Energy Policy 153 (2021) 112230

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Does globalization matter for environmental degradation? Nexus among

energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission
Wen Jun a, Nafeesa Mughal a, *, Jin Zhao b, Malik Shahzad Shabbir c, Gniewko Niedbała d,
Vipin Jain e, Ahsan Anwar f, g
a
School of Economics and Finance, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, China
b
School of Finance, Shanghai Lixin University of Accounting and Finance, Shanghai, China
c
The University of Lahore, Pakistan
d
Poznań University of Life Sciences, Department of Biosystems Engineering, Faculty of Environmental and Mechanical Engineering, Wojska Polskiego 50, 60-627,
Poznań, Poland
e
Teerthankar Mahaveer University Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
f
Department of Economics, National College of Business Administration and Economics, Lahore, Pakistan
g
Planning Department, Lahore Transport Company, Government of Punjab, Pakistan

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

JEL classification: This study scrutinizes the impact of globalization, non-renewable energy consumption, and economic growth on
E11 CO2 emission for selected South Asian economies during 1985–2018 under the EKC framework. For this purpose,
D51 we apply a fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS) technique. The empirical findings of this study identify
Keywords: that globalization is positively associated with CO2 emission. The results also indicate that non-renewable energy
Globalization consumption increasing environmental pollution. Moreover, the results confirm the EKC hypothesis in the South
Non-renewable energy consumption
Asian region; this means that at the early stages of development, when economic growth increases, environ­
CO2 emission
South Asian countries
mental pollution also increases, but environmental degradation starts to decrease with the increases in economic
growth after the threshold point. The empirical outcomes suggest that the government should subsidize and
promote renewable energy sources to tackle the problem of environmental degradation.

1. Introduction
Several studies include various indicators of CO2 emissions (CO2E),
such as growth level, the structure of energy use (renewable versus non-
renewable), financial development, technological innovation, liber­
alization of trade, and urbanization under the Environmental Kuznets
Curve (EKC) premises. However, many countries have recently sup­
ported the EKC hypothesis, which asserts the globalization (GLOB),
economic growth (EG), and CO2E nexus. Generally, the production of
goods and services and its growth cannot be achieved without impacting
environmental quality and without consuming energy sources. Since the
EKC theory was presented in the 1990s, researchers, economists, and
environmentalists have focused their attention on the environment-
growth nexus under EKC’s framework in their theoretical and empir­
ical analyses (Brock and Taylor, 2004). The income inequalities and
growth (inverted U-shaped) nexus are widely discussed in the past
literature and was initially developed by Kuznets in 1995. This idea was
supported by various researchers in their analysis to identify the envi­
ronment and its relationship with income in the EKC scheme (Selden and
Song, 1994; Grossman and Krueger, 1991; and Vincent, 1997). Meadows
et al. (1972) highlighted environmental sustainability awareness for the
first time in the 1970s. Still, in the 1990s, Selden and Song (1994),
Panayotou (1993), Grossman and Krueger (1991) and described the
environmental issues resulting from rapid EG and development. These
studies have also tested and confirmed the EKC hypothesis.
The income-environment relationship under the scheme of the EKC
has also been examined by several empirical studies of Shahbaz et al.
(2012) and Esteve and Tamarit (2012). These analyses have supported
the EKC in their studies by using different techniques. Based on the as­
sessments of EG and GHG emissions under the premises of the EKC
hypothesis, Jebli et al. (2016); Al-Mulali et al. (2016); and Apergis and
Ozturk (2015) have included various additional explanatory variables in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Wjun1978@163.com (W. Jun), NafeesaMughal@stu.xjtu.edu.cn (N. Mughal), jin.zhao616@gmail.com (J. Zhao), Mshahzad786.pk11@gmail.
com (M.S. Shabbir), gniewko.niedbala@up.poznan.pl (G. Niedbała), vipin555@rediffmail.com (V. Jain), ahsananwar786@gmail.com (A. Anwar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112230
Received 17 July 2020; Received in revised form 2 February 2021; Accepted 25 February 2021
0301-4215/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Jun et al.
their analysis. Several economies try to increase competition and eco­
nomic growth; thus, GLOB plays a vital part and can yield sustainable EG
in less developed economies.
