Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyr

Research paper

Asymmetrically examining the impact of green finance and renewable

energy consumption on environmental degradation and renewable
energy investment: The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the
Chinese economy
∗
Yu Feng a , Zhihan Xiao b , Jinghong Zhou a , Guqiang Ni c ,
a
School of Public Economics and Administration, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China
b
Shanghai New Epoch Bilingual School, China
c
School of Accounting, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: The recent global recession due to Covid-19 has led to a drop in natural resource prices, which
Received 1 September 2022 has contracted energy demand. Amid this concern, environmentally sustainable renewable energy
Received in revised form 15 April 2023 projects have become uncompetitive and an obstacle to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
Accepted 23 April 2023
(SDGs). Following the nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) model proposed by Shin et
Available online xxxx
al. (2014), to asymmetrically explore the impact of green bonds on renewable energy investment
Keywords: and environmental pollution and the impact of renewable energy consumption on environmental
Green finance degradation in China over the period 1970–2020. The results show that the expansion of green
Renewable electricity output bonds (GB+) significantly promotes renewable energy investment and reduces environmental pollution,
Renewable energy investment while the contraction of green bonds (GB− ) significantly reduces renewable energy investment and
Environmental degradation
stimulates environmental damage. Likewise, expansion of renewable energy consumption (REC+)
China
significantly reduced environmental degradation, while contraction of renewable energy consumption
(REC− ) significantly contributed to environmental degradation. Moreover, the result also validates the
existence of inverted U-shaped EKC hypothesis in China The VECM Granger causality test indicate that
renewable energy investment, green finance, renewable energy consumption, CO2 emission, and Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) have long term causality. Chinese policymakers must focus on strengthening
green finance, which will encourage renewable energy investment and renewable energy generation.
Moreover, renewable electricity output greatly facilitates renewable energy investment, so China must
innovate policies to take into account renewable electricity rather than fossil fuel generation in order
to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Entering the 21st century, the global economy has been hit
hard, with many catastrophic accidents. From the energy price
shocks of 2003–2008, to the global financial catastrophe of 2007–
2009, to the recent outbreak of Covid-19, which not only dis-
rupted business and killed thousands, but also threatened re-
newable energy infrastructure (van Zyl, 2021; Hoang et al., 2021;
Huang et al., 2021a,b). In general, non-renewable fossil fuel
conventional energy sources often generate thermal energy and
power transmission, and these power generations due to heat
loss remains inefficient (Chen et al., 2021; Rahman et al., 2022;
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andersoncarinthia84@gmail.com (G. Ni).
Zoungrana and Çakmakci, 2021). However, the resilience and con-
sistency of the power system may be affected by more variable
renewable energy sources. Threats to climate-related goals are
likely to increase as global investment in green projects has been
severely reduced in light of the recent pandemic and recession in
highly competitive global markets (Le Billon et al., 2021; Filipović
et al., 2022; Aktar et al., 2021). In this regard, the country financial
system has a fatalistic prominence, contributing to sustainable
environmental and economic growth by considering green finan-
cial investments. People, the environment and the economy as a
whole benefit to some extent from the financial assets produced
and managed by sustainable financial systems, not just privi-
leged assets. However, considering that the term green finance
is not limited to climate finance in financial instruments, it also
encompasses other environmental goals such as green environ-
mental financial systems and sustainable promotion, including

