Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Strategy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/esr

Does renewable energy reduce per capita carbon emissions and per capita
ecological footprint? New evidence from 130 countries
Rongrong Li a, b, Qiang Wang a, b, *, lejia Li b
a
School of Economics and Management, Xinjiang University, Wulumuqi, 830046, People’s Republic of China
b
School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580, People’s Republic of China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Mark Howells This study explores whether increasing renewable energy consumption can alleviate environmental pressures
(per capita carbon emissions and per capita ecological footprint) and the heterogeneity of the effects of
Keywords: increasing renewable energy consumption on the environmental pressures of countries in different income
Renewable energy consumption groups. We analyze 130 countries and three income groups from 1992 to 2019 based on a panel threshold
Ecological footprint
regression estimation approach. The results show that (i) There is a negative relationship between renewable
Carbon emission
energy consumption and per capita ecological footprint and per capita carbon emissions, indicating that
Environmental pressure
renewable energy consumption alleviates environmental pressure. (ii) When renewable energy consumption
increases, the negative effects of renewable energy on per capita ecological footprint and per capita carbon
emissions become more significant. This means that the more renewable energy is developed, the more it helps to
alleviate environmental pressure. (iii) The inhibitory effect of renewable energy consumption on per capita
ecological footprint is more significant in low-income countries than in middle-income countries. This indicates
that renewable energy is more effective in reducing environmental pressures in poor countries than in rich
countries.

1. Introduction International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) indicates that global

Due to the negative impact of high pollutant emissions in the com­
bustion of fossil energy on the environment and the negative impact of
fossil energy price fluctuations on the social economy, renewable energy
has become more popular as a low-carbon and sustainable energy source
[1]. To reduce environmental stress, achieve decarbonization, achieve
climate neutrality, and achieve sustainability as specified in the UN
Agenda 2030 and its SDGs as well as the Paris Agreement, renewable
energy is a crucial component. A quicker energy transition with rapid
deployment of renewable energy is essential for the 1.5◦ Paris-compliant
future. Renewable energy has been intensively pursued in recent years
to slow down climate change and reduce our overdependence on fossil
fuels. It has emerged as a key policy goal on the global agenda, such as
SDG 7 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Na­
tions, which calls for universal access to affordable, dependable, and
modern energy services [2]. According to IEA (International Energy
Agency) statistics, the proportion of renewable energy in total energy
consumption has risen from 6.6% in 1990 to 10.5% in 2017. The "
Renewable Capacity Statistics 2021″ report published by the
renewable energy generation in 2020 has reached 2799 GW, an increase
of 110.48% compared to 2011 and 10.27% compared to 2019 [3]. Even
if the global economy slows down in 2020 under the impact of
COVID-19, renewable energy generation in 2020 still exceeds that of
2019. This shows that the transition from the traditional energy struc­
ture to the renewable energy structure is a major trend. However,
renewable energy also has some negative impacts on the environment
[4]. For example, damage to land, water quality, and ecosystems from
hydroelectric power generation, waste ash from biomass combustion,
and environmental pollution from the construction of renewable energy
production factories. Thus, this study uses empirical analysis to answer
the following questions: what impact does the promotion of renewable
energy consumption have on the sustainable development of the envi­
ronment? Is the degree of the impact the same in countries with different
income levels?
The sustainable development of the environment depends not only
on the amount of pollutants discharged but also on its ability to absorb
environmental pollutants [5–7]. Ecological footprint refers to the
amount of land and water with the productive capacity required by a