Recently, various economies have been connected to each other,
especially culturally, socially, economically, and politically, due to
GLOB and advanced information systems. GLOB permits advanced
technology and its transfer through FDI from advanced nations to less
technological advancement countries. Therefore, GLOB’s role in deter­
mining EG is crucial, and it enhances economic activities by owing to
technological innovations and investment activities of the country.
Conversely, the worldwide demand for goods and services has required
increased energy demand; it concluded EG is mainly driven by energy.
Thus, the energy consumption of non-renewable is highly associated
with the growth rate, worsening the environment’s quality. The leading
cause of deforestation, depletion of natural resources, climate change,
and global warming is carbon dioxide emissions and GLOB (Shahbaz
et al., 2017a).
Several previous studies have extensively covered environmental
sustainability. They have provided a sustainable framework and various
policy implications for environmental protection and sustainable EG in
the literature; the growth-environmental pollution nexus can be
mentioned in the scheme of an inverted U-shaped environmental Kuz­
nets curve (EKC). The environmental quality-growth relation in three
stages was defined by Grossman and Krueger (1991). Since the 1990s,
the nexus of environmental-growth is determined through this curve.
Grossman and Krueger (1991) have used this curve to examine the North
American Free Trade Agreement’s environment-growth link. Different
analytical analyses initially discussed the EKC’s premise for investi­
gating the connection between climate and EG and overlooked the role
of the other related variables, including (Heil and Selden, 2001;
Schmalensee et al., 1998; Moomaw and Unruh, 1997; and Holtz-Eakin
and Selden, 1995). The three different stages of the EKC framework
show that EG initially deteriorates the quality of the environment at a
threshold level, but after a certain maximum point, the curve moves
downward; thus, the CO2 emissions-EG nexus is negative. Panayotou
(1993) first defined the indicators of pollution-GDP growth nexus under
the EKC scheme. The EKC framework is discussed by Dinda (2004) and
Stern (2004) in their empirical analysis.
Additionally, the determinants of CO2E in terms of fossil fuel energy
sources and EG have been discussed in several empirical works (Hettige
et al., 2000; Kahuthu, 2006; Liu et al., 2007; Tao et al., 2008; Diao et al.,
2009; Fodha and Zaghdoud, 2010; Hanif and Gago-de-Santos, 2016;
Wang et al., 2016; and Nasreen et al., 2017). Halkos (2013) explored the
growth and environmental degradation nexus and also discussed other
pollutants. More efficient policies, particularly in Asian countries, are
needed where emissions remain high. This study addresses the
energy-growth carbon emission nexus, thus based on sequential past
empirical research using some control variables under the EKC
hypothesis.
Environmental pollution and CO2E are strongly affected by EG and
development. The growth-environmental degradation nexus is not a
focus of the early stages of EG, environmental issues are not sufficiently
considered, and advanced technologies have-not been accessible to
solve these issues (Dinda, 2004). Consequently, as per capita income
rises, the level of environmental deterioration also rises. The nexus of
CO2E, EG, and energy sources have been considered significant by
numerous researchers. Various explanatory variables are also incorpo­
rated in analyzing the CO2E, EG, and NRENW nexus, such as trade
openness, financial development, population, and other factors. This
well-studied topic uses different time-period frameworks for different
countries, with different methodologies and different controlled vari­
ables in various empirical analyses. The findings of these studies conflict
with each other and vary according to the country assessed.
This study examines the role of GLOB, growth-emission nexus with
other selected variables due to its importance in policymaking and
sustainable EG across the globe. The study tries to identify the growth-
2
Energy Policy 153 (2021) 112230
energy and environmental degradation nexus under the EKC frame­
work’s premises for selected South Asian economies. The unique
contribution of this study is to overcome a vacuum in the recent studies,
under the framework of EKC and by adding some plausible variables.