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.04.361
2352-4847/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al.
Fig. 1. Changes in energy demand and emissions in Asia during covid-19 in 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019.
Source: International Energy Agency (2022).
green mortgages, green loans and green bonds (Debrah et al.,
2022; Dalia and Vitaliy, 2021; Dikau and Volz, 2021). The lack
of funding is among the most serious obstacles to the growth
of renewable energy. The main obstacle to the development of
renewable energy is the lack of capital (Moorthy et al., 2019;
Solangi et al., 2021). As of 2018, conventional energy sources
such as coal and oil are still carbon-emitting energy due to global
bulk energy investment. For instance, renewable energy received
39 percent of investments in power generation, while it only
received 19 percent of overall energy sector investments. For in-
stance, 39% of renewable energy investment is recorded in power
generation, which equates to 19% of total energy investment.
In contrast, total investment in fossil fuel conventional energy
reached a record 60% in the same year (Paris: International Energy
Agency, 2019). The rest are lower-level investments in sources of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from biofuels or battery storage.
According to the latest report by International Energy Agency
(2022), many factories and economic activity during covid-19
have been motionless, causing turmoil in supply chains in the re-
gion and around the world. Compared with 2019, Gross domestic
product in Asia fell by 4% in 2020, while grew by 3% in 2021.
Energy demand is naturally affected by economic disruptions
in Asia, with total energy supply falling by almost 3% in 2020.
The most affected is the use of oil in total energy, which has
fallen to 6.5% in 2020. As shown in Fig. 1, demand for gas and
electricity fell by 4.5% and 1.8%, respectively, in 2020 due to
reduced industrial activity during the lockdown. In 2020, CO2
emissions decreased by 2%, while the use of renewable energy
decreased by 1.5%. However, coal demand increased by 1% in
2020. Total energy demand grew in 2021 as delta variants sweep
across the Asian region. Oil, gas, electricity, and carbon emissions
in 2021 were stimulated by 4.5%, 4%, 3%, and 5%, respectively. The
5459
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472
use of coal has increased by 5%, while the use of renewable energy
has increased by only 0.5% in 2021.
Due to the world economic crisis and the outbreak of COVID-
19 in 2021–22, continued investment in green initiatives such as
renewable energy, energy efficiency, etc. has been significantly
reduced. Also, with the COVID-19 pandemic and economic reces-
sion, oil and gas prices have also fallen sharply. Lower fossil fuel
prices are detrimental to the development of renewable energy
projects, such as solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources
are less economical as compared to power sources. The expansion
of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources associated
with renewable energy projects is not conducive to falling fossil
fuel prices. This decreases the interest of the investors in re-
newable technologies, putting the Paris Climate Agreement and
numerous SDGs in risk. This could jeopardize various sustainable
development goals, notably the Paris climate agreement, and
dampen investor curiosity about renewable energy technologies.
Green finance or green infrastructure financing often requires
heavy borrowing because they are capital-intensive and remain a
pressing issue (Taghizadeh-Hesary et al., 2021). Moreover, green
initiatives in the early stages of R&D are often associated with
greater danger and less reward (Husted and de Sousa-Filho,
2017). Funding green initiatives, especially in Asia, is difficult
because banks are the main source of funding and control the
entire financial system (Peimani, 2019). Likewise, in China, banks
generally consider green projects to be dangerous, but Chinese
venture capitalists are few and far more likely to support green
projects (Shapiro, 2019). Various studies have shown that China’s
incentive package has dealt with the covid-19 crisis, however,
these incentives do not show any new green deals or accelerate
the transition of energy from non-renewable to renewable energy
sources, but driven investment in the energy sector fossil fuels
rather than renewable or clean energy (Shan et al., 2021).
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al.
Fig. 2. Average avoided emissions intensity for green bonds financing renewable energy, tCO2 e, $1 million invested.
Source: 2022 Trucost Green Bond Dataset, S&P Global Sustainable1.
There is a wealth of empirical literature on renewable en-
ergy investment in assessing the role of various environmental,
financial and economic indicators. For policymakers, however, the
main area of focus is green finance or green bonds as a coun-
terweight to the energy, environment and sustainable economic
growth. Compared to traditional methods, green bond invest-
ment projects have positive environmental benefits, especially
in projects that avoid carbon emissions. Green buildings, green
transportation and renewable energy form the bulk of green bond
financing projects. The estimated environmental benefits of green
bond financing as reported by S & P Global (2022) are shown in
Fig. 2. Statistics show that for every $1 million invested by green
bond funds, the average avoided emission intensity level varies
by project type, location, and other factors. Africa has the largest
impact on emissions due to renewable energy financed by green
bonds, followed by Asia Pacific and then the Middle East.
Compared to the fields of climate change and carbon emissions
that have been widely explored over the past decade, this field
has remained unexplored recently. Nevertheless, green finance
has significant links to renewable energy and the environment.
Sun et al. (2022) recently empirically revealed the link between
green policies and renewable energy consumption in China using
traditional ARDL methods. Similarly, Li et al. (2021) applied the
wavelet coherence method to explore the association between
renewable energy investment and green finance in China. Zhou
and Li (2022) explored the link between green finance and en-
vironmental degradation using the traditional autoregressive dis-
tributed lag (ARDL) approach in China. Luo et al. (2022) revealed
the relationship between China’s green finance and renewable
energy consumption through DOLS and FMOLS strategies. Like-
wise, there are many studies on the same topic, but neglect
the mutual consideration of green finance, renewable energy
investment, renewable energy consumption and the environ-
ment. In addition, most studies considered linear aspects of the
relationship between green finance, renewable energy, and the
environment using traditional ARDL methods. Thus, this study
differs from previous studies by using the recently developed
NARDL method proposed by Shin et al. (2014) to reveal the
non-linear relationship among the mutually considered variables
such as the green finance, renewable energy investment, renew-
able energy consumption and the environment. The beauty of
5460
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472
NARDL is that it represents the easiest way to model short- and
long-term asymmetric combinations.
There are still several queries with this study that need to
be empirically explored. First, can green finance increase invest-
ment in renewable energy? Green finance refers to investments
in financial instruments related to renewable energy and other
green industries. Funds, securities and assets are well known
in the green finance market closely linked to green businesses
and renewable energy. Robust financial markets currently play a
key role in driving new renewable technology initiatives (Al Ma-
mun et al., 2018). Second, examining whether renewable en-
ergy investment increases with economic growth, studies tend to
emphasize the positive relationship between growth and invest-
ment in renewable energy (Arain et al., 2020). Faster economic
growth has accelerated investment in renewable energy projects,
which may facilitate a structural shift from non-renewable to
renewable energy sources (Liu et al., 2021). Third, is there a link
between renewable energy investment and renewable electricity
output and private energy investment? Both growth and green
finance are driving renewable energy investment as the priority
base mentioned earlier. Also consider the conditions for linking
total renewable energy and renewable electricity output with
investment in renewable energy. (1) Since the main source of
renewable energy is renewable electricity, it is very important
to study the link or correlation between renewable electricity
output and investment in renewable energy projects. (2) The
shift from non-renewable to renewable energy sources is the
result of accelerated economic growth and may spur private
investors to participate in renewable energy investment. In re-
sponse to the above questions, the goal of this study is to explore
the impact of financial, economic, and energy-related indicators
on renewable energy investment. In the first stage, the causal
relationship between green finance and renewable energy invest-
ment in this study can be explored. The importance of analyzing
the causal relationship between green finance and renewable
energy investment lies in the moderating role of green finance
in environmental sustainability, thereby promoting the develop-
ment of renewable energy. Second, the link between renewable
energy electricity and renewable energy investment can be re-
vealed in this study, as higher renewable energy electricity can
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al.
stimulate renewable energy investment, which is considered to
be one of the main factors of renewable energy. The third objec-
tive of this study is to examine the causal relationship between
renewable energy investment and economic growth. As high-
lighted in the latest literature, the transition from non-renewable
to renewable-adapted energy has the greatest opportunity as
economic performance or growth improves. Considering that eco-
nomic growth cannot be ignored in the analysis of this study,
China ranks first on the list of energy importers and second
among the largest economies. Finally, most investors are still
investing in the fossil fuel energy sector and therefore have
an obligation to invest heavily in renewable energy. Countries
around the world, especially China, are currently committed to
sustainable development, so investors need to play a key role in
determining investments in renewable energy. Thus, examining
the causal relationship between private energy investment and
renewable energy investment is the ultimate goal of this study.
To achieve these goals, the current study employs autoregres-
sive distributed lag (ARDL) boundary tests to explore long-term
associations and vector error correction model (VECM) Granger
causality tests to achieve short- and long-term causality between
variables of interest.
This study contributes to the existing literature by examining
asymmetrically the impact of green bonds on renewable energy
investment and environmental degradation and the impact of
renewable energy consumption on environmental degradation in
China from 1970–2020, using NARDL model, ignoring traditional
ARDL model commonly used by other studies. Second, policymak-
ers and researchers provide links between green finance and the
environment, but little attention has been paid to the effect of
green finance on renewable energy investment and environmen-
tal degradation. Finally, given the current and previous outbreaks
of the Covid-19 pandemic affecting various sectors in China, the
latest dataset is used to explore the causal relationship between
the proposed variables and renewable energy investment. More-
over, this study also investigates the validity of the Environmental
Kuznets Curve Hypothesis (EKC) in China.
2. Literature review
Before the Covid-19 pandemic, there was a lot of literature
on green finance, and during the current covid-19 pandemic,
there is a dearth of literature. Green finance studies linkages
to investment in economic growth, environment, and energy-
related variables are Park et al. (2018), Saleem et al. (2020), Umar
et al. (2020), Pyka and Nocoń (2021), Khan et al. (2019), Saud et al.
(2020), Zhou et al. (2020), Li et al. (2021), Azhgaliyeva and Liddle
(2020) and Ye et al. (2022).
In other studies, Falcone (2020) highlighted in his study that
green finance drives economic sustainability and then invests in
energy. Similarly, Meo and Abd Karim (2022) used quantiles on
quantile regression to examine the interconnectedness between
green finance and carbon emissions in the top 10 economies.
Research analysis supports that reducing carbon emissions by ini-
tiating green finance is the best financial strategy. Rasoulinezhad
and Taghizadeh-Hesary (2022) also estimated the relationship
between green finance and green energy index, energy efficiency,
carbon dioxide emissions by regressing the stochastic effect of
technology on population, affluence and technology (STIRPAT) in
the top ten economies. The findings assert that green bonds are
an appropriate technique to significantly reduce carbon dioxide
and facilitate green energy projects. Meanwhile, no short-term
causality was found among the selected factors. On the basis
of this analysis, this study suggests that governments should
adopt long-term technical support policies to initiate investment
in private green energy project participation in order to achieve
5461
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472
sustainable economic growth with environmental concerns. Sim-
ilarly, another study by Mngumi et al. (2022), applied panel
quantile regression to study the links between green finance,
carbon emissions and renewable energy in the BRICS countries
in the 2005–2019 data range. The results show that in the BRICS
economies, greater use of renewable energy and a boost from
the Green Finance Index have reduced CO2 emissions. On the
other hand, the growth in the use of renewable energy has
been slowed down by carbon dioxide emissions, which has also
reduced investment in green projects, ultimately hindering the
development of green finance.
Taghizadeh-Hesary et al. (2021) in their study support the
strategy of establishing a Green Credit Guarantee Scheme (GCGS)
and the spillover effects of duplicating some of the taxes formally
generated by green energy supply to investors. This strategy can
improve the rate of return of green energy projects and reduce
the risk of green finance. Huang et al. (2021b) selected 30 sample
provinces in China within the 1995–2019 data range to examine
the effectiveness of renewable energy consumption, green invest-
ment, and technological innovation on CO2 emissions. Variables
such as technological innovation, green investment and renew-
able energy significantly reduced CO2 emissions, as shown in the
findings of the CS-ARDL approach. However, financial improve-
ments will exacerbate China’s carbon emissions, and any policy
recommendations on financial development, green investment,
renewable energy, natural resource rents, and technological in-
novation will have a significant impact on China’s environmental
quality. Li et al. (2022) also provides new insights using macro
data from 2015–2020, revealing links between geopolitical risk,
green financing, and volatility and Chinese renewable energy
investment. The findings underscore the incentive for investment
in renewable energy as a direct result of green financing, partic-
ularly green bonds and green regulation in the form of environ-
mental taxes in China. Wang et al. (2020) empirically estimate the
impact of renewable energy consumption and green investment
on production-based carbon emissions, while addressing sustain-
able growth issue in China from 1998–2017. After confirming
cointegration among the proposed variables through ARDL meth-
ods, the study explores that both renewable energy consumption
and green investment support controls, while trade openness
drives production-based carbon emissions. Henceforth, sustain-
able growth can be achieved through increased green investment
and renewable energy consumption. In addition, based on robust-
ness tests, the impact of financial development, environmental
technological innovation and human capital on productive carbon
emissions is estimated and found to be helpful for containment.
Similarly, another study on the same topic in China by Zhou et al.
(2020) selected a sample of 30 Chinese provinces to examine
the effectiveness of green finance on environmental quality and
economic growth over the period 2010–2017. The study first
developed green finance index by the techniques of principal
component analysis. Second, the impact of green finance on en-
vironmental quality is simulated using industrial concrete waste,
industrial smoldering powder emissions, and carbon emissions as
proxies for environmental variables. The model result displayed
a positive influence on environmental enhancement by the green
finance. However, the impact of green finance on environmental
excellence varies by level of development. Zahan and Chuanmin
(2021) revealed the impact of China’s green investment on CO2
emissions and clean energy consumption using the ARDL method
in the 1998–2019 data range. The analysis results show that
green investment plays a significant role in promoting China’s
long-term clean energy consumption and reducing China’s carbon
emissions.
The above literature clearly shows that during the Covid-19
pandemic, no such empirical study of China was considered, using
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al.
the NARDL model to asymmetrically explore the relationship be-
tween green finance, investment in renewable energy, renewable
energy consumption and environmental degradation. In addition,
the literature also lacks empirical research on the causal rela-
tionship between green finance, investment in renewable energy,
renewable energy consumption and carbon emissions. Thus, this
study decided to consider filling this gap.
3. Methodology
3.1. Theoretical notion and model development
This study investigates the interconnections between renew-
able energy investment, green finance, economic growth, carbon
emissions, renewable electricity output, private energy invest-
ment, and renewable energy consumption in China from 1980
to 2020. The core theoretical concepts underlying the selection
of these variables are described below. Green finance (GF) in-
cluded on the basis of it refers to investments in financial instru-
ments related to renewable energy and other green industries.
Funds, securities and assets are well known in the green fi-
nance market closely linked to green businesses and renewable
energy. Robust financial markets currently play a key role in
driving new renewable technology initiatives Al Mamun et al.
(2018). Based on examining whether renewable energy invest-
ment escalates with economic growth, using GDP as a proxy
for economic growth, studies tend to emphasize the positive
relationship between growth and renewable energy investment
(Arain et al., 2020). Faster economic growth increases invest-
ment in renewable energy projects, which may facilitate a struc-
tural shift from non-renewable to renewable energy sources (Liu
et al., 2021). With renewable electricity output (REO) as the
main source of renewable energy, it becomes important to study
the link or correlation between renewable electricity output and
investment in renewable energy projects. Private energy invest-
ment is also one of the important indicators for determining
renewable energy investment. The shift from non-renewable to
renewable energy sources is the result of accelerated economic
growth and may spur private investors to participate in renew-
able energy investment. The second model, which includes GDP
and GDP2 , uses China as a background to test the Environmental
Kuznets Curve (EKC) assumption, showing that CO2 emissions ex-
pand with continued growth and decline after reaching a certain
growth level. Thus, the following models have been created for
empirical exploration.
LnREIt = β0 + β1 LnGBt + β2 Ln GDPt + β3 LnREOt + β4 LnPEIt
+ β5 LnRECt + εi (1)
LnCO2,t = α0 + α1 LnGBt + α2 LnGDPt + α 2
3 LnGDPt + α4 LnREOt
+ α5 LnRECt + µi (2)
REIt represents renewable energy investment, GBt is that green
bonds can act as a proxy for green finance, GDP shows Gross
domestic product, REO indicates Renewable electricity output, PEI
is Private energy investment, REC represents Renewable energy
consumption and µi, ε i are error terms.
Eqs. (1) and (2) measure the determinants of China’s renew-
able energy investment (REI), and carbon emissions (CO2) depend
on the level of green bonds (GB), gross domestic product (GDP),
renewable electricity output (REO), Private energy investment
(PEI) and renewable energy consumption (REC). As China’s econ-
omy booms, green finance invests more in renewable energy
projects, and people’s economic consumption of renewable en-
ergy increases; therefore, we assume a positive estimate of β1 .
Green investments are also nurturing environmental quality by
reducing carbon emissions, and we expect α1 to be negative.
5462
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472
Renewable electricity output (REO) is the main source of renew-
able energy, so renewable electricity output has a stimulating
effect on renewable energy investment, thus, β4 is expected to be
positive. The direct, positive correlation between private energy
investment and renewable energy investment depends on the
transition from non-renewable to renewable energy sources and
is the result of accelerated economic growth.
3.2. Variables description, measurement and data sources
Variable descriptions, measurements, and sources are high-
lighted in Appendix A below. Annual data range 1970–2020 on
China renewable energy investment (Current US$), renewable
electricity output (% of total electricity output), private energy
investment (current US$), renewable energy consumption (KG of
oil equivalent), carbon emission (Metric tons per capita), Gross
domestic product (current US$) are from World Development
Indicators (World Bank. Data Bank). All model variables are dis-
torted to natural logarithmic form. However, following Meo and
Abd Karim (2022) and Madaleno et al. (2022), this study uses
green bonds as a proxy for green finance, a long-term financial
instrument where the proceeds of green bonds are used only for
financial projects that protect or reduce environmental pollution.
Data for green bonds (USD) are from the Wind database.
3.3. Unit root test
In this study, four different levels of unit root tests were used
to examine the properties of the unit root of each variable. Aug-
mented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) used over the simple Dickey–Fuller
(DF) method because it integrates a series of higher-order con-
nected lags and does not violate the white noise error properties
µi, ε i. The equation of the ADF test is as follows
∆Wt = ρ Wt−1 + Át λ + κ1 ∆Wt−1
+ κ2 ∆Wt−2+ κ3 ∆Wt−3+.......+ κp ∆Wt−p + αt (3)
Null hypothesis in ADF test can be checked as, H0 : ρ = 0, while
H1: ρ < 0 is the alternative hypothesis by using t values, such as
ρ
tρ = (SE (ρ)) , where ρ̂ is the estimated parameters of ρ and (SE(ρ̂ ))
is the standard error. Here, the first-order difference lags of the
asymptotic distribution are independent of ρ and (SE(ρ̂ )). Elliott
et al. (1992) modify the ADF test to detrend the data to take out
the independent variables out of regression before running it and
also have high test power than the ADF test. Elliott et al. (1992)
altered the ADF test to take out the explanatory variables as
detrended data before running the regression, and its test power
is higher than that of the ADF. The DFGLS technique represents
the quasi-differential method of Wt d depending on the value of ρ
at the determined point. Below is the DFGLS equation in simple
form:
∆Wtd = ρ Wtd −1 + κ1 Wtd−1 + κ2 Wtd−2 + . . .. + κ3 Wtd−1 + εt (4)
Át and DFGLS equation here are not included as Wtdis detrended.
Phillips and Perron (1988) developed a new test based on a non-
parametric technique for a dickey fuller autoregressive process
AR(1) that modifies ρ and t to account for serial correlation. The
problem of error heteroscedasticity can also be handled with the
PP test; however, this test suffers from a size distortion problem,
which Ng and Perron (2001) address. Another method developed
by Kwiatkowski et al. (1992) used a Lagrange multiplier test
statistic based on ordinary least squares (OLS) residuals. Likewise,
the Ng and Perron (2001) test is a modified version of Phillips and
Perron (1988) based on GLS detrended data such as Wt d . Phillips
and Perron (1988) identified the problem of size distortion due
to the maximum inverse moving average and the low power of
testing for alternative hypotheses addressed by Ng and Perron
(2001).
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