* Corresponding author. School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580, People’s Republic of China.
E-mail address: wangqiang7@upc.edu.cn (Q. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101121
Received 26 May 2022; Received in revised form 21 June 2023; Accepted 28 June 2023
Available online 20 July 2023
2211-467X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R. Li et al.
certain population unit, such as a person, city, country, or all human
beings, to produce the required resources and absorb the resulting waste
under the existing technical conditions [8]. On the one hand, the
ecological footprint measures six aspects which include built-up land,
cropland, carbon, grazing land, fishing grounds, and forest footprints,
thus capturing the overall environmental dynamics [9]. On the other
hand, the size of the ecological footprint symbolizes the human con­
sumption of natural resources and services. By comparing the ecological
footprint with the biological carrying capacity, it is possible to deter­
mine whether the area is experiencing an ecological deficit [10].
Therefore, to have a more comprehensive understanding of the impact
of the promotion of renewable energy consumption on environmental
sustainability, this article analyzes this issue from the perspectives of
carbon emissions and ecological footprint.
Analyzing the mechanism of the effect of renewable energy on the
environment, we find that there may be a double effect, namely the
substitution effect and the technology effect. The substitution effect
refers to the fact that renewable energy can replace traditional fossil
energy and reduce environmental pollution by optimizing the energy
mix [11]. The technology effect refers to the intermittency and insta­
bility of renewable energy generation due to the immaturity of pro­
duction and storage technologies. The power sector has to use fossil
energy to meet the demand to maintain the safe and reliable operation of
power supply system [12]. In this case, renewable energy production
occupies a certain amount of production space, which contributes to
environmental pollution [13]. When renewable energy consumption is
low, the technology effect may be greater than the substitution effect
due to the immaturity of renewable energy-related technologies. As
renewable energy consumption increases, the substitution effect may be
greater than the technology effect under the influence of the scale effect
[14,15]. Therefore, we propose the hypothesis that renewable energy
consumption has a negative impact on environmental protection when
renewable energy consumption is below the threshold. When renewable
energy consumption exceeds the threshold, renewable energy con­
sumption has a positive effect on environmental protection.
The objective of this paper is to study the nonlinear impact of
renewable energy consumption on carbon dioxide emissions and
ecological footprint to optimize energy transition pathways. For this
purpose, data of 130 countries from 1992 to 2019 were selected as the
research sample. This study explored the nonlinear causality between
variables by the method of panel threshold regression analysis, using per
capita ecological footprint and per capita carbon emissions as the
explained variables, renewable energy consumption as the explanatory
and threshold variable, and GDP per capita, population aging, and ur­
banization as the control variables.
In this paper, we contribute to the existing literature in several
ways. First, we investigate not only the impact of renewable energy on
carbon dioxide emissions but also the impact of renewable energy on
the ecological footprint to cover all aspects of environmental sustain­
ability. To the best of our knowledge, only a few existing papers have
compared both carbon dioxide and ecological footprint perspectives
when exploring the environmental impacts of renewable energy con­
sumption [10,16]. Secondly, in terms of methodology, most of the
current studies use quadratic or interaction terms to study nonlinear
relationships [17–19]. Panel threshold models differ from these ap­
proaches. On the one hand, the panel threshold model allows finding
the value of renewable energy consumption corresponding to the time
when a nonlinear change occurs. This is useful to help countries with
different levels of renewable energy consumption to develop targeted
policies. On the other hand, panel threshold model can observe the
change in the magnitude of the correlation coefficient when the rela­
tionship between renewable energy consumption and carbon emissions
or ecological footprint is always positive or negative. Heterogeneity is
a common problem in panel data. In our study, when renewable energy
consumption changes, the relationship between renewable energy
consumption and environmental indicators may also change. This is
2
Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121
also a nonlinear relationship that needs to be fully considered.
Therefore, in this study, we use a panel threshold regression model to
explore the nonlinear effects of renewable energy consumption on
carbon dioxide emissions and ecological footprint at different renew­
able energy consumption levels. We find that there is an asymmetry in
the impact of renewable energy consumption on the environment, thus
providing a theoretical basis for policy makers to formulate renewable
energy development policies. Third, previous studies have mostly
focused on one country or one region [20–22]. In this paper, the
impact of renewable energy consumption on carbon dioxide emissions
and ecological footprint is studied from a global perspective (130
countries are included). Since carbon dioxide emissions and ecological
footprint are global indicators of pollution and they are transient and
variable [23], a global study may be more beneficial to obtain uni­
versal regularity.
The rest of this article is structured as follows. The second part in­
troduces the relevant literature in detail; the third part introduces the
research methods and data sources; the fourth part carries out relevant
empirical analysis, and the fifth part concludes.
2. Literature review
In this section, we review the literature on factors that affect
ecological footprint and carbon emissions.
2.1. A brief review of factors affecting ecological footprint
Ecological footprint is a comprehensive indicator of environmental
degradation and a measure of environmental sustainability [24–26].
There are many studies on the factors that affect ecological footprint.
Some studies have discussed the impact of economic development on
ecological footprint and verified the EKC hypothesis. For example,
Uddin, Alam and Gow [27] examined the relationship between eco­
nomic growth and ecological footprint in 14 Asian economies. The re­
sults showed that the EKC hypothesis is only supported in India, Nepal,
Malaysia, and Pakistan. In other countries, economic growth and
ecological footprint are positively and linearly correlated. For example,
China, Japan, and Singapore. Hassan, Baloch, Mahmood and Zhang [28]
used the method of autoregressive distributive lag to study time-series
data of Pakistan from 1971 to 2014 and concluded that economic
growth increases ecological footprint. Furthermore, they found that
biological capacity also increases ecological footprint. Charfeddine and
Mrabet [29] studied 15 Middle East and North African countries from
1975 to 2007. Their research results showed that the actual GDP per
capita and ecological footprint in oil-exporting countries have an
inverted U-shaped relationship, which is consistent with the EKC hy­
pothesis. In non-oil exporting countries, the actual GDP per capita and
ecological footprint are in a U-shaped relationship, which is not
consistent with the EKC hypothesis. They also concluded that urbani­
zation, life expectancy, and fertility improve the environment. Ahmed,
Asghar, Malik and Nawaz [30] studied China from 1970 to 2016 and
concluded that economic growth exacerbates environmental degrada­
tion. They also showed that urbanization promotes the growth of
ecological footprint, and human capital reduces the growth of ecological
footprint. The study of Zhou, Abbasi, Salem, Almulhim and Alvarado
[31] obtained similar conclusions. Zhou, Abbasi, Salem, Almulhim and
Alvarado [31] used dynamic Autoregressive Distributed Lag to study
Pakistan from 1980 to 2018. Their findings indicated that economic
growth promotes the growth of ecological footprint. At the same time,
they also found that the increase in human capital index and the increase
in urbanization both have a negative impact on the ecological footprint.
When studying the impact of economic growth on ecological footprint,
most articles incorporated population factors into the research variables.
However, some studies examined the impact of population factors on
ecological footprint. For example, Ahmed, Zafar and Ali [32] used
CUP-FM and CUP-BC methods to analyze data of the G7 countries from
R. Li et al.
1971 to 2014. They found that urbanization increases ecological foot­
print, and human capital reduces ecological footprint. Nathaniel [33]
studied the data of G7 countries from 1980 to 2016 and concluded that
biological capacity and urbanization promote the growth of ecological
footprint, and human capital inhibits the growth of ecological footprint.
Tsuchiya, Iha, Murthy, Lin, Altiok, Rupprecht, Kiyono and McGreevy
[34] used the GLM method to estimate Japan’s 47 prefectures and found
that aging promotes the growth of ecological footprint. Wang, Wang and
Li [35] conducted a study to analyze 134 countries from 1996 to 2015.
The results indicated that urbanization does not help reduce environ­
mental stress, but population aging does.
In addition to economic and demographic factors, some articles
have considered the impact of energy consumption on ecological
footprint. Chen, Chen, Yang and Jiang [36] were the first to study
energy consumption factors. They studied China from 1981 to 2001
and found that the consumption of fossil fuels has a negative impact on
ecological footprint. After their research, researchers began to study
other countries. Caviglia-Harris, Chambers and Kahn [37] studied 146
countries from 1961 to 2000. Their research results showed that to
achieve environmental sustainability, energy consumption must be
reduced by more than 50%. Ozturk, Al-Mulali and Saboori [38] used
the time series GMM and the system panel GMM to research 144
countries from 1988 to 2008 and showed that energy consumption
promotes the growth of ecological footprint. Baloch, Zhang, Iqbal and
Iqbal [39] conducted a panel regression analysis of 59 Belt and Road
countries from 1990 to 2016 and showed that energy consumption
pollutes the environment by increasing ecological footprint. Nathaniel
[40] investigated the relationship between energy and the environment
in Indonesia and found that energy consumption exacerbates envi­
ronmental degradation, both in the long and short term. Alper et al.
(2022) studied the impact of energy consumption on ecological foot­
print of the ten countries with the highest CO2 emissions in the world.
The empirical results showed that energy consumption has a negative
impact on ecological footprint in all countries except Indonesia. Ere­
gha, Nathaniel and Vo [41] used the cross-sectionally augmented
autoregressive distributed lag model, augmented mean group, and the
common correlated effects mean group estimators, results showed that
energy consumption contributes to the growth of the ecological foot­
print of the eleven fastest emerging economies. Some studies further
divided energy and examined the impact of fossil and renewable en­
ergy consumption on ecological footprint. For example, Ibrahiem and
Hanafy [42] studied data of Egypt from 1971 to 2014 and showed that
the burning of fossil fuels is an important reason for the increase in
ecological footprint. Shi, Matsui, Machimura, Gan and Hu [43] con­
ducted a study on Hong Kong from 1995 to 2016 and found that fossil
energy consumption has a crucial impact on the increase in ecological
footprint. Yousaf, Ali, Aziz and Sarwar [44] investigated the main
reasons of the increase in ecological footprint in Pakistan. Their
empirical analysis of data from 1972 to 2020 for Pakistan found that
fossil energy is the main factor contributing to environmental degra­
dation. Ramzan, Raza, Usman, Sharma and Iqbal [45] used
non-parametric causality-in-quantiles techniques to investigate the
relationship between non-renewable energy and ecological footprint.
The results of the study indicated that the use of non-renewable energy
sources increases environmental stress. Wang, Yang and Li [46]
investigated 14 SSA countries from 1990 to 2014 and showed that the
burning of fossil fuels increase ecological footprint, and renewable
energy reduces ecological footprint. Alola, Bekun and Sarkodie [47]
analyzed 16 EU countries from 1997 to 2014 and concluded that the
burning of fossil fuels promotes the growth of ecological footprint,
whereas renewable energy inhibits the growth of ecological footprint,
which is conducive to improving environmental sustainability. Li,
Wang and Wang [48] examined how economic growth and the
ecological footprint are affected by renewable energy using a panel
threshold model, showing that renewable energy lessens the ecological
footprint.
3
Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121
In summary, energy consumption promotes the growth of ecological
footprint. However, the existing research on energy forms mostly focuses
on fossil fuels [45,49], and there are relatively few studies on renewable
energy. Moreover, most studies only consider the static impact of
renewable energy on ecological footprint [50–52]. There are only a few
studies on the dynamic relationship between renewable energy and
ecological footprint. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further research
on the relationship between renewable energy and ecological footprint.
2.2. A brief review of factors affecting carbon emissions
The factors affecting carbon emissions have been very extensively
studied. Among them, economy, population, and energy play an
important role in reducing carbon emissions [53–55]. There are many
related studies. For example, Kais and Sami [56] studied the impact of
economic growth and energy use on carbon emissions in 58 countries
from 1990 to 2012. The results of their study showed that economic
growth has a positive effect on carbon emissions in Europe, North Asia,
the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore,
they found that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the
two. Moreover, they found that energy use promotes the carbon emis­
sions of all the panel data. Abdallh and Abugamos [57] studied 20
countries in the Middle East and North Africa from 1980 to 2014 and
found that energy consumption and economic growth are the main
factors affecting carbon emissions. Ali, Bakhsh and Yasin [58] used the
ARDL method to study the impact of economic growth, urbanization,
and energy consumption on carbon emissions in Pakistan from 1972 to
2014. Their research results showed that economic growth, urbaniza­
tion, and energy consumption promote carbon emissions in both the
long and short term. Kim, Lim and Jo [59] used FMOLS to analyze the
regional panel data of 16 provinces in Korea from 1998 to 2016 and
found that there is a U-shaped relationship between economic growth
and carbon emissions, and the EKC hypothesis does not hold. Chen,
Tackie, Ahakwa, Musah, Salakpi, Alfred and Atingabili [60] studied the
relationship between economic growth, energy consumption, urbani­
zation and carbon emissions in BRICS countries from 1990 to 2019.
Their study found that both economic growth and energy consumption
contribute to the growth of carbon dioxide emissions, but the effect of
urbanization on carbon emissions is not significant. Musah,
Owusu-Akomeah, Boateng, Iddris, Mensah, Antwi and Agyemang [61]
studied the relationship between energy consumption and carbon
emissions in North Africa from 1990 to 2018 using CS-ARDL and CCEMG
methods. The results showed that energy consumption has a contribu­
tory effect on carbon emissions. Meanwhile, they found that urbaniza­
tion and economic growth also promote CO2 emissions. They also found
that an aging population reduces carbon emissions. Some studies
divided energy consumption into two parts—renewable and
non-renewable energy consumption. For example, Li and Haneklaus
[62] used the ARDL model to investigate the factors affecting carbon
emissions in China from 1990 to 2020. Their study showed that
non-renewable energy contributes to the increase of carbon emissions in
China. Renewable energy consumption promotes China’s carbon diox­
ide emissions in the short term and inhibits China’s carbon dioxide
emissions in the long term. Sharif, Raza, Ozturk and Afshan [63] used
panel data of 74 countries to study the relationship between
non-renewable energy and renewable energy and carbon emissions from
1990 to 2015. Their research results showed that non-renewable energy
has a negative impact on the environment, and renewable energy has a
positive impact on the environment. Yao, Zhang and Zhang [64] studied
17 major developing and developed countries and six geo-economic
regions of the world. They found that for every 10% increase in
renewable energy, carbon emissions reduced by 1.6%. Al-Mulali, Ozturk
and Solarin [65] showed that renewable energy consumption has a
significant impact on carbon emissions in Central, Eastern, and Western
Europe, East Asia, the Pacific, South Asia, and the Americas. Conversely,
they found that renewable energy consumption has no significant
R. Li et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121