This paper used the most recent data with the recent econometrics ap­
proaches and a vigorous model to fill this vacuum in the empirical
literature. The research study question is tightly focused on the policies
of environmental sustainability. The key aim of the present study is to
detect the role of GLOB toward environmental degradation.
Furthermore, only a few studies used subsamples from the perspec­
tive of Asian countries. This deficiency in previous studies motivates
further analysis on this topic with some additional information and
changes. With all these deficiencies, this study seeks answers to the
research questions. Does EG significantly increase/decrease CO2E in
south Asian countries? Do the selected Asian countries demonstrate an
environmental Kuznets curve to demonstrate the growth-CO2 emission
hypothesis? Similarly, Can GDP growth be achieved without worsening
environmental health in these countries?
2. Literature review
A detailed description of the literature review is given, which is
based on theoretical, conceptual, and empirical analyses regarding the
nexus between energy-growth-induced emissions. The relation between
GDP growth and CO2E alone cannot be presented in complete detail;
therefore, following the literature review by Nassani et al. (2017) study
incorporates various other variables and examined their impacts on
CO2E. The studies on Asian countries are discussed as the subsample,
and the findings are not identical (Niu et al., 2011; Apergis and Ozturk,
2015; Narayan and Narayan, 2010; Jaunky, 2011; Keho, 2017; Liu et al.,
2017; Li et al., 2021; Nasreen et al., 2017). However, except for Niu et al.
(2011), all other studies have taken various countries to be a whole
group.
Recently, the EKC hypothesis has been tested by Jaunky (2011) and
Cowan et al. (2014) and verified the presence of EKC tests for
cross-country panel data. Besides, Ibrahim and Law (2014) and Cicea
et al. (2014) have assessed panel data under the EKC hypothesis and
found mixed results. Similarly, the EKC hypothesis has been tested by
Ajmi et al. (2015) for G7 nations and found that the results do not verify
the authenticity of the EKC by using Granger’s causality test. The energy
use, CO2E, and EG nexus have also been examined by various re­
searchers who have not reached the same conclusions. In the USA
setting, Soytas et al. (2007) applied enhanced vector autoregression and
observed that CO2E is a big source of energy consumption caused by
Granger. Besides, they have also explored the energy, CO2E, and energy
growth nexus but have not found any causality among them for the USA;
similarly, the results of Ghosh (2010) and Soytas and Sari (2009) for
India and Turkey, respectively, do not indicate any causal relationship
among energy, growth, and CO2E.
The plentiful empirical analyses on the growth-environment nexus in
the EKC premises, but their contribution to empirical analysis is unde­
niable (Shafik and Bandyopadhyay 1992; Grossman and Kruege, 1995).
Various past empirical works have been performed on this topic to
investigate the EKC premises using panel data approaches (see Cole
et al., 1997; Al Sayed and Sek, 2013; Farhani et al., 2014). Similarly,
numerous empirical works have employed time-series data for
cross-country or single country analysis. Thus, this study attempts to
estimate the panel group data analysis under the framework of EKC and
therefore also contributes to the existing literature. Through the use of
these possible factors within the EKC system, this analysis contribution
is unique, which creates this research distinct from other studies and
helps fill a literature void. Furthermore, this research includes NRENW
and GLOB under the umbrella of the EKC framework. GLOB with
non-renewable sources has not been joined together (in the framework
of the EKC hypothesis) in the South Asian countries background; this
research used the new evidence in the scientific literature using the most
W. Jun et al. Energy Policy 153 (2021) 112230

modern econometric methods and a robust model. The research study percentage of total final energy usage. Next, to measure globalization’s
question is tightly focused on the policies of environmental sustain­ impact on environmental degradation, we used the globalization index
ability with the help of GLOB and renewable sources of energy. (KOF index of globalization, 2020) as an explanatory variable. The data
Economic growth (GDP) has a close correlation with energy con­ for globalization is gathered from the KOF index of globalization (Gygli
sumption and is an indicator of oxygen in the entire world. NRENW is a et al., 2019). The data for non-renewable energy consumption, GDP per
prerequisite for the achievement of EG (Sahir and Qureshi, 2007). capita, and CO2 emission is collected from the World Development In­
Various developing countries and their residents (particularly South dicators (World Bank, 2020).