k k
3.4. Co-integration test ∑ ∑
GBt− = GB−
i = min(∆GBi , 0) (14)
The appropriate method used in this study to analyze short- i=1 i=1
and long-term asymmetric relationships between variables is k
∑ k
∑
nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL). The NARDL RECt+ = RECi+ = max(∆RECi , 0) (15)
model introduced by Shin et al. (2014) works best when the i=1 i=1
variable integration order is in the level or first order and no k k
variables belong to the second order integration (Gaies et al.,
∑ ∑
RECt− = RECi− = min(∆RECi , 0) (16)
2021; Ghosh and Parab, 2021; Xia et al., 2022). Moreover, bound
i=1 i=1
testing approach employed later in the study as it provides the
best results with small sample sizes (Granger and Yoon, 2002; The short-term NARDL model based on Eqs. (9) and (10) can be
Narayan, 2005). Most studies only consider linear aspects of specified as
the relationship between Green finance, renewable energy and n
∑ n
∑ n
∑
carbon emission, and thus make a significant contribution to the ∆REIt = λ0 + λi∆REIt−I + λi∆GBt−i + λi∆GB−
t −1
literature (Ren et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022; Iram et al., 2022); i=1 i=1 i=1
this study analyzes a nonlinear framework for these variables. The
t −1 + µi
+β 1 REIt−1 + β2 GBt−1 + β3 GB− (17)
nonlinear functional equations are given as:
n n n
REI = f (GB+ , GB− )
∑ ∑ ∑
(5) ∆CO2t = δ0 + δ i∆CO2t−I + δ i∆GBt−i + δ i∆GB−
t −1
CO2 = f (GB , GB , REC , REC )
+ − + −
(6) i=1 i=1 i=1
n n
The nonlinear relationship between GB, REI, REC and CO2 can be
∑ ∑
+ δ i∆RECt−i + δ i∆RECt−−1 +Γ1 CO2t−1 +
explicitly expressed as:
i=1 i=1
REIt = ω0 + ω1 (GB+
t ) + ω2 (GBt )
−
(7) Γ2 GBt−1 + Γ3 GBt −1 + Γ4 RECt−1 + Γ5 RECt −1 + µi
− −
(18)
CO2 t = β0 + β1 (GBt ) + β2 (GBt ) + β3 (RECt ) + β4 (RECt )
+ − + −
(8)
3.5. Analysis of causality test
where GB+ − + −
t , GBt , RECt , RECt , are positive and negative com-
ponents of GF and REC respectively, showing an asymmetric NARDL cointegration methods cannot detect the direction of
relationship, and ω0 , ω1 , ω2 , β1 , β2 , β3 and β4 represent long-term causality between selected variables, so the direction of causality
asymmetric parameters. can be explored using the VECM causality direction proposed by
The short-term effects of variables can be expressed as: Granger (1969) based on the existence of long-term cointegra-
n
∑ n
∑ n
∑ tion. VECM’s Granger causality test is suitable for investigating
∆REIt = κ0 + κ1i ∆REIt−I + κ2i ∆GBt−i + κ3i ∆GDPt−i short-and long-term causality between renewable energy invest-
ment, economic growth, green finance, carbon emission, renew-
i=1 i=1 i=1
n n n able electricity output, private energy investment, and renewable
energy consumption. The model below is VECM
∑ ∑ ∑
+ κ4i ∆REOt−i + κ5i ∆PEIt−i + κ6i
⎡ InREI ⎤ ⎡β ⎤ ⎡α . . . α ⎤ ⎡InREI ⎤
i=1 i=1 i=1 t 1 1 n t −1
∆RECt−1 +ρ 1 REIt−1 + ρ2 GBt−1 + ρ3 GDPt−1 + ρ4 REOt−1 ⎢ InGBt ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢InREIt −2 ⎥
⎢InGDPt ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢InREIt −3 ⎥
+ ρ 5 PEIt−1 + ρ 6 RECt−1 + εt (9) ⎢ InREOt ⎥ = ⎢ . ⎥ + ⎢
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢
. ⎥ + ⎢InREIt −4 ⎥ + . . ..
⎥ ⎢ ⎥
n n n ⎢ InCO2 ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ .
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
∑ ∑ ∑ ⎥ ⎢InREIt −5 ⎥
∆CO2 t = λ0 + λ1i ∆CO2t−I + λ2i ∆GBt−i + λ3i ∆GDPt−i ⎣
InPEIt .
⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣
.
⎦ ⎣
InREIt −6
⎦
i=1 i=1 i=1 InRECt β7 α7 . . . αn InREIt −7
n n n ⎡e . . . .e ⎤ ⎡InPEI ⎤
∑ ∑ ∑ 1 n t −1
+ λ4i ∆GDP2t−i + λ5i ∆REOt−i + λ6i .
⎢ ⎥ ⎢InPEIt −2 ⎥
i=1 i=1 i=1 ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢InPEIt −3 ⎥
∆RECt−1 +e1 CO2t−1 + e2 GBt−1 + e3 GDPt−1 + e4 GDP2t−1 .
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
+⎢ ⎥ + ⎢InPEIt −4 ⎥
.
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
+ e5 REOt−1 + e6 RECt−1 + µt (10)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢InPEIt −5 ⎥
. InPEIt −6
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
Eqs. (6) and (7) have been decomposed into short-term and long- e7 . . . .en InPEIt −7
term coefficients, κ i and λi are the short-term coefficients, and ρ i ⎡λ ⎤ ⎡µ ⎤
and ei are the long-term coefficients. t t