impact on carbon emissions in the Middle East, North, and Sub-Saharan threshold model was grouped based on exogenous thresholds Lim and
African countries. Menyah and Wolde-Rufael [66] believed that only Tong [70]. To avoid subjective problems caused by exogenous
when renewable energy consumption reaches a certain benchmark, can thresholds, Hansen [71] proposed a panel fixed-effect threshold model
renewable energy reduce carbon emissions. Chen, Pinar and Stengos that has been widely used. The threshold of this method is determined
[67] also demonstrated through a dynamic panel threshold model that if endogenously by the model, which is more consistent with the actual
and only if countries achieve a particular threshold of renewable energy situation [14,72–74]. The method is mainly divided into three steps—
consumption, higher renewable energy use would reduce CO2 emissions (1) endogenous estimation of the threshold value, (2) threshold effect
per capita. and value tests, and (3) a regression estimation based on the threshold
In most cases, ecological footprint and carbon emissions growth are value.
influenced by economic development considerations. People use more The initial model constructed in this study, which is based on the
energy and resources to meet daily requirements and raise their level of research of Hansen (1999) is shown in Formula (1).
living as the economy develops. This consumption of resources and
energy frequently puts more strain on ecosystems, increasing the Yit = β′1 Xit I(qit ≤ γ) + β′2 Xit I(qit > γ) + μi + ξit (1)
ecological impact. The effect of demographic considerations on the
where the subscripts i and t represent national and time indicators,
ecological footprint and carbon emissions is controversial and needs to
respectively. Yit represents the explained variable. Xit stands for the
be taken into account from several angles. For instance, land develop­
explanatory variables. qit represents the threshold variable. γ represents
ment and building construction are frequently associated with urbani­
the threshold value. μi represents an unobservable individual fixed-
zation, which causes the depletion of natural resources and the
effect term. ξit represents random error. I (⋅) represents the indicator
degradation of ecosystems while simultaneously having the potential to
function. When the conditions in parentheses are met, I (⋅) = 1, other­
promote sustainable development. Based on urban design and man­
wise I (⋅) = 0. β1 and β2 represent regression coefficients.
agement, urbanization enables a more focused and effective use of re­
Formula (1) can be expressed in the form of Formula (2).
sources and can lower the ecological footprint.
{
In summary, most of the current research (see Table 1) on energy and β′1 Xit + μi + ξit qit ≤ γ
carbon emissions focused on the impact of energy consumption on Yit = (2)
β′2 Xit + μi + ξit qit > γ
carbon emissions. There are relatively few studies about the impact of
renewable energy consumption on carbon emissions, and the conclu­ Formula (1) can also be expressed in the form of Formula (3).
sions are not consistent. Therefore, it is necessary for us to conduct
further research on the relationship between renewable energy and Yit = β′Xit (γ) + μi + ξit (3)
carbon emissions. {
Due to the importance of environmental sustainability, it is essential Xit I(qit ≤ γ)
Where, β=(β’1 β’2)’, Xit (γ) = .
Xit I(qit > γ)
to study the relationship between renewable energy consumption and
ecological footprint and carbon emissions. However, this is still an After the transformation within the group eliminates the individual
under-researched area. Therefore, this article fills the gap in the existing fixed-effect term μi, Formula (4) is obtained.
literature by conducting an empirical analysis of this issue. The main Yit∗ = β′Xit∗ (γ) + ξ∗it (4)
contributions of this paper are as follows. (i) In this study, renewable
energy consumption is used as both explanatory and threshold variables, Where, Yit∗ = Yit − Y i , Xit∗ (γ) = Xit (γ) − Xi (γ), ξ∗it = ξit − ξi .
and the dynamic changes in the impact of renewable energy consump­ After two accumulations of individual and time, it is expressed as
tion on ecological footprint and carbon emissions above and below the Formula (5).
threshold are investigated. The existing studies mostly focused on the
static impact of renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint Y ∗ = X ∗ (γ)β + ξ∗ (5)
and carbon emissions [69]. Therefore, this research helps us to have a
The slope coefficient β can be estimated using Formula (6).
more comprehensive understanding of the impact of renewable energy
on both ecological footprint and carbon emissions. (ii) To systematically β(γ) = [X ∗ (γ)′X ∗ (γ)]− 1 X ∗ (γ)Y ∗
̂ (6)
and comprehensively study the impact of energy consumption on the
The residual vector can be obtained using Formula (7).
sustainable development of the environment, this study is conducted
from two perspectives, ecological footprint and carbon emissions. ̂∗
ξ (γ) = Y ∗ − X ∗ (γ) ̂
β(γ) (7)
Moreover, this article discusses the impact of renewable energy con­
sumption on the sustainable development of the environment, since the After obtaining the slope coefficient and the residual vector, the re­
existing research mostly focused on the impact of total energy con­ sidual sum of squares can be obtained using Formula (8).
sumption on the sustainable development of the environment. (iii) This ∗ ∗ ′{ }
ξ (γ)′̂
S(γ) = ̂ ξ (γ) = Y ∗ I − X ∗ (γ)’[X ∗ (γ)′X ∗ (γ)]− 1 X ∗ (γ)’ Y ∗ (8)
study incorporates GDP per capita, population aging, and urbanization
into the control variables, thereby alleviating the bias caused by po­ Then, the estimator of the residual variance can be obtained, as
tential missing variables. (iv) This study examines the income hetero­ shown in Formula (9).
geneity (high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries) of
renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint and carbon 1 ∗′ ∗ 1
σ2 =
̂ ̂ξ ̂ξ = S1 (̂
γ) (9)
emissions due to the disparities in renewable energy consumption and n(T − 1) n(T − 1)
environmental quality across different countries. The development of The confidence interval and critical value are calculated using For­
present renewable energy sources can be hastened with the help of more mulas (10) and (11), respectively.
effective and concrete legislation.
S1 (γ) − S1 (̂
γ)
LR(γ) = (10)
3. Methods and data σ2
̂
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅)
3.1. Methods L(α) = − 2 log 1 − 1− α (11)

If LR(γ) exceeds the critical value L(α), reject the null hypothesis H0:
The panel threshold model is a method used to test whether there is
γ = γ0, implying that the threshold value selected is incorrect.
a nonlinear relationship between variables. The original panel

4
R. Li et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121

Table 1
Summary table of related literature.
Author(s) Data Method Result

Hassan, Baloch, Mahmood and Zhang Pakistan/1971–2014 ARDL GDP→EF↑

[28] BIO→EF↑
Charfeddine and Mrabet [29] MENA/1975–2007 FMOLS, DOLS EKC hypothesis is validated (oil-exporting countries)
EKC hypothesis is not validated (non-oil-exporting
countries)
URB→EF↓
LE→EF↓
FR→EF↓
Uddin, Alam and Gow [27] 14 Asian economies/50 year period OLS GDP→EF↑
EKC hypothesis is validated (India, Nepal, Malaysia, and
Pakistan)
Ahmed, Asghar, Malik and Nawaz [30] China/1970–2016 ARDL GDP→EF↑
URB→EF↑
HC→EF↓
Zhou, Abbasi, Salem, Almulhim and Pakistan/1980–2018 ARDL GDP→EF↑
Alvarado [31] URB→EF↑
HC→EF↓
Ahmed, Zafar and Ali [32] G7/1971–2014 CUP-FM, CUP-BC URB→EF↑
HC→EF↓
Tsuchiya, Iha, Murthy, Lin, Altiok, Japan’s 47 prefectures GLM AGE→EF↑
Rupprecht, Kiyono and McGreevy [34]
Wang, Wang and Li [35] 134 countries/1996–2015 TRM URB→EF↑
AGE→EF↓
Nathaniel [33] G7/1980–2016 AMG BIO→EF↑
URB→EF↑
HC→EF↓
Caviglia-Harris, Chambers and Kahn [37] 146 countries/1961–2000 OLS, 2SLS EC→EF↑
Ozturk, Al-Mulali and Saboori [38] 144 countries/1988–2008 GMM EC→EF↑
Baloch, Zhang, Iqbal and Iqbal [39] 59 Belt and Road OLS EC→EF↑
Countries/1990–2016
Nathaniel [40] Indonesia/1971–2014 ARDL EC→EF↑
Alper, Alper, Ozayturk and Mike [68] the top 10 countries that cause the highest carbon ARDL EC→EF↑ (except for Indonesia)
dioxide emissions in the world
Eregha, Nathaniel and Vo [41] the eleven fastest emerging economies CS-ARDL, AMG, EC→EF↑
CCEMG
Ibrahiem and Hanafy [42] Egypt/1971–2014 FMOLS, DOLS FFE→EF↑
Shi, Matsui, Machimura, Gan and Hu [43] Hong Kong/1995–2016 comparison FFE→EF↑
Yousaf, Ali, Aziz and Sarwar [44] Pakistan/1972–2020 ARDL. FMOLS FFE→EF↑
Ramzan, Raza, Usman, Sharma and Iqbal Pakistan/1960Q1- 2019Q4 NCQT FFE→EF↑
[45]
Wang, Yang and Li [46] 56 countries/2003–2018 FMOLS, TRM EKC hypothesis is changed
By income gap
Alola, Bekun and Sarkodie [47] 16 EU countries/1997–2014 ARDL FFE→EF↑
RE→EF↓
Li, Wang and Wang [48] 120 countries/1995–2014 TR RE→EF↓
Kais and Sami [56] 58 countries/1990–2012 GMM GDP→CO2↑
EC→CO2↑
Ali, Bakhsh and Yasin [58] Pakistan/1972–2014 ARDL GDP→CO2↑
URB→CO2↑
EC→CO2↑
Abdallh and Abugamos [57] 20 countries in the MENA region/1980–2014 FE GDP→CO2↑
EC→CO2↑
Kim, Lim and Jo [59] Korean/1998–2016 FMOLS EKC hypothesis is validated
AGE→CO2↓
Chen, Tackie, Ahakwa, Musah, Salakpi, BRICS/1990–2019 AMG, CCEMG GDP→CO2↑
Alfred and Atingabili [60] EC→CO2↑
Musah, Owusu-Akomeah, Boateng, Iddris, North Africa/1990–2018 CS-ARDL, GDP→CO2↑
Mensah, Antwi and Agyemang [61] CCEMG EC→CO2↑
URB→CO2↑
Li and Haneklaus [62] China/1990–2020 ARDL FFE→CO2↑
RE→CO2↑(in the short term)
RE→CO2↓(in the long term)
Yao, Zhang and Zhang [64] 17 major developing and developed countries as well FMOLS, DOLS RE→CO2↓
as six geo-economic regions of the world/1990–2014
Sharif, Raza, Ozturk and Afshan [63] 74 countries/1990–2015 FMOLS FFE→CO2↑
RE→CO2↓
Al-Mulali, Ozturk and Solarin [65] seven regions/1980–2010 DOLS RE→CO2↓(Central and Eastern Europe, Western Europe,
East Asia and the Pacific, South Asia, and the Americas)
no significant effect (the Middle East and North Africa
and Sub-Saharan Africa)
Chen, Pinar and Stengos [67] 97 countries/1995–2015 DTR RE→CO2↓(Reach a certain benchmark)

