, expansions in renewable energy capacity provide only limited contributions to emission reductions. By contrast, economies that have achieved a more balanced restructuring of their energy portfolios demonstrate comparatively stronger environmental performance. Overall, the study highlights the necessity of broadening the sectoral scope of renewable energy policies and reducing structural dependence on fossil fuels to achieve meaningful emission mitigation.
Files
3.pdf
Files
(766.7 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:8fdaea01ce651b17ad47f37fb011f02d
|
766.7 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I., & Lean, H. H. (2015). The influence of economic growth, urbanization, trade openness, financial development, and renewable energy on pollution in Europe. Natural Hazards, 79(1), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1865-9 Apergis, N., & Payne, J. E. (2010). Renewable energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy, 38(1), 656–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.002 Balsalobre-Lorente, D., Shahbaz, M., Roubaud, D., & Farhani, S. (2018). How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO₂ emissions? Energy Policy, 113, 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.050 Bölük, G., & Mert, M. (2014). Fossil and renewable energy consumption, GHGs and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of European Union countries. Energy, 74, 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.07.008 Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics, 49(4), 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.02.011 Dogan, E., & Seker, F. (2016). The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1074–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.006 Dong, K., Hochman, G., & Timilsina, G. R. (2018). Do drivers of CO₂ emission growth alter over time and by the stage of economic development? Energy Policy, 113, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.050 Dong, K., Sun, R., & Hochman, G. (2020). Do natural gas and renewable energy consumption lead to less CO₂ emissions? Empirical evidence from a panel of BRICS countries. Energy, 141, 1466–1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.092 Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118443 Ito, K. (2017). CO₂ emissions, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: Evidence from panel data for developing countries. International Economics, 151, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2017.02.001 Jebli, M. B., & Youssef, S. B. (2017). Renewable energy consumption and agriculture: Evidence for North Africa countries. Energy Policy, 108, 568–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.030 Lean, H. H., & Smyth, R. (2010). CO₂ emissions, electricity consumption and output in ASEAN. Applied Energy, 87(6), 1858–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.02.003 Le Quéré, C., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M. W., et al. (2020). Temporary reduction in daily global CO₂ emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nature Climate Change, 10, 647–653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x Sarkodie, S. A., & Strezov, V. (2019). Effect of renewable energy consumption on CO₂ emissions: Panel quantile regression. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.008 Shahbaz, M., Lean, H. H., & Shabbir, M. S. (2013). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Pakistan: Cointegration and Granger causality. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 17, 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.019 Wang, Q., Su, M., & Li, R. (2020). Toward economic growth without emission growth: The role of urbanization and industrialization in China and India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.034 Zoundi, Z. (2017). CO₂ emissions, renewable energy and the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.049