Cointegration regression in a nonlinear framework can be ⎢.⎥ ⎢.⎥

⎢.⎥ ⎢.⎥
specified as:
. ⎥ ECMt−1 + ⎢ . ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
+⎢ (19)
zt = α + yt + + α − yt − + εt (11) ⎢.⎥ ⎢.⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
. .
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
where yt are long-run parameters, which is further decomposed
as: λt µt
yt = yt+ + yt − (12) where InREIt is the logarithm of renewable energy investment,
InGBt indicates logarithm of Green finance, InGDPt shows log-
in the Eq. (12) yt is an independent factor, decomposed into a arithm of Gross domestic product, InREOt denotes logarithm of
partial sum of positive and negative components, yt + yt − . The renewable electricity output, InCO2 is the logarithm of carbon
partial decompositions of GBt and RECt are highlighted in the emission, InPEIt shows logarithm of private energy investment,
following equations. InRECt is the logarithm of renewable energy consumption, β , α ,
k
∑ k
∑ e and λ are variable coefficients and µ is the error term. Long-
GBt+ = GB+
i = max(∆GBi , 0) (13) term relationships between variables can also be confirmed with
i=1 i=1
negative and significant ECMt-1.
5463
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

Table 1
Variable descriptive statistics.
LnREIt LnGBt LnREOt LnPEIt LnREt CO2,t GDPt
Mean 4.87 12.64 9.51 18.64 7.39 4.75 42.43
Median 4.95 12.64 9.52 18.65 7.38 4.68 42.93
Maximum 4.92 12.92 12.29 18.29 8.28 5.01 43.54
Minimum 4.36 10.03 9.09 17.94 7.77 4.03 31.67
Std. Dev. 0.42 0.53 0.81 0.46 0.32 0.58 0.53
Skewness 1.22 0.28 0.36 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.42
Kurtosis 3.96 2.95 2.92 3.27 2.54 1.99 2.53
Jarque–Bera 8.36 3.93 3.35 3.84 2.42 2.42 3.56
Probability 0.03 0.47 0.34 0.46 0.36 0.37 0.53
Sum 161.13 797.28 724.77 909.36 595.47 634.37 624.24
Sum Sq. Dev. 3.59 7.64 47.34 5.49 4.32 6.43 3.32
Observation 51 51 51 51 51 51 51

4. Analysis results
Descriptive statistics for the proposed model variables are
highlighted in Table 1, showing that renewable energy invest-
ment, carbon dioxide emissions, renewable electricity output,
and green bonds are normally distributed as indicated by the
Jarque–Bera test results. Variable positive statistics in skewness
indicate that all variables are positively skewed. Kurtosis shows
that renewable energy investment is lanky and peaking due to
high statistics.
Before estimating Eqs. (1) and (2), it is necessary to know the
integral order of each variable by means of the unit root test.
The results of unit root tests for ADF, PP, DFGLS, and KPSS to
determine cointegration are highlighted in Table 2. Crucially, the
unit root test checks not only the stationarity of each variable
but also its order, which allows us to continue applying relevant
econometric techniques for long-term cointegration. Each test
displays a different order integration level result. However, the
variation in these results was mainly due to each of the test
properties described above. The results show that except for re-
newable energy investment, it is stationary at the I(0) level, while
the remaining variables integrate at the first differential I(1). The
result asserts that all variables are integrated in mixed order,
I(0) and I(1). Different procedures and techniques for testing the
order of integration for each variable show varying degrees of
significance. The Engle and Granger (2015) cointegration method
cannot be used because the test requires that all variables must be
integrated at the same level, and the test is designed for bivariate
analysis. Likewise, for mixed orders, the cointegration method of
Johansen and Juselius (1990) cannot be applied. Therefore, a suit-
able method to integrate mixed order I(0) and I(1) is non-linear
autoregressive distributed lag model (NARDL).
The BDS test (Brooks, 1996) can only be used to explore
non-linear dependencies when there are structural breaks in the
data, as highlighted in previous studies (Manahov and Urquhart,
2021; Selmi et al., 2022). Thus, the BDS test was used in this
study to confirm the nonlinear correlation, and the results are
shown in Table 3. Thus, after confirming the structural fracture
and nonlinearity by BDS testing, we can proceed to estimate the
coefficients for the NARDL analysis.
Previous research has shown that optimal lag selection has a
large impact on long-term outcomes (Guan et al., 2020; Wu and
Xie, 2020). Model estimation can lead to erroneous conclusions
with less lag selection, however, higher lag selection can lead
to overestimation of results. Thus, two lag lengths were selected
based on the SIC criterion of the optimal lag length. Going a step
further, the NARDL bound test method was used for both the
models; as shown in Table 4. The NARDL bound test model results
predict the likelihood of an asymmetric long-term relationship
among the variables proposed in the two models.
5464
The estimated NARDL long-term coefficient results are shown
in Table 5. The main purpose of this study is to examine the
asymmetric relationship between green finance, renewable en-
ergy and environmental degradation. Asymmetric effects can be
detected from the sum of the positive and negative parts of GB
and REC, namely GB+ , GB− , REC+ and REC− (Koengkan et al.,
2020; Adebayo et al., 2022). The positive and negative compo-
nents of GB and REC all appear to be very significant in the
analysis, but there are conflicting signs that expansion and con-
traction of GB and REC have different effects on renewable energy
investment and carbon emissions, respectively. An increase in
the positive component of GB (GB+ ) and REC (REC+ ) in the
specified models indicates that GB has a gradual and significant
long-term effect on renewable energy investment, while REC
and GB have significant long-term negative impact on carbon
emissions. The long-term perimeter estimation results based on
the renewable energy investment clearly show that the coeffi-
cient of the positive component of green bonds (GB+ ) is 0.529,
indicating that for every 1% increase in green bonds, renewable
energy investment increases significantly by 0.529%. The negative
component coefficient of green bonds (GB− ) is −0.437, reflecting
that a 1% contraction in green bonds can significantly reduce
renewable energy investment by 0.437%. This finding is very
consistent with the studies by Ye et al. (2022), Rasoulinezhad
and Taghizadeh-Hesary (2022), Mngumi et al. (2022), Meo and
Abd Karim (2022), Li et al. (2021), Li et al. (2022) and Ye et al.
(2022). Besides, the long-term relationship between GDP and
renewable energy investment clearly shows that a 1% increase
in gross domestic product (GDP) significantly stimulates renew-
able energy investment by 0.482%. This result is in good agree-
ment with the findings of Li et al. (2021), Tambari and Failler
(2020), Ozorhon et al. (2018), Fan and Hao (2020), Ji and Zhang
(2019). The Wald statistic confirms the long-run asymmetry by
rejecting the null hypothesis that green finance and GDP have
symmetric effects on renewable energy investment. Moreover,
other estimated perimeters in the model, such as a 1% increase
in renewable electricity output, private energy investment, and
renewable energy consumption, contribute 0.267%, 0.432%, and
0.209% to renewable energy investment, respectively. Likewise,
the long term estimated perimeters in second model based on
carbon emissions show that the coefficient of the positive com-
ponent of green bonds (GB+ ) is –0.435, indicating that for every
1% increase in green bonds, carbon emission reduces significantly
by 0.435%. For every 1% decrease in Green bonds (GB− ), carbon
emissions will increase significantly by 0.364%. This evidence is
very consistent with research by Zahan and Chuanmin (2021),
Zhou et al. (2020), Wang et al. (2020), Huang et al. (2021b),
Meo and Abd Karim (2022) Bai et al. (2022), Zhang et al. (2021),
Muganyi et al. (2021). The asymmetric relationship between re-
newable energy consumption (REC) and carbon emissions shows
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