Note: ARDL: autoregressive distributive lag; FMOLS: fully modified ordinary least squares; DOLS: dynamic ordinary least squares; OLS: ordinary least squares; CUP-FM:
continuously-updated fully modified; CUP-BC: continuously-updated bias corrected; GLM: generalized linear mixed effects model; AMG: augmented mean group; 2SLS:
two stage least squares; GMM: generalized method of moments; FE: fixed effects regression; TRM: threshold regression model; CS-ARDL: cross-sectionally augmented
autoregressive distributed lag; CCEMG: common correlated effects mean group; NCQT: non-parametric causality-in-quantiles techniques; TR: panel threshold model; DTR:
dynamic panel threshold model; BIO: biocapacity; URB: urbanization; LE: life expectancy; FR: fertility rate; HC: human capital; EC: energy consumption; FFE: fossil fuel energy.
5
R. Li et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121

3.2. Data
To study the different impacts of renewable energy consumption on
the environment above and below the threshold, we make renewable
energy consumption (RE) the threshold variable. Per capita ecological
footprint (EF) and per capita carbon emissions (CO2) are used as the
explained variables. Per capita ecological footprint is estimated using a
consumer-based method and is measured in global hectares (gha) per
capita. Per capita carbon emissions are measured in metric tons per
capita. In this study, renewable energy consumption is not only a
threshold variable but also an explanatory variable. Renewable energy
consumption is the share of renewable energy in total final energy
consumption. Renewable energy includes energy sources such as solar,
wind, hydro, and biofuels. Gross domestic product (GDP), population
aging (AGE), and urbanization (URB) are used as control variables in
this article. Gross domestic product per capita is expressed in constant
2015 dollars. Population aging is expressed as the number of people
aged 65 years and over of the total population. Urbanization is expressed
as the number of the urban population of the total population.
Given the availability of data, we chose 130 countries from 1992 to
2019 for our study. 130 countries and income subgroups are listed in
Appendix A1. The data used in this paper are from the World Bank’s
World Development Indicators [75] and Global Footprint Network [76].
To reduce the impact of heteroscedasticity on the regression results, we
processed all the data logarithmically [54].
The descriptive statistics of the variables used in this article are pre­
sented in Table 2. The average ecological footprint and carbon emissions
of high-income countries are higher than those of middle-income coun­
tries. The average ecological footprint and carbon emissions of middle-
income countries are higher than those of low-income countries.
Furthermore, the table shows that the average renewable energy con­
sumption of high-income countries is lower than that of middle-income
countries, and the average renewable energy consumption of middle-
income countries is lower than that of low-income countries.
4. Empirical analysis
4.1. Panel unit root test
Before performing panel regression analysis, we need to perform a
unit root test first. The stability of variables is tested by the unit root test.
In this paper, we use four methods for unit root testing, IPS [77], LLC
[78], ADF, and PP [79]. The original hypothesis of these methods is the
existence of unit root and the alternative hypothesis of these methods is
the absence of unit root. The results of the tests are shown in Table 3. It
can be seen that all variables have three tests that reject the original
hypothesis. This indicates that the variables used in this paper do not
have unit roots, that is, the data are stable.
4.2. Threshold effect
Based on the panel threshold model proposed by Hansen [71], we use
renewable energy consumption (RE) as the threshold variable. Before
conducting the threshold regression, we need to conduct the threshold
effect and value tests. We use these tests to determine the threshold
quantity and test whether the threshold values selected are correct.
4.2.1. Global threshold effect
The results of the threshold effect test are presented in Table 4. In this
study, the F-value and P-value are obtained through 300 ″bootstrap
method” tests. The results show that when all countries are used as the
research sample, renewable energy consumption has a double threshold
effect on per capita ecological footprint at the 1% significance level, and
renewable energy consumption has a double threshold effect on per
capita carbon emissions at the 5% significance level. Therefore, the
types of the model we build are as follows:
When all countries are used as the research sample,
LN EFit = β1 LN REit (LN REit ≤ γ1 ) + β2 LN REit (γ1 < LN REit ≤ γ2 )
+ β3 LN REit (LN REit > γ2 ) + β4 LN GDPit + β5 LN AGEit
+ β6 LN URBit + αi + εit
LN CO2it = β1 LN REit (LN REit ≤ γ1 ) + β2 LN REit (γ 1 < LN REit ≤ γ2 )
+ β3 LN REit (LN REit > γ2 ) + β4 LN GDPit + β5 LN AGEit
+ β6 LN URBit + αi + εit
The results of the global threshold tests are depicted in Figs. 1 and 2.
When all countries are used as the research sample, the threshold of the
impact of renewable energy on per capita ecological footprint is 3.8033
and 4.0776 (this refers to the value of LNRE). The threshold of the
impact of renewable energy on per capita carbon emissions is 4.3705
and 4.4527 (the second value refers to the value of LNRE).

Table 2
4.2.2. Threshold effect of the three income groups
Descriptive statistics of variables.
When high-income countries are used as the research sample,
Group Variables Obs Mean Std. dev. Min Max renewable energy consumption has no threshold effect on per capita
All LNEF 3640 0.840 0.710 − 0.780 2.870 ecological footprint, and renewable energy consumption has a double
LNCO2 3640 0.420 1.630 − 7.640 3.430 threshold effect on per capita carbon emissions at the 5% significance
LNRE 3640 2.860 1.710 − 6.340 4.590
level. When middle-income countries are used as the research sample,
LNGDP 3640 8.280 1.460 5.250 11.63
LNAGE 3640 1.730 0.690 − 1.760 3.380 renewable energy consumption has a single threshold effect on per
LNURB 3640 3.880 0.510 1.840 4.610 capita ecological footprint, and renewable energy consumption has a
High-income LNEF 952 1.700 0.370 0.230 2.870 single threshold effect on per capita carbon emissions at the 1% signif­
LNCO2 952 2.060 0.570 0.290 3.430 icance level. When low-income countries are used as the research sam­
LNRE 952 1.850 1.810 − 4.710 4.130
ple, renewable energy consumption has a single threshold effect on per
LNGDP 952 10.20 0.700 8.310 11.63
LNAGE 952 2.460 0.670 − 1.760 3.380
LNURB 952 4.300 0.230 3.440 4.610 Table 3
Middle-income LNEF 2184 0.650 0.520 − 0.780 2.330 Unit root test results.
LNCO2 2184 0.320 1.120 − 3.680 2.740
LNRE 2184 2.990 1.530 − 6.340 4.560 Methods
LNGDP 2184 7.900 0.780 5.270 9.560 Variables IPS LLC ADF PP
LNAGE 2184 1.580 0.460 0.650 3.090
LNURB 2184 3.830 0.450 2.260 4.520 LNEF − 11.8379*** − 2.1311** − 8.046*** − 10.171***
Low-income LNEF 504 0.0800 0.270 − 0.680 0.610 LNCO2 − 7.9776*** − 5.0406*** − 7.534*** − 9.435***
LNCO2 504 − 2.250 0.970 − 7.640 0.100 LNRE − 4.9619*** − 0.4731 − 6.535*** − 9.176***
LNRE 504 4.200 0.990 − 0.360 4.590 LNGDP − 2.6513*** − 4.6990*** − 7.302*** − 9.217***
LNGDP 504 6.310 0.460 5.250 7.840 LNAGE 12.8449 − 20.5831*** − 8.269*** − 8.946***
LNAGE 504 1.020 0.210 0.420 1.600 LNURB 9.9201 − 7.8741*** − 7.653*** − 9.193***
LNURB 504 3.300 0.450 1.840 4.130
Note: *, **, and *** are significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels respectively.