Asian countries) are living below the poverty line. However, to lift The empirical studies of (Apergis and Ozturk 2015; Al-Mulali et al.,
millions of inhabitants out of poverty, many South Asian economies are 2016; and Jebli et al., 2016) have included various explanatory vari­
struggling to attain EG through industrialization and GLOB. Unfortu­ ables in growth-emission nexus under the scheme of the EKC hypothesis.
nately, land degradation, agricultural development, industrial devel­ This study follows these three equations.
opment, infrastructure development, and other practices have
deteriorated environmental quality. The leading cause of climate change Carbon emission it =β0+ β1 (GDP per capita) it +β2 (GDP per capita)2
and the rise in earth temperature is carbon dioxide emissions (Fodha, it+β3Macroeconomic variable it + Uit …. (1)
and Zaghdoud, 2010; Al-Mulali et al., 2015). 2
Carbon emission it=β0+ β1 (Ln-GDP it) +β2 (Ln-GDP it) + Uit …. (2)
Whereas greenhouse gases (GHGs) represent a combination of gases,
but CO2 makes up approximately 75 percent of these gases in the at­
2
Carbon emission it =β0+ β1 (Ln-GDPit) +β2 (Ln-GDP it) + β3 (LnNRENWit)
mosphere. These gases move from one place to another continuously, + β4 (LnGLOBit) + Uit …. (3)
stay within the biosphere, and not disappear/dissipate for thousands of
years. The Joint Research Center of the European Union (EU) reported
that the world’s ninety percent CO2E is fossil fuel incineration (Oliver
4. Results and discussion
et al., 2012). In recent decades, primarily responsible for environmental
degradation is the most developed economies; however, the ratio of
4.1. Descriptive statistics
CO2E has also increased in developing countries (IEA, 2015). This con­
verts ocean water into carbonic acid, and marine life and coral reefs are
Table 1 describes the descriptive statistics of all variables like CO2E,
being damaged due to high carbon dioxide rates in the atmosphere (U.S.
GDP per capita, NRENW, and GLOB.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).
The mean value of the carbo emissions is 0.565 with a minimum
Shahbaz et al. (2017b) have applied the methodology of a NARDL
value of 0.040 and a maximum value of 1.817, and the standard devi­
model for Japan to find the nexus between GLOB, environment, and
ation is 0.416. Whereas the mean value of the GDP per capita log is
energy-growth between 1970 and 2014. Accordingly, to their results,
1032.824 with a minimum value of 317.770 and a maximum value is
the environment’s quality is significantly worsening, rapid growth and
3946.194, and the standard deviation value is 753.897. The mean values
development processes as a result of GLOB’s growth and expanded use of
of NRENW and GLOB are 45.682 and 44.288, respectively.
fossil fuels. Recently, Shahbaz et al. (2017a) have used panel data
analysis between 1970 and 2012 for China. Their research inspected the
EKC hypothesis, and the correlations between GLOB and CO2E were also 4.2. Results of panel unit root tests
examined. The findings suggest a substantial decline in CO2E from
GLOB. Additionally, Shahbaz et al. (2018) examined the GLOB and CO2E Most of the time, the macroeconomic indicators have a unit root
relationship during 1970–2014 for 25 developed countries. The findings problem. In such a situation, the output of the estimations usually is
show that GLOB is significantly increasing CO2E. misleading or spurious. Therefore to check the stationary of the in­
Recently, Haseeb et