Table 2
Results of unit root test.
Level First difference Order
t-statistics t-statistics
Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF)
REI 2.746** – I(0)
GB 0.452 5.453* I(1)
REO 0.346 6.249* I(1)
PEI −0.272 −4.43* I(1)
REC 0.363 4.453* I(1)
GDP 0.264 4.126* I(1)
CO2 −0.345 4.473* I(1)
Phillips–Perron (PP)
REI 2.834** – I(0)
GB 0.563 4.453* I(1)
REO 0.457 5.268* I(1)
PEI −0.385 −3.496* I(1)
REC 0.476 4.587* I(1)
GDP 0.375 4.124* I(1)
CO2 −0.456 4.473* I(1)
Elliott-Rothenberg-Stock DF-GLS
REI 3.945** – I(0)
GB 0.673 4.564* I(1)
REO 0.568 5.379* I(1)
PEI −0.385 −3.501 I(1)
REC 0.587 4.698* I(1)
GDP 0.486 4.235* I(1)
CO2 −0.567 4.584* I(1)
Kwiatkowski-Phillips–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS)
REI 3.013** – I(0)
GB 0.784 4.675* I(1)
REO 0.679 5.480* I(1)
PEI −0.496 −3.618* I(1)
REC 0.698 4.709* I(1)
GDP 0.597 4.346* I(1)
CO2 −0.678 4.695* I(1)
Ng-Perron test
Level First difference Order
MZa MZt MSB MPT MZa MZt MSB MPT
REI −8.326* −6.974* 2.254** 3.854* – – – – I(0)
GB 1.434 1.837 1.323 1.355 3.324* 3.253* 2.456** 3.551* I(1)
REO 1.613 1.486 1.376 1.967 4.246* 3.576* 4.243* 3.987* I(1)
PEI 1.734 1.643 0.537 0.847 4.972* 4.753* 4.934* 4.268* I(1)
REC 0.568 0.367 0.539 0.632 3.585* 4.253* 4.324* 4.324* I(1)
GDP 1.243 1.435 1.632 0.215 3.962* 4.264* 4.415* 4.124* I(1)
CO2 0.491 0.519 0.982 0.902 5.345* 4.514* 4.915* 5.123* I(1)

Note: *, ** and *** indicate statistical significance at 1%. 5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 3
BDS test for detecting nonlinear dependencies.
BDS statistics Embedding dimensions = m
m = 2 m = 3 m = 4 m = 5 m = 6
REI 0.4415*** 0.4529*** 0.4186*** 0.5548*** 0.6575***
GB 0.4795*** 0.5901*** 0.6476*** 0.6578*** 0.7951***
GDP 0.5128*** 0.5275*** 0.6589*** 0.7544* 0.7965**
REO 0.6569** 0.6075*** 0.5797** 0.4965*** 0.6571***
PEI 0.4792*** 0.5469** 0.6453*** 0.4952** 0.5491***
REC 0.4952*** 0.5647*** 0.6754*** 0.7204** 0.5487***
CO2 0.5063** 0.6758*** 0.6865*** 0.8315*** 0.6582**

*, **, *** denote null hypothesis rejection at significance levels of 1, 5, and 10%, respectively.

Table 4
NARDL bound testing approaches for cointegration.
F-stat Lower–upper Lower–upper Lower–upper K Result
Bound (1%) Bound (5%) Bound (10%)
InREI/(InGB+ , InGB− , InGDP, InREO, InPEI, InREC) 5.79** 3.54–4.62 2.75–3.98 2.56–3.58 6 Co-integration
InCO2/(InGB+ , InGB− , InGDP, InREO, InREC + , InREC − ) 5.93*** 3.12–4.39 2.42–3.65 2.48–3.53 5 Co-integration

Note: *, **, *** are significant levels at 10%, 5%, and 1%, respectively.

5465
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

Table 5 Table 6
Long-Term Asymmetric ARDL Model elasticities. Short-run elasticities of asymmetric NARDL models.
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Variables Model 1 Model 2
InGB+ 0.529***(0.004) −0.435**(−0.031) InGB+ 0.152**(0.031) −0.312**(−0.013)
InGB− −0.437**(−0.021) 0.364***(0.004) InGB− −0.192(−0.721) 0.728(0.163)
InGDP 0.482***(0.003) 0.621***(0.002) InGDP 0.132(0.001) 0.321***(0.007)
InGDP2 – −0.253***(−0.007) InGDP2 – −0.183*(−0.061)
InREC+ 0.209***(0.005) −0.261**(−0.023) InREC+ 0.181*(0.052) −0.314*(−0.051)
InREC− – 0.284***(0.002) In REC− – 0.171(0.351)
InREO 0.267***(0.006) −0.924**(−0.031)
InPEI 0.432***(0.005) – InPEI 0.243(0.241) –
Constant −15.834**(−0.012) −9.493***(−0.001) InREO 0.125(0.396) 0.616(0.182)
R2 0.96 0.91 ECTt−1 −0.781**(0.001) −0.73***(0.005)
Adj R2 0.76 0.71 Note: ***, **, and * represent the significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%,
F-statistic 974.84 793.82 respectively, and the numbers in parentheses are the probabilities of each
Wald statistic 1.103(0.252) 1.328(0.261) coefficient.
Note: ***, **, and * reflect the significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively,
and the values in parentheses are the probabilities of each coefficient.

that for every 1% increase in renewable energy consumption
(REC+ ), there is a significant 0.261% reduction in carbon emis-
sions, while a 1% reduction in renewable energy consumption
(REC− ) can significantly increase carbon emissions by 0.284%.
This result is consistent with the studies by Luo et al. (2022),
Ali et al. (2022), Yuping et al. (2021) and Awodumi and Adewuyi
(2020). The Wald statistic confirms the long-run asymmetry by
rejecting the null hypothesis that green bonds and renewable
energy consumption have symmetric effects on carbon emission.
Moreover, the effect of GDP on carbon emission is significantly
positive, however, GDP2 has significantly a negative impact on
carbon emission. This result confirms the validity of the inverted
U shaped EKC hypothesis in China. The sign of the GDP coefficient
is significantly positive (GDP > 0), while the sign of GDP2 is
significantly negative (GDP3 < 0). The positive effect of GDP
on environmental degradation persists to a certain extent due
to scale effects. Compared to regenerative capacity in earlier
stages of economic development, this may improve the use of
natural resources, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions
from human activities. The adverse effects of GDP squared is due
to technology and compositional effects, which in turn develop
clean activities and environmentally friendly technologies. The
confirmation of the validity of the U-shaped EKC hypothesis in
this study is in good agreement with the studies by Tenaw and
Beyene (2021), Ali et al. (2022), Luo et al. (2022). The results also
show that renewable electricity output has a significant adverse
effect on carbon emissions.
The short-term elasticity of the parameters based on renew-
able energy investment in the analysis is shown in Table 6,
and it can be observed that the magnitude of the coefficients
of the sum of the positive and negative components of green
bonds (GB) move linearly inward with the direction of renewable
energy investment. Such as, the rise of Green bonds (GB+ ) has
a gradually significant impact on renewable energy investment.
The decline in green bonds (GB− ) has insignificant adverse impact
on renewable energy investment. Other estimated perimeters in
the model, such as GDP, private energy investment and renewable
electricity output, all have gradual but not statistically significant
effects on renewable energy investment. Likewise, the elasticity
of short-run variables based on carbon emissions clearly shows
that both green bonds (GB+ ) and renewable energy consumption
(REC+ ) expansions have significant adverse effects on carbon
emissions. Declines in green bonds (GB− ) and renewable energy
consumption (REC− ) had a gradual but not statistically significant
impact on carbon emissions. Other variables in the model, such
as GDP, have a significant asymptotic effect on carbon emissions,
while GDP2 has a significant adverse effect on carbon emissions,
thus validating China’s EKC in the short term. Moreover, the
5466
Table 7
Diagnostic tests for the NARDL model.
Diagnostic tests F-statistics Probability
Normality(Jarque–Bera) test 9.643 0.536
Serial correlation 0.9724 0.766
Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey test 1.3626 0.638
ARCH 0.4705 0.773
Ramey reset 1.4006 0.571
negative impact of renewable electricity output on carbon emis-
sions is insignificant. The coefficients of ECTt–1 are −0.78 and
−0.73, respectively, indicating that short-term imbalances can be
adjusted to long-term imbalances in the range of 78%–73%.
The diagnostic test results in Table 7 confirm the absence of
serial correlation and heteroskedasticity issues, and the model
passes other tests such as the Jarque–Bera normality test, Breusch–
Pagan–Godfrey test, ARCH, and Ramey Reset.
The stability of the models has checked using the CUSUM
and CSUSMQ tests, and the results in Appendices B and C show
that both models are stable as the estimated lines are within the
boundaries of the critical line at the 5% significance level.
Finally, dynamic multiplier adjustments for green bonds and
renewable energy consumption to balance long-term positive and
negative shocks, as shown in Appendix D, E, and F. Positive and
negative change curves indicate the evidence for the asymmetric
adjustment of renewable energy investment and carbon emission
to negative and positive shocks of green bonds and renewable
energy consumption at a given time period. The overall results
of the dynamic multiplier plot show that a positive shock to
green bonds has a larger long-term impact on renewable energy
investment than a negative shock to green bonds, indicating
a positive long-term asymmetry. Similarly, in Appendix E, the
positive shock of green bonds has a higher asymmetric effect on
carbon emissions than its negative shock, and in Appendix F, the
negative shock of renewable energy consumption has a higher
asymmetric effect on carbon emissions than its positive shock.
Regarding the positive green bond shock in Appendix D and the
negative renewable energy consumption shock in Appendix F, it
is more prominent and domineering. Exploration of these four
figures provides insight into the asymmetric validity highlighted
in Table 5.
Granger (1969) asserted that if the variable integration or-
der is unique and has long-term cointegration, VECM Granger
causality can be applied to explore short- and long-term causality
between variables of interest. Thus, the VECM Granger causality
method can be used to examine the direction of causality among
China’s renewable energy investment, green finance, renewable
electricity output, private energy investment, renewable energy
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