6
R. Li et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121

Table 4
Threshold effect test.
Threshold number F-value Threshold estimated value 95% confidence interval

All EF Single 111.00*** 3.8033 (3.7869,3.8122)

Double 69.81** 4.0776 (4.0677,4.0843)
CO2 Single 447.47** 4.3705 (4.3483,4.3746)
Double 123.27** 4.4527 (4.4487,4.4625)
High-income EF Single 24.63 inexistence
CO2 Single 147.43*** 3.0233 (2.9792,3.0277)
Double 111.60*** 3.5793 (3.5670,3.6203)
Middle-income EF Single 87.41*** 0.3365 (0.2953,0.3775)
CO2 Single 198.94*** 4.3489 (4.3405,4.3575)
Low-income EF Single 59.31*** 4.5424 (4.5419,4.5434)
CO2 Single 60.94 inexistence

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

Fig. 1. Threshold value test—LR diagram (All countries (EF)).

Fig. 2. Threshold value test—LR diagram (All countries (CO2)).

capita ecological footprint at the 1% significance level, and renewable

energy consumption has no threshold effect on per capita carbon (2) When middle-income countries are used as the research sample
emissions. Therefore, the types of the model we build are as follows.
LN EFit = β1 LN REit (LN REit ≤ γ) + β2 LN REit (LN REit > γ)
(1) When high-income countries are used as the research sample + β3 LN GDPit + β4 LN AGEit + β5 LN URBit + αi + εit

LN EFit =β1 LN REit + β2 LN GDPit + β3 LN AGEit + β4 LN URBit + αi + εit
LN CO2it = β1 LN REit (LN REit ≤ γ1 ) + β2 LN REit (γ1 < LN REit ≤ γ2 )
+ β3 LN REit (LN REit > γ2 ) + β3 LN GDPit + β4 LN AGEit
+ β5 LN URBit + αi + εit
LN CO2it = β1 LN REit (LN REit ≤ γ) + β2 LN REit (LN REit > γ)
+ β3 LN GDPit + β4 LN AGEit + β5 LN URBit + αi + εit
(3) When low-income countries are used as the research sample

7
R. Li et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121

LN EFit = β1 LN REit (LN REit ≤ γ) + β2 LN REit (LN REit > γ)

+ β3 LN GDPit + β4 LN AGEit + β5 LN URBit + αi + εit

LN CO2it = β1 LN REit + β2 LN GDPit + β3 LN AGEit + β4 LN URBit + αi + εit

The results of the three income groups’ threshold tests are depicted
in Figs. 3–6. In these figures, the threshold values of all groups are below
the dotted line, which shows that the threshold values selected are
correct.
When high-income countries are used as the research sample, the
threshold of the impact of renewable energy on per capita carbon
emissions is 3.0233 and 3.5793 (the second value refers to the value of
LNRE). When middle-income countries are used as the research sample,
the threshold of the impact of renewable energy on per capita ecological
footprint is 0.3365 (this refers to the value of LNRE), and the threshold
Fig. 4. Threshold value test—LR diagram (Middle income (EF)).
of the impact of renewable energy on per capita carbon emissions is
4.3489 (this value refers to the value of LNRE). When low-income
countries are used as the research sample, the threshold of the impact
of renewable energy on per capita ecological footprint is 4.5424 (this
refers to the value of LNRE).

4.3. Threshold regression results

The results of the threshold regression are presented in Table 5. The

results show that under different energy consumption structures, the
impact of renewable energy consumption on per capita ecological
footprint is different at different threshold intervals, and the impact of
renewable energy consumption on per capita carbon emissions is also
different at different threshold intervals. Renewable energy consump­
tion has always restrained the growth of per capita ecological footprint.
When renewable energy consumption is below the first threshold, every
1% increase in renewable energy consumption reduces per capita
ecological footprint by 0.109%. When renewable energy consumption
exceeds the first threshold, every 1% increase in renewable energy
consumption reduces per capita ecological footprint by 0.135%. When
renewable energy consumption exceeds the second threshold, every 1%
increase in renewable energy consumption reduces per capita ecological
footprint by 0.161%. This shows that as the proportion of renewable
energy consumption increases, its inhibitory effect on per capita
ecological footprint increases. This is similar to the findings of Ulucak
and Khan [20]. Their study proved the clean role of renewable energy
consumption in reducing ecological footprint. However, they only
studied the linear relationship between renewable energy and ecological
footprint and did not investigate the nonlinear relationship. As the
proportion of renewable energy consumption increases, its negative
impact on per capita carbon emissions also increases. When renewable
energy consumption is below the first threshold, every 1% increase in
Fig. 5. Threshold value test—LR diagram (Middle income (CO2)).
renewable energy consumption reduces per capita carbon emissions by
0.217%. When renewable energy consumption exceeds the first
threshold, for every 1% increase in renewable energy consumption, per
capita carbon emissions reduce by 0.280%. When renewable energy
consumption exceeds the second threshold, for every 1% increase in
renewable energy consumption, per capita carbon emissions reduce by
0.396%. This verifies the hypothesis proposed in this paper. The results
of this paper show that renewable energy consumption is beneficial to
the environment, both below and above the threshold. The inhibitory
effect of renewable energy consumption on environmental pollution
increases with the increase of renewable energy consumption.
Economic development has a negative impact on the ecological
environment. For every 1% increase in GDP per capita, per capita
ecological footprint and per capita carbon emissions increase by 0.263%

Fig. 3. Threshold value test—LR diagram (High income (CO2)).

8
R. Li et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121

nonlinear relationship between renewable energy consumption and per

Fig. 6. Threshold value test—LR diagram (Low income (EF)).
and 0.341%, respectively. Population aging and urbanization have
inhibitory effects on per capita ecological footprint and per capita car­
bon emissions, respectively. This is consistent with the findings of Zhou,
Abbasi, Salem, Almulhim and Alvarado [31]. Their empirical analysis
also demonstrated that GDP promotes the growth of ecological footprint
and urbanization inhibits the growth of ecological footprint. However,
their study did not consider carbon dioxide. Yang, Li, Mu, Pang, Zhao
and Ahmad [80] investigated the factors influencing carbon dioxide,
suggesting that GDP and aging have a suppressive effect on carbon di­
oxide emissions. However, they only studied OECD countries, thus their
findings have some limitations. To make the research results more
pertinent, we researched different income groups, and the results are as
follows.
First, in high-income countries, we find that there is no nonlinear
relationship between renewable energy consumption and per capita
ecological footprint. Renewable energy consumption inhibits the growth
of per capita ecological footprint, and the degree of inhibition is always
the same, which is supported by existing studies [81]. Usman, Akadiri and
Adeshola [81] studied the ecological footprint of the United States. The
results of the study indicated that the increase in renewable energy
consumption inhibits the growth of ecological footprint in the long run.
Therefore, they suggest that government officials should take active
measures to promote energy structure transformation. There is a
capita carbon emissions. When renewable energy consumption is below
the first threshold, every 1% increase in renewable energy consumption
reduces per capita carbon emissions by 0.180%. When renewable energy
consumption exceeds the first threshold, for every 1% increase in
renewable energy consumption, per capita carbon emissions reduce by
0.251%. When renewable energy consumption exceeds the second
threshold, for every 1% increase in renewable energy consumption, per
capita carbon emissions reduce by 0.322%. This shows that in
high-income countries, promoting renewable energy consumption is
conducive to environmental protection. Adebayo, Rjoub, Akinsola and
Oladipupo [82] explored the nonlinear effect of renewable energy con­
sumption on carbon dioxide emissions. Their findings showed that
renewable energy consumption is negatively associated with carbon
emissions in high-income countries, which is consistent with the findings
of this paper. At the same time, they found a nonlinear relationship be­
tween renewable energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, that
is, the suppression effect of renewable energy consumption on carbon
dioxide is most significant when carbon emissions are low. This is
different from what is studied in this paper, which examines how the
effect of renewable energy consumption on carbon dioxide changes as the
degree of renewable energy consumption changes. In this way it is more
beneficial that the formulation of a country’s energy development policy
is highly compatible with the stage of energy development. Whether from
the perspective of ecological footprint or carbon emissions, economic
growth has a significant negative impact on the environment. The ur­
banization inhibits the growth of per capita ecological footprint and per
capita carbon emissions. The effect of population aging on per capita
ecological footprint and per capita carbon emissions is not significant.
Second, in middle-income countries, we find that there is a nonlinear
relationship between renewable energy consumption and per capita
ecological footprint and per capita carbon emissions. When renewable
energy consumption is below the threshold, its impact on per capita
ecological footprint is not significant. When the threshold is exceeded,
renewable energy consumption has a significant inhibitory effect on per
capita ecological footprint, which supports previous opinions [21,83].
Their study showed that renewable energy consumption significantly
inhibits the growth of the ecological footprint of middle-income coun­
tries. They argued that for these countries, governments should provide
skills and competency training for workers in the non-renewable energy