Table 8
Result of VECM Granger causality test.
Dependent Short term causal relationship Long term
factors ECMt−1
Independent factors
∆REI ∆GF+ ∆GF− ∆PEI ∆REC ∆REC− ∆GDP ∆REO ∆CO2
∆REI – 0.24* 0.68 0.34 0.25 −0.80 0.18* 0.42 −0.42 0.43*
(0.01) (0.43) (0.32) (0.15) (−0.58) (0.03) (0.21) (−0.21) (0.00)
∆GF+ 0.023 – – 0.18 0.27* −0.82 0.83** 0.052 −0.26 0.61*
(0.21) (0.26) (0.01) (−059) (0.02) (0.16) (−0.32) (0.00)
∆GF− 0.52 – – −0.27 0.16 0.15 0.86 −0.29 0.63 0.73
(0.21) (−0.21) (0.41) (0.93) (0.71) (0.41) (0.23) (0.27)
∆PEI 0.041 0.13 0.05 – 0.45 0.87 0.23* 0.07 −0.41 0.25
(0.31) (0.16) (0.37) (0.24) (0.74) (0.01) (0.21) (−0.32) (0.32)
∆REC+ 0.28** 0.15* 0.05 0.18 – – 0.25 0.25 −0.21 0.34*
(0.02) (0.00) (0.21) (0.26) (0.26) (0.24) (−0.27) (0.01)
∆REC− 0.27 0.35 −0.23 −0.48 – – −0.32 −0.45 0.75 0.53
(0.21) (0.27) (−0.25) (−0.24) (−0.39) (0.42) (0.54) (0.51)
∆GDP 0.26* 0.21* 0.32 0.24 0.43** 0.23 – 0.76 −0.62 0.31*
(0.00) (0.00) (0.26) (0.32) (0.04) (0.24) (0.69) (−0.15) (0.00)
∆REO 0.041 0.38 – 0.18 0.04 0.02 0.38 – 0.21 0.32***
(0.21) (0.14) (0.31) (0.15) (0.24) (0.13) (0.41) (0.07)
CO2 −0.34 −0.24 0.25 0.31 −0.23** – 0.07 (0.32) – 0.31*
(−0.13) (−0.19) (0.24) (0.26) (−0.03) 0.32 (0.26) (0.00)

consumption, GDP, and carbon dioxide emissions. The short-term
results of VECM Granger causality in Table 8 suggest that green
finance has a Granger cause for renewable energy investment.
Likewise, renewable energy consumption has a one-way causal
relationship to GDP and carbon emissions. Moreover, GDP and
renewable energy investment have a bidirectional causality. Sim-
ilarly, renewable energy consumption and green finance have
two-way causality, and GDP and green finance have bidirectional
causal relationship in the short term. Long-term causality re-
sults show that the coefficients of ECMt−1 in variables such as
renewable energy investment, green finance, renewable energy
consumption, carbon emissions, and GDP are significant at the 1%
level, while renewable electricity output is significant at the 10%
level, reflecting that these variables have a long-term two-way
causal relationship.
5. Concluding remarks
This study examines the asymmetric impact of green bonds
(green finance) and GDP on renewable energy investment, and
the asymmetric impact of green bonds and renewable energy
consumption on carbon emissions in China from 1980 to 2020. An
appropriate method for analyzing short- and long-term asymmet-
ric relationships between the variables of interest in this study
is nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL), proposed by
Shin et al. (2014). This study also used VECM Granger causality
to identify bidirectional causality between variables of interest.
The NARDL Bound test method found long-term cointegration
among the variables presented in the two selected models. Long-
run variable elasticities based on renewable energy investment
shows that expansion of green bonds (GB+ ) and gross domestic
product (GDP+ ) significantly boosts renewable energy invest-
ment, while the contraction in green bonds (GB− ) and gross
domestic product (GDP− ) significantly reduced renewable energy
investment. The results clearly show that the positive impact
of green bonds and GDP has a larger long-term impact on re-
newable energy investment than the negative impact of green
5467
bonds and GDP, indicating a positive long-term asymmetry. Other
estimated perimeters symmetrically reflect that both renewable
energy investment and private energy investment significantly
boost renewable energy investment in the long run. Likewise,
estimates of long-run variable elasticity in the second model
based on carbon emissions show that the expansion of green
bonds (GB+) and renewable energy consumption (REC+) sig-
nificantly reduces carbon emissions, while the contraction of
green bonds (GB−) and renewable energy consumption (REC−)
contributes significantly to carbon emissions. The results clearly
show that the positive asymmetric effect of green bonds on
carbon emissions is higher than the negative, and the negative of
renewable energy consumption has a higher asymmetric effect on
carbon emissions than the positive. Moreover, the effect of GDP
on carbon emission is significantly positive, however, GDP2 has
significantly a negative impact on carbon emission. This result
confirms the validity of the inverted U shaped EKC hypothesis in
China. The results also show that renewable electricity output has
a significant long-term adverse effect on carbon emissions. The
short-term elasticity of the parameters based on renewable en-
ergy investment in the analysis indicate that the magnitude of the
coefficients of the sum of the positive and negative components of
green bonds and GDP, respectively, move linearly inward with the
direction of renewable energy investment. However, the short-
term elasticity of the parameters based on carbon emissions
shows that the magnitude of the sum of the positive and negative
components of green bonds and renewable energy consumption
are in opposite directions to carbon emissions, respectively.
The results of the VECM Granger causality test clearly suggest
that green finance has a Granger cause for renewable energy
investment. Likewise, renewable energy consumption has a one-
way causal relationship to GDP and carbon emissions. Moreover,
GDP and renewable energy investment have a bidirectional causal
relationship. Similarly, renewable energy consumption and green
finance have two-way causality, and GDP and green finance have
bidirectional causal relationship in the short term. Long-term
causality results show that the coefficients of ECMt−1 in variables
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

such as renewable energy investment, green finance, renewable Funding

energy consumption, carbon emissions, and GDP are significant
at the 1% level, while renewable electricity output is significant No funds, grants, or other support were received during the
at the 10% level, reflecting that these variables have a long-term preparation of this manuscript
causality.
The current empirical research suggests policies that need Ethical approval
immediate consideration and implementation. First, the empirical
results explore the volatility of renewable energy investment,
The study obtained ethical approval from Central University of
green finance and renewable electricity output, therefore, pol-
Finance and Economics, Chines Academy of Finance and develop-
icy design must control for the volatility of these variables by
ment, China.
allocating a fixed proportion of the budget or through appro-
priate checks and balances. Second, research empirical evidence
shows that stimulating green finance can significantly boost re- Consent for publication
newable energy investment in China, so policies must consider
strengthening green finance, which will encourage renewable The authors have provided consent to publish this work.
energy investment and renewable energy generation. Moreover,
renewable electricity output greatly facilitates renewable energy Appendix A. Variables interpretation
investment, so China must innovate policies to take into account
renewable electricity rather than fossil fuel generation in order to
achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Strategically, Variables Description Measure- Sources
the policy is believed to help reduce economic, environmental ment
and financial uncertainty in China.
REI Renewable Constant World Development
This study is limited to the environmental, economic and fi-
energy 2015 US$ Indicators (WDI)
nancial aspects of renewable energy in China, however, this study investment
can be extended to other countries or world regions. Additionally,
GB Green bonds Current US$ World Development
this study can be extended to increase the sample size and panel Indicators (WDI)
data analysis. The analysis of this study focuses on the asym-
REO Renewable % of total World Development
metric relationship among green finance, GDP, carbon emissions, electricity electricity Indicators (WDI)
renewable energy investment, and renewable energy consump- output output
tion, taking into account the impact of Covid-19. However, future
PEI Private Current US$ Wind
research on the same theme should be analyzed by considering energy
other natural resources, taking into account both the time before investment
and after Covid-19 and the price of energy and renewables. REC Renewable KG of oil World Development
energy con- equivalent Indicators (WDI)
CRediT authorship contribution statement sumption
CO2 Carbon Metric tons World Development
Yu Feng: Conception and design of study, Analysis and/or emission per capita Indicators (WDI)
interpretation of data, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & GDP Gross Current US$ World Development
editing. Zhihan Xiao: Acquisition of data, Writing – original draft. domestic Indicators (WDI)
Jinghong Zhou: Conception and design of study, Acquisition of product
data, Analysis and/or interpretation of data, Writing – review &
editing. Guqiang Ni: Conception and design of study, Analysis Appendix B. Model stability check for model 1 using CUSUM
and/or interpretation of data, Writing – original draft, Writing – and CUSUMSQ
review & editing.
See Fig. B.1.
Declaration of competing interest
Appendix C. Model stability check for model 2 using CUSUM
Authors declare no conflict of interest.
and CUSUMSQ

Data availability See Fig. C.1.

Data will be made available on request

Appendix D. Cumulative effect of GB on REI

Acknowledgment
See Fig. D.1.

All persons who have made substantial contributions to the

Appendix E. Cumulative effect of GB on CO2
work reported in the manuscript (e.g., technical help, writing and
editing assistance, general support), but who do not meet the
criteria for authorship, are named in the Acknowledgments and See Fig. E.1.
have given us their written permission to be named. If we have
not included an Acknowledgments, then that indicates that we Appendix F. Cumulative effect of REC on CO2
have not received substantial contributions from non-authors.
All authors approved the version of the manuscript to be See Fig. F.1.
published.
5468
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

Fig. B.1.

Fig. C.1.

5469
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al. Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472

Fig. D.1. Note: 95% bootstrap CI is based on 100 replications.

Fig. E.1. Note: 95% bootstrap CI is based on 100 replications.