Table 5
Regression results of the threshold model.
Group All High-income Middle-income Low-income

EF CO2 EF CO2 EF CO2 EF CO2

Linear − 0.127*** (0.00598 − 0.809*** (0.202)

LNRE Single qit≤γ 0.00837 − 0.188*** − 0.668***

(0.0138) (0.0134) (0.191)
qit>γ − 0.154*** − 0.314*** − 0.801***
(0.0106) (0.0160) (0.191)
Double qit≤γ1 − 0.109*** − 0.217*** − 0.180***
(0.00601) (0.0117) (0.00897)
γ1<qit≤γ2 − 0.135*** − 0.280*** − 0.251***
(0.00625) (0.0128) (0.0101)
qit>γ2 − 0.161*** − 0.396*** − 0.322***
(0.00637) (0.0138) (0.0111)
LNURB − 0.226*** 0.795*** − 0.166*** − 0.329*** 0.0380 0.751*** 0.962*** 0.978***
(0.0258) (0.0522) (0.026) (0.121) (0.0353) (0.0578) (0.177) (0.188)
LNAGE − 0.0165 − 0.0363 − 0.0211 0.0359 − 0.0607** 0.0993** − 0.568*** − 0.914***
(0.0169) (0.0346) (0.0173) (0.0305) (0.0246) (0.0395) (0.212) (0.220)
LNGDP 0.263*** 0.341*** 0.286*** 0.289*** 0.258*** 0.374*** 0.244* 0.579***
(0.0107) (0.0217) (0.0109) (0.0259) (0.0132) (0.0207) (0.140) (0.141)
_cons − 0.0458 − 4.720*** 0.482*** 0.860* − 0.970*** − 5.095*** − 3.289** − 4.812***
(0.0954) (0.193) (0.0918) (0.516) (0.129) (0.196) (1.366) (1.435)
R-squared 0.354 0.485 0.321 0.519 0.419 0.601 0.382 0.303
obs 3640 3640 3640 952 2184 2184 504 504

Note: The numbers in parentheses below the regression coefficients are robust standard errors. *, **, and *** are significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels,
respectively.

9
R. Li et al.
sector so that they can adapt to the technical requirements of renewable
energy. As the proportion of renewable energy consumption increases,
the effect of renewable energy consumption on carbon emissions in­
creases. When it is below the first threshold, for every 1% increase in
renewable energy consumption, per capita carbon emissions reduce by
0.188%. When the threshold is exceeded, for every 1% increase in
renewable energy consumption, per capita carbon emissions reduce by
0.314%. The results of the study we obtained are similar to those of Hanif,
Aziz and Chaudhry [84]. They concluded that the use of renewable en­
ergy contributes to the control of carbon emissions in middle-income
level countries. However, they did not further investigate the nonlinear
relationship. GDP per capita has a significant promotion effect on per
capita ecological footprint and per capita carbon emissions. Both popu­
lation aging and urbanization have a significant promotion on per capita
carbon emissions. Our findings are consistent with those of Yu, Deng and
Chen [85], who argued that aging promotes carbon emissions. However,
our results support the conclusion of Zhang and Wang [86] that aging and
urbanization are beneficial to environmental protection.
Third, in low-income countries, renewable energy consumption has a
significant nonlinear inhibitory effect on per capita ecological footprint
and a significant linear inhibitory effect on per capita carbon emissions.
When it is below the threshold, for every 1% increase in renewable energy
consumption, per capita ecological footprint reduce by 0.668%. When
the threshold is exceeded, for every 1% increase in renewable energy
consumption, per capita ecological footprint reduce by 0.801%. Popu­
lation aging, and urbanization have significant impact on per capita
ecological footprint and per capita carbon emissions. GDP per capita
plays a significant role in promoting carbon emissions. For every 1% in­
crease in GDP per capita, per capita carbon emissions increase by 0.579%.
This result is supported by many scholars, such as Shah, Shah and Tahir
[87] and Otim, Mutumba, Watundu, Mubiinzi and Kaddu [88].
5. Conclusion
To comprehensively estimate the effects of renewable energy con­
sumption on environmental pressures (per capita carbon emissions and
per capita ecological footprint), panel threshold regression models were
developed using data of 130 countries from 1992 to 2019. In these
models, per capita ecological footprint and per capita carbon emissions
are set as the explained variables, renewable energy consumption is set
as both explanatory and threshold variables, and GDP per capita, pop­
ulation aging, and urbanization are the control variables. The main
findings of the empirical analysis are as follows.
Regarding the effects of renewable energy consumption on per capita
ecological footprint, we find a negative relationship between renewable
energy consumption and per capita ecological footprint. This indicates
that an increase in renewable energy consumption reduces ecological
footprint. For every 1% increase in renewable energy consumption, the
per capita ecological footprint of high-income reduces by 0.127%. In
addition, when renewable energy consumption crosses the threshold
value, a 1% increase in renewable energy consumption, reduces the
global per capita ecological footprint from − 0.135% to − 0.161%. This
means that an increase in renewable energy consumption has a signifi­
cant inhibitory effect on the growth of ecological footprint.
Regarding the effects of an increase in renewable energy consumption
on per capita carbon emissions, we find a negative relationship between
renewable energy consumption and per capita carbon emissions, indi­
cating that an increase in renewable energy consumption helps curb
carbon emissions. When the increase in renewable energy consumption
exceeds the threshold value, a 1% increase in renewable energy con­
sumption decreases per capita carbon emissions from 0.280% to 0.396%
at the global level, from − 0.251 to − 0.322 in high-income countries.
These results indicate that an increase in renewable consumption has a
significant inhibitory effect on the growth of carbon emissions.
In summary, although renewable energy consumption, per capita
GDP, urbanization, and aging are all intimately tied to mitigating climate
10
Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121
change, their effects on lowering greenhouse gas emissions vary. One of
the primary ways to directly cut greenhouse gas emissions among these
four factors is through the usage of renewable energy. Fossil fuel use can
be decreased, which lowers greenhouse gas emissions and slows climate
change. Renewable energy sources like solar and wind power can be
widely adopted. Renewable energy can also aid in lessening reliance on
scarce resources and advancing sustainable economic growth.
Aging, urbanization, and per capita GDP all affect climate change.
First, rising per capita GDP typically results in increased resource con­
sumption and increased industrialization and urbanization. Therefore,
per capita GDP will increase the ecological footprint and carbon emis­
sions both worldwide and within socioeconomic groups. Second, the
effects of urbanization and aging on the environment differ amongst
socioeconomic classes. For instance, high-income countries typically
have better resources and higher technology capabilities, which facili­
tate the implementation of renewable energy projects. Urbanization also
helps to make cities more energy-efficient and better planned, which
lowers carbon emissions. However, as people age, their energy and
medical needs will increase.
The potential to counteract climate change is therefore somewhat
influenced by per capita GDP, urbanization, and aging, even though the
usage of renewable energy has the most immediate and important global
impact. Their environmental impact is intricate and needs to be taken
into account from several angles. Renewable energy consumption can
help reduce environmental pressure, and an increase in renewable en­
ergy consumption has a more significant effect on reducing environ­
mental pressure. Combining these elements and implementing
comprehensive policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions increase energy
efficiency, and support economic growth is the most effective way to
achieve sustainable development.
Future research should address some of this study’s limitations. First,
the static threshold approach has drawbacks in addressing the endoge­
neity issue. This study explores the relationship between renewable
energy consumption and the environment. In our upcoming research,
endogenous variables will be added, which will make the model more
complex and broaden the threshold approach’s applicability areas.
Second, future research can examine the relationship between renew­
able energy consumption and various environmental indicators, such as
GHG emissions or the load capacity factor.
Author contribution statement
Rongrong Li: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation,
Investigation Writing- Original draft, Writing- Reviewing. . Qiang Wang:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data curation, Writing-
Original draft preparation, Supervision, Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
Lejia Li: Methodology, Software, Data curation, Investigation Writing-
Original draft, Writing- Reviewing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the editor and these anonymous
reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments that greatly
contributed to improving the final version of the manuscript. This work
is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
No. 72104246, 71874203).
R. Li et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121

Appendix
Table A1
List of countries.