5470
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al.
Fig. F.1. Note: 95% bootstrap CI is based on 100 replications.
References
Adebayo, T.S., Oladipupo, S.D., Rjoub, H., Kirikkaleli, D., Adeshola, I., 2022.
Asymmetric effect of structural change and renewable energy consumption
on carbon emissions: designing an SDG framework for Turkey. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 1–29.
Aktar, M.A., Alam, M.M., Al-Amin, A.Q., 2021. Global economic crisis, energy use,
CO2 emissions, and policy roadmap amid COVID-19. Sustain. Prod. Consump.
26, 770–781.
Al Mamun, M., Sohag, K., Shahbaz, M., Hammoudeh, S., 2018. Financial markets,
innovations and cleaner energy production in OECD countries. Energy Econ.
72, 236–254.
Ali, A., Radulescu, M., Lorente, D.B., Hoang, V.N.V., 2022. An analysis of the impact
of clean and non-clean energy consumption on economic growth and carbon
emission: evidence from PIMC countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–14.
Arain, H., Sharif, A., Akbar, B., Younis, M., 2020. Dynamic connection between
inward foreign direct investment, renewable energy, economic growth and
carbon emission in China: evidence from partial and multiple wavelet
coherence. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (32), 40456–40474.
Awodumi, O.B., Adewuyi, A.O., 2020. The role of non-renewable energy con-
sumption in economic growth and carbon emission: evidence from oil
producing economies in Africa. Energy Strategy Rev. 27, 100434.
Azhgaliyeva, D., Liddle, B., 2020. Introduction to the special issue: scaling up
green finance in Asia. J. Sustain. Finance Invest. 10 (2), 83–91.
Bai, J., Chen, Z., Yan, X., Zhang, Y., 2022. Research on the impact of green finance
on carbon emissions: evidence from China. Econ. Res. Ekonom. Istraživanja
1–20.
Brooks, C., 1996. Testing for non-linearity in daily sterling exchange rates. Appl.
Finan. Econ. 6 (4), 307–317.
Chen, C., Hu, Y., Karuppiah, M., Kumar, P.M., 2021. Artificial intelligence on
economic evaluation of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 47, 101358.
Dalia, S., Vitaliy, K., 2021. Green finance and the economic threats during
COVID-19 pandemic. Terra Econ. 19 (2), 105–113.
Debrah, C., Chan, A.P.C., Darko, A., 2022. Green finance gap in green buildings:
A scoping review and future research needs. Build. Environ. 207, 108443.
Dikau, S., Volz, U., 2021. Central bank mandates, sustainability objectives and
the promotion of green finance. Ecol. Econom. 184, 107022.
Elliott, G., Rothenberg, T.J., Stock, J.H., 1992. Efficient tests for an autoregressive
unit root.
Engle, R.F., Granger, C.W.J., 2015. Co-integration and error correction: represen-
tation, estimation, and testing. Appl. Econ. 39, 107–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2307/1913236.
Falcone, P.M., 2020. Environmental regulation and green investments: The role
of green finance. Int. J. Green Econ. 14 (2), 159–173.
Fan, W., Hao, Y., 2020. An empirical research on the relationship amongst renew-
able energy consumption, economic growth and foreign direct investment in
China. Renew. Energy 146, 598–609.
5471
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472
Filipović, S., Lior, N., Radovanović, M., 2022. The green deal–just transition
and sustainable development goals Nexus. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 168,
112759.
Gaies, B., Nakhli, M.S., Sahut, J.M., Guesmi, K., 2021. Is bitcoin rooted in
confidence?–unraveling the determinants of globalized digital currencies.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 172, 121038.
Ghosh, T., Parab, P.M., 2021. Assessing India’s productivity trends and endoge-
nous growth: New evidence from technology, human capital and foreign
direct investment. Econ. Model. 97, 182–195.
Granger, C.W., 1969. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and
cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 424–438.
Granger, C.W., Yoon, G., 2002. Hidden Cointegration. U of California. Economics
Working Paper, (2002-02).
Guan, J., Kirikkaleli, D., Bibi, A., Zhang, W., 2020. Natural resources rents nexus
with financial development in the presence of globalization: is the ‘‘resource
curse’’ exist or myth?. Resources Policy 66, 101641.
Hoang, A.T., Nižetić, S., Olcer, A.I., Ong, H.C., Chen, W.H., Chong . . ., C.T.,
Nguyen, X.P., 2021. Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on the global energy sys-
tem and the shift progress to renewable energy: Opportunities, challenges,
and policy implications. Energy Policy 154, 112322.
Huang, Q., Wang, F., Yang, H., Valitutto, M., Songer, M., 2021a. Will the
COVID-19 outbreak be a turning point for China’s wildlife protection: New
developments and challenges of wildlife conservation in China. Biol. Cons.
254, 108937.
Huang, Y., Xue, L., Khan, Z., 2021b. What abates carbon emissions in China:
Examining the impact of renewable energy and green investment. Sustain.
Dev. 29 (5), 823–834.
Husted, B.W., de Sousa-Filho, J.M., 2017. The impact of sustainability governance,
country stakeholder orientation, and country risk on environmental, social,
and governance performance. J. Clean. Prod. 155, 93–102.
International Energy Agency, 2022. Southeast Asia energy outlook
2022. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/e5d9b7ff-559b-4dc3-
8faa42381f80ce2e/SoutheastAsiaEnergyOutlook2022.pdf.
Iram, R., Lan, J., Lu, Q., Farooq, M.U., Ma, X., 2022. Assessing the combining role
of public–private investment as a green finance and renewable energy in
carbon neutrality target. Renew. Energy.
Ji, Q., Zhang, D., 2019. How much does financial development contribute to re-
newable energy growth and upgrading of energy structure in China? Energy
Policy 128, 114–124.
Johansen, S., Juselius, K., 1990. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference
on cointegration–with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bull.
Econ. Stat. 52 (2), 169–210.
Khan, Z., Sisi, Z., Siqun, Y., 2019. Environmental regulations an option: Asymme-
try effect of environmental regulations on carbon emissions using non-linear
ARDL. Energy Sources A 41 (2), 137–155.
Y. Feng, Z. Xiao, J. Zhou et al.
Koengkan, M., Fuinhas, J.A., Santiago, R., 2020. Asymmetric impacts of globali-
sation on CO2 emissions of countries in latin America and the Caribbean.
Environ. Syst. Decis. 40 (1), 135–147.
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P.C., Schmidt, P., Shin, Y., 1992. Testing the null
hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are
we that economic time series have a unit root?. J. Econ. 54 (1–3), 159–178.
Le Billon, P., Lujala, P., Singh, D., Culbert, V., Kristoffersen, B., 2021. Fossil fuels,
climate change, and the COVID-19 crisis: pathways for a just and green
post-pandemic recovery. Clim. Policy 21 (10), 1347–1356.
Li, M., Hamawandy, N.M., Wahid, F., Rjoub, H., Bao, Z., 2021. Renewable energy
resources investment and green finance: Evidence from China. Resour. Policy
74, 102402.
Li, Z., Kuo, T.H., Siao-Yun, W., Vinh, L.T., 2022. Role of green finance, volatility
and risk in promoting the investments in renewable energy resources in the
post-covid-19. Resour. Policy 76, 102563.
Liu, X., Kong, H., Zhang, S., 2021. Can urbanization, renewable energy,
and economic growth make environment more eco-friendly in northeast
Asia? Renew. Energy 169, 23–33.
Luo, Y., Guo, C., Ali, A., Zhang, J., 2022. A dynamic analysis of the impact of FDI,
on economic growth and carbon emission, evidence from China, India and
Singapore. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–15.
Madaleno, M., Dogan, E., Taskin, D., 2022. A step forward on sustainability: The
nexus of environmental responsibility, green technology, clean energy and
green finance. Energy Econ. 109, 105945.
Manahov, V., Urquhart, A., 2021. The efficiency of bitcoin: A strongly typed
genetic programming approach to smart electronic bitcoin markets. Int. Rev.
Financ. Anal. 73, 101629.
Meo, M.S., Abd Karim, M.Z., 2022. The role of green finance in reducing CO2
emissions: An empirical analysis. Borsa Istanbul Rev. 22 (1), 169–178.
Mngumi, F., Shaorong, S., Shair, F., Waqas, M., 2022. Does green finance mitigate
the effects of climate variability: role of renewable energy investment and
infrastructure. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1–13.
Moorthy, K., Patwa, N., Gupta, Y., 2019. Breaking barriers in deployment of
renewable energy. Heliyon 5 (1), e01166.
Muganyi, T., Yan, L., Sun, H.P., 2021. Green finance, fintech and environmental
protection: Evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 7, 100107.
Narayan, P.K., 2005. The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from
cointegration tests. Appl. Econ. 37 (17), 1979–1990.
Ng, S., Perron, P., 2001. Lag length selection and the construction of unit root
tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69 (6), 1519–1554.
Ozorhon, B., Batmaz, A., Caglayan, S., 2018. Generating a framework to facilitate
decision making in renewable energy investments. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 95, 217–226.
Paris, International Energy Agency, 2019. World energy investment 2019—
data tables. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-
investment-2019.
Park, Y., Meng, F., Baloch, M.A., 2018. The effect of ICT, financial development,
growth, and trade openness on CO2 emissions: an empirical analysis.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (30), 30708–30719.
Peimani, H., 2019. Financial barriers for development of renewable and green
energy projects in Asia. In: Handbook of Green Finance. Springer, Singapore,
pp. 15–34.
Phillips, P., Perron, P., 1988. Testing for a unit root in time series analysis.
Biometrika 75, 335–346.
Pyka, I., Nocoń, A., 2021. Responsible lending policy of green investments in the
energy sector in Poland. Energies 14 (21), 7298.
Rahman, M.M., Khan, I., Field, D.L., Techato, K., Alameh, K., 2022. Powering
agriculture: Present status, future potential, and challenges of renewable
energy applications. Renew. Energy 188, 731–749.
Rasoulinezhad, E., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., 2022. Role of green finance in improv-
ing energy efficiency and renewable energy development. Energy Effic. 15
(2), 1–12.
Ren, X., Shao, Q., Zhong, R., 2020. Nexus between green finance, non-fossil energy
use, and carbon intensity: Empirical evidence from China based on a vector
error correction model. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 122844.
S & P Global, 2022. Measuring the impact of green bonds. https://www.spglobal.
com/esg/insights/blog/measuring-the-impact-of-green-bonds.
Saleem, H., Khan, M.B., Shabbir, M.S., 2020. The role of financial development,
energy demand, and technological change in environmental sustainability
agenda: evidence from selected Asian countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27
(5), 5266–5280.
5472
Energy Reports 9 (2023) 5458–5472
Saud, S., Chen, S., Haseeb, A., 2020. The role of financial development and glob-
alization in the environment: accounting ecological footprint indicators for
selected one-belt-one-road initiative countries. J. Clean. Prod. 250, 119518.
Selmi, R., Bouoiyour, J., Wohar, M.E., 2022. Digital gold and geopolitics. Res. Int.
Bus. Finance 59, 101512.
Shan, Y., Ou, J., Wang, D., Zeng, Z., Zhang, S., Guan, D., Hubacek, K., 2021. Impacts
of COVID-19 and fiscal stimuli on global emissions and the Paris agreement.
Nature Clim. Change 11 (3), 200–206.
Shapiro, J., 2019. China’s environmental challenges. In: Green Planet Blues.
Routledge, pp. 101–108.
Shin, Y., Yu, B., Greenwood-Nimmo, M., 2014. Modelling asymmetric cointegra-
tion and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In: Festschrift
in Honor of Peter Schmidt. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 281–314.
Solangi, Y.A., Longsheng, C., Shah, S.A.A., 2021. Assessing and overcoming the
renewable energy barriers for sustainable development in Pakistan: An
integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach. Renew. Energy 173, 209–222.
Sun, Y., Guan, W., Cao, Y., Bao, Q., 2022. Role of green finance policy in renewable
energy deployment for carbon neutrality: Evidence from China. Renew.
Energy 197, 643–653.
Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Yoshino, N., Phoumin, H., 2021. Analyzing the character-
istics of green bond markets to facilitate green finance in the post-COVID-19
world. Sustainability 13 (10), 5719.
Tambari, I., Failler, P., 2020. Determining if oil prices significantly affect renew-
able energy investment in African countries with energy security concerns.
Energies 13 (24), 6740.
Tenaw, D., Beyene, A.D., 2021. Environmental sustainability and economic devel-
opment in sub-Saharan Africa: A modified EKC hypothesis. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 143, 110897.
Umar, M., Ji, X., Kirikkaleli, D., Xu, Q., 2020. COP21 roadmap: Do innova-
tion, financial development, and transportation infrastructure matter for
environmental sustainability in China? J. Environ. Manag. 271, 111026.
van Zyl, E.J., 2021. Redistributive Populism Versus Strengthening Property
Rights: A Comparative Study of Venezuela and Zimbabwe, and Uruguay and
Botswana (Doctoral Dissertation). Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Wang, L., Su, C.W., Ali, S., Chang, H.L., 2020. How China is fostering sustainable
growth: the interplay of green investment and production-based emission.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (31), 39607–39618.
World Bank. Data Bank, World Development Indicators. https://databank.
worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators.
Wu, R., Xie, Z., 2020. Identifying the impacts of income inequality on CO2 emis-
sions: empirical evidences from OECD countries and non-OECD countries. J.
Cleaner Production 277, 123858.
Xia, L., Ali, A., Wang, H., Wu, X., Qian, D., 2022. A dynamic analysis of the
asymmetric effects of the vocational education and training on economic
growth, evidence from China. Front. Psychol. 13.
Ye, J., Al-Fadly, A., Huy, P.Q., Ngo, T.Q., Hung, D.D.P., Tien, N.H., 2022. The nexus
among green financial development and renewable energy: investment in
the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 1–26.
Yuping, L., Ramzan, M., Xincheng, L., Murshed, M., Awosusi, A.A., Bah, S.I.,
Adebayo, T.S., 2021. Determinants of carbon emissions in Argentina: the
roles of renewable energy consumption and globalization. Energy Rep. 7,
4747–4760.
Zahan, I., Chuanmin, S., 2021. Towards a green economic policy framework in
China: role of green investment in fostering clean energy consumption and
environmental sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pollution Res. 28, 43618–43628.
Zhang, Y., Liu, Z., Baloch, Z.A., 2022. Combining effects of private participation
and green finance for renewable energy: Growth of economy as mediating
tool. Renew. Energy.
Zhang, D., Mohsin, M., Rasheed, A.K., Chang, Y., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., 2021.
Public spending and green economic growth in BRI region: mediating role
of green finance. Energy Policy 153, 112256.
Zhou, M., Li, X., 2022. Influence of green finance and renewable energy resources
over the sustainable development goal of clean energy in China. Resour.
Policy 78, 102816.
Zhou, X., Tang, X., Zhang, R., 2020. Impact of green finance on economic
development and environmental quality: a study based on provincial panel
data from China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (16), 19915–19932.
Zoungrana, A., Çakmakci, M., 2021. From non-renewable energy to renewable
by harvesting salinity gradient power by reverse electrodialysis: A review.
Int. J. Energy Res. 45 (3), 3495–3522.