Group Countries

All High-income Aruba, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Barbados, Switzerland, Chile, Cyprus, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, United Kingdom, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Singapore,
Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, United States
Middle- Angola, Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Bhutan, Botswana, China, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Congo
income (Brazzaville), Colombia, Comoros, Cape Verde, Costa Rica. Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Algeria, Ecuador, Arab Republic of Egypt, Fiji, Gabon,
Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica. Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan,
Laos, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Lesotho, Morocco, Mexico, North Macedonia, Myanmar, Mongolia, Mauritania, Malaysia, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru,
Philippines. Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Senegal, El Salvador, Eswatini, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Tanzania,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Samoa, South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Low-income Burundi, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Congo (Kinshasa), Guinea, Gambia, Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique,
Malawi, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Chad, Togo, Tajikistan, Uganda, Republic of Yemen

References [20] R. Ulucak, S.U.-D. Khan, Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of
renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization, Sustain. Cities Soc. 54
(2020), 101996.
[1] M.M. Rahman, E. Velayutham, Renewable and non-renewable energy
[21] R. Sharma, A. Sinha, P. Kautish, Does renewable energy consumption reduce
consumption-economic growth nexus: new evidence from South Asia, Renew.
ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia, J. Clean.
Energy 147 (2020) 399–408.
Prod. 285 (2021), 124867.
[2] B. Yu, D. Fang, K. Xiao, Y. Pan, Drivers of renewable energy penetration and its role
[22] H. Qudrat-Ullah, A review and analysis of renewable energy policies and CO2
in power sector’s deep decarbonization towards carbon peak, Renew. Sustain.
emissions of Pakistan, Energy 238 (2022), 121849.
Energy Rev. 178 (2023).
[23] K.U. Ehigiamusoe, H.H. Lean, Effects of energy consumption, economic growth,
[3] IRENA, Renewable Capacity Statistics 2021, International Renewable Energy
and financial development on carbon emissions: evidence from heterogeneous
Agency (IRENA), Abu Dhabi, 2021.
income groups, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (2019) 22611–22624.
[4] K. Saidi, A. Omri, The impact of renewable energy on carbon emissions and
[24] B. Ozcan, R. Ulucak, E.J.S.C. Dogan, Society, Analyzing long lasting effects of
economic growth in 15 major renewable energy-consuming countries, Environ.
environmental policies: evidence from low, middle and high income economies,
Res. 186 (2020), 109567.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 44 (2019) 130–143.
[5] H. Pan, M. Zhuang, Y. Geng, F. Wu, H. Dong, Emergy-based ecological footprint
[25] S.A. Solarin, A.K. Tiwari, M.O. Bello, A multi-country convergence analysis of
analysis for a mega-city: the dynamic changes of Shanghai, J. Clean. Prod. 210
ecological footprint and its components, Sustain. Cities Soc. 46 (2019), 101422.
(2019) 552–562.
[26] R. Li, X. Wang, Q. Wang, Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the
[6] Q. Wang, L. Li, R. Li, Uncovering the impact of income inequality and population
expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries, J. Clean.
aging on carbon emission efficiency: an empirical analysis of 139 countries, Sci.
Prod. 346 (2022), 131207.
Total Environ. 85 (2023), 159508.
[27] G.A. Uddin, K. Alam, J. Gow, Ecological and economic growth interdependency in
[7] R. Li, Q. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Zhou, X. Han, Y. Liu, Germany’s contribution to global
the Asian economies: an empirical analysis, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (2019)
carbon reduction might be underestimated – a new assessment based on scenario
13159–13172.
analysis with and without trade, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 176 (2022),
[28] S.T. Hassan, M.A. Baloch, N. Mahmood, J. Zhang, Linking economic growth and
121465.
ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity, Sustain. Cities Soc. 47
[8] R. Ulucak, S.U.-D. Khan, Determinants of the ecological footprint: role of
(2019), 101516.
renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization, Sustain. Cities Soc. 54
[29] L. Charfeddine, Z. Mrabet, The impact of economic development and social-
(2020), 101996.
political factors on ecological footprint: a panel data analysis for 15 MENA
[9] S.P. Nathaniel, K. Yalçiner, F.V. Bekun, Assessing the environmental sustainability
countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 76 (2017) 138–154.
corridor: linking natural resources, renewable energy, human capital, and
[30] Z. Ahmed, M.M. Asghar, M.N. Malik, K. Nawaz, Moving towards a sustainable
ecological footprint in BRICS, Resour. Pol. 70 (2021), 101924.
environment: the dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital,
[10] U.K. Pata, Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and
urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China, Resour. Pol. 67
ecological footprint in BRIC countries: a sustainability perspective, Renew. Energy
(2020), 101677.
173 (2021) 197–208.
[31] R. Zhou, K.R. Abbasi, S. Salem, A.I. Almulhim, R. Alvarado, Do natural resources,
[11] F. Dong, Y. Li, Y. Gao, J. Zhu, C. Qin, X. Zhang, Energy transition and carbon
economic growth, human capital, and urbanization affect the ecological footprint?
neutrality: exploring the non-linear impact of renewable energy development on
A modified dynamic ARDL and KRLS approach, Resour. Pol. 78 (2022), 102782.
carbon emission efficiency in developed countries, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 177
[32] Z. Ahmed, M.W. Zafar, S. Ali, Linking urbanization, human capital, and the
(2022), 106002.
ecological footprint in G7 countries: an empirical analysis, Sustain. Cities Soc. 55
[12] B. Lin, J. Zhu, The role of renewable energy technological innovation on climate
(2020), 102064.
change: empirical evidence from China, Sci. Total Environ. 659 (2019) 1505–1512.
[33] S.P. Nathaniel, Biocapacity, human capital, and ecological Footprint in G7
[13] S. Yurtkuran, The effect of agriculture, renewable energy production, and
countries: the moderating role of urbanization and necessary lessons for emerging
globalization on CO2 emissions in Turkey: a bootstrap ARDL approach, Renew.
economies, energy, Ecol. Environ (2020) 1–16.
Energy 171 (2021) 1236–1245.
[34] K. Tsuchiya, K. Iha, A. Murthy, D. Lin, S. Altiok, C.D. Rupprecht, H. Kiyono, S.
[14] C. Chen, M. Pinar, T. Stengos, Renewable energy consumption and economic
R. McGreevy, Decentralization & local food: Japan’s regional Ecological Footprints
growth nexus: evidence from a threshold model, Energy Pol. 139 (2020), 111295.
indicate localized sustainability strategies, J. Clean. Prod. 292 (2021), 126043.
[15] M. Zhang, Z. Yang, L. Liu, D. Zhou, Impact of renewable energy investment on
[35] Q. Wang, X. Wang, R. Li, Does urbanization redefine the environmental Kuznets
carbon emissions in China-An empirical study using a nonparametric additive
curve? An empirical analysis of 134 Countries, Sustain. Cities Soc. 76 (2022),
regression model, Sci. Total Environ. 785 (2021), 147109.
103382.
[16] H. Altıntas, Y. Kassouri, Is the environmental Kuznets Curve in Europe related to
[36] B. Chen, G. Chen, Z. Yang, M. Jiang, Ecological footprint accounting for energy and
the per-capita ecological footprint or CO2 emissions? Ecol. Indicat. 113 (2020),
resource in China, Energy Pol. 35 (2007) 1599–1609.
106187.
[37] J.L. Caviglia-Harris, D. Chambers, J.R. Kahn, Taking the “U” out of Kuznets: a
[17] S. Bouyghrissi, M. Murshed, A. Jindal, A. Berjaoui, H. Mahmood, M. Khanniba, The
comprehensive analysis of the EKC and environmental degradation, Ecol. Econ. 68
importance of facilitating renewable energy transition for abating CO2 emissions in
(2009) 1149–1159.
Morocco, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 (2022) 20752–20767.
[38] I. Ozturk, U. Al-Mulali, B. Saboori, Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve
[18] S. Naz, R. Sultan, K. Zaman, A.M. Aldakhil, A.A. Nassani, M.M.Q. Abro, Moderating
hypothesis: the role of tourism and ecological footprint, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
and mediating role of renewable energy consumption, FDI inflows, and economic
23 (2016) 1916–1928.
growth on carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from robust least square estimator,
[39] M.A. Baloch, J. Zhang, K. Iqbal, Z. Iqbal, The effect of financial development on
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 (2019) 2806–2819.
ecological footprint in BRI countries: evidence from panel data estimation,
[19] B. Aydoğan, G. Vardar, Evaluating the role of renewable energy, economic growth
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (2019) 6199–6208.
and agriculture on CO2 emission in E7 countries, Int. J. Sustain. Energy 39 (2020)
[40] S.P. Nathaniel, Ecological footprint, energy use, trade, and urbanization linkage in
335–348.
Indonesia, Geojournal (2020) 1–14.

11
R. Li et al.
[41] P.B. Eregha, S.P. Nathaniel, X.V. Vo, Economic growth, environmental regulations,
energy use, and ecological footprint linkage in the next-11 countries: implications
for environmental sustainability, Energy. Environ (2022), 0958305X221084293.
[42] D.M. Ibrahiem, S.A. Hanafy, Dynamic linkages amongst ecological footprints, fossil
fuel energy consumption and globalization: an empirical analysis, Manag. Environ.
Qual. Int. J. 31 (2020) 1549–1568.
[43] X. Shi, T. Matsui, T. Machimura, X. Gan, A. Hu, Toward sustainable development:
decoupling the high ecological footprint from human society development: a case
study of Hong Kong, Sustainability 12 (2020) 4177.
[44] U.S. Yousaf, F. Ali, B. Aziz, S. Sarwar, What causes environmental degradation in
Pakistan? Embossing the role of fossil fuel energy consumption in the view of
ecological footprint, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 (2022) 33106–33116.
[45] M. Ramzan, S.A. Raza, M. Usman, G.D. Sharma, H.A. Iqbal, Environmental cost of
non-renewable energy and economic progress: do ICT and financial development
mitigate some burden? J. Clean. Prod. 333 (2022), 130066.
[46] Q. Wang, T. Yang, R. Li, Does income inequality reshape the environmental
Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis? A nonlinear panel data analysis, Environ. Res.
216 (2023), 114575.
[47] A.A. Alola, F.V. Bekun, S.A. Sarkodie, Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic
growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on
ecological footprint in Europe, Sci. Total Environ. 685 (2019) 702–709.
[48] R. Li, X. Wang, Q. Wang, Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the
expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries, J. Clean.
Prod. 346 (2022).
[49] M.A. Destek, A. Sinha, 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 (2020),
118537.
[50] S. Nathaniel, S.A.R. Khan, The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy,
trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries, J. Clean. Prod. 272 (2020),
122709.
[51] S. Nathaniel, O. Nwodo, G. Sharma, M. Shah, Renewable energy, urbanization, and
ecological footprint linkage in CIVETS, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (2020)
19616–19629.
[52] M. Usman, M.S.A. Makhdum, R. Kousar, Does financial inclusion, renewable and
non-renewable energy utilization accelerate ecological footprints and economic
growth? Fresh evidence from 15 highest emitting countries, Sustain. Cities Soc. 65
(2021), 102590.
[53] L.-N. Hao, M. Umar, Z. Khan, W. Ali, Green growth and low carbon emission in G7
countries: how critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and
human capital is? Sci. Total Environ. 752 (2021), 141853.
[54] Q. Wang, F. Zhang, R. Li, Revisiting the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in
208 counties: the roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and
natural resource rent, Environ. Res. 216 (2023), 114637.
[55] R. Li, L. Li, Q. Wang, The impact of energy efficiency on carbon emissions: evidence
from the transportation sector in Chinese 30 provinces, Sustain. Cities Soc. 82
(2022), 103880.
[56] S. Kais, H. Sami, An econometric study of the impact of economic growth and
energy use on carbon emissions: panel data evidence from fifty eight countries,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 59 (2016) 1101–1110.
[57] A.A. Abdallh, H. Abugamos, A semi-parametric panel data analysis on the
urbanisation-carbon emissions nexus for the MENA countries, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 78 (2017) 1350–1356.
[58] R. Ali, K. Bakhsh, M.A. Yasin, Impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions in
emerging economy: evidence from Pakistan, Sustain. Cities Soc. 48 (2019),
101553.
[59] J. Kim, H. Lim, H.-H. Jo, Do aging and low fertility reduce carbon emissions in
Korea? Evidence from IPAT augmented EKC analysis, Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ.
Health 17 (2020) 2972.
[60] H. Chen, E.A. Tackie, I. Ahakwa, M. Musah, A. Salakpi, M. Alfred, S. Atingabili,
Does energy consumption, economic growth, urbanization, and population growth
influence carbon emissions in the BRICS? Evidence from panel models robust to
cross-sectional dependence and slope heterogeneity, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control
Ser. 29 (2022) 37598–37616.
[61] M. Musah, M. Owusu-Akomeah, F. Boateng, F. Iddris, I.A. Mensah, S.K. Antwi, J.
K. Agyemang, Long-run equilibrium relationship between energy consumption and
CO2 emissions: a dynamic heterogeneous analysis on North Africa, Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Control Ser. 29 (2022) 10416–10433.
12
Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (2023) 101121
[62] B. Li, N. Haneklaus, The role of renewable energy, fossil fuel consumption,
urbanization and economic growth on CO2 emissions in China, Energy Rep. 7
(2021) 783–791.
[63] A. Sharif, S.A. Raza, I. Ozturk, S. Afshan, The dynamic relationship of renewable
and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: a global study with
the application of heterogeneous panel estimations, Renew. Energy 133 (2019)
685–691.
[64] S. Yao, S. Zhang, X. Zhang, Renewable energy, carbon emission and economic
growth: a revised environmental Kuznets Curve perspective, J. Clean. Prod. 235
(2019) 1338–1352.
[65] U. Al-Mulali, I. Ozturk, S.A. Solarin, Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve
hypothesis in seven regions: the role of renewable energy, Ecol. Indicat. 67 (2016)
267–282.
[66] K. Menyah, Y. Wolde-Rufael, CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy
and economic growth in the US, Energy Pol. 38 (2010) 2911–2915.
[67] C. Chen, M. Pinar, T. Stengos, Renewable energy and CO2 emissions: new evidence
with the panel threshold model, Renew. Energy 194 (2022) 117–128.
[68] A.E. Alper, F.O. Alper, G. Ozayturk, F. Mike, Testing the long-run impact of
economic growth, energy consumption, and globalization on ecological footprint:
new evidence from Fourier bootstrap ARDL and Fourier bootstrap Toda–Yamamoto
test results, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. (2022) 1–16.
[69] R. Li, Q. Wang, Y. Liu, R. Jiang, Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: the
effect of economic, energy, social, and trade structural changes, Sustain. Prod.
Consum. 27 (2021) 1149–1164.
[70] K. Lim, H. Tong, Threshold autoregressions, limit cycles, and data, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Sociaty, B 42 (1980) 245–292.
[71] B.E. Hansen, Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and
inference, J. Econom. 93 (1999) 345–368.
[72] A. Alfada, The destructive effect of corruption on economic growth in Indonesia: a
threshold model, Heliyon 5 (2019), e02649.
[73] J. Huang, X. Cai, S. Huang, S. Tian, H. Lei, Technological factors and total factor
productivity in China: evidence based on a panel threshold model, China Econ.
Rev. 54 (2019) 271–285.
[74] Q. Wang, L. Wang, R. Li, Trade protectionism jeopardizes carbon neutrality –
decoupling and breakpoints roles of trade openness, Sustain. Prod. Consum. 35
(2023) 201–215.
[75] WDI, World Development Indicators (DataBank), 2022.
[76] GFN, Global Footprint Network, 2022.
[77] K.S. Im, M.H. Pesaran, Y. Shin, Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels,
J. Econom. 115 (2003) 53–74.
[78] A. Levin, C.-F. Lin, C.-S.J. Chu, Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-
sample properties, J. Econom. 108 (2002) 1–24.
[79] I. Choi, Unit root tests for panel data, J. Int. Money Finance 20 (2001) 249–272.
[80] X. Yang, N. Li, H. Mu, J. Pang, H. Zhao, M. Ahmad, Study on the long-term impact
of economic globalization and population aging on CO2 emissions in OECD
countries, Sci. Total Environ. 787 (2021), 147625.
[81] O. Usman, S.S. Akadiri, I. Adeshola, Role of renewable energy and globalization on
ecological footprint in the USA: implications for environmental sustainability,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27 (2020) 30681–30693.
[82] T.S. Adebayo, H. Rjoub, G.D. Akinsola, S.D. Oladipupo, The asymmetric effects of
renewable energy consumption and trade openness on carbon emissions in
Sweden: new evidence from quantile-on-quantile regression approach, Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 (2022) 1875–1886.
[83] M. Murshed, M. Haseeb, M. Alam, The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for
carbon and ecological footprints in South Asia: the role of renewable energy,
Geojournal 87 (2022) 2345–2372.
[84] I. Hanif, B. Aziz, I.S. Chaudhry, Carbon emissions across the spectrum of renewable
and nonrenewable energy use in developing economies of Asia, Renew. Energy 143
(2019) 586–595.
[85] Y. Yu, Y.-r. Deng, F.-f. Chen, Impact of population aging and industrial structure on
CO2 emissions and emissions trend prediction in China, Atmos. Pollut. Res. 9
(2018) 446–454.
[86] P. Zhang, H. Wang, Do provincial energy policies and energy intensity targets help
reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from China, Energy 245 (2022), 123275.
[87] S.A.A. Shah, S.Q.A. Shah, M. Tahir, Determinants of CO2 emissions: exploring the
unexplored in low-income countries, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. (2022) 1–9.
[88] J. Otim, G. Mutumba, S. Watundu, G. Mubiinzi, M. Kaddu, The effects of gross
domestic product and energy consumption on carbon dioxide Emission in Uganda
(1986-2018), Int. J. Energy Econ. Pol. 12 (2022) 427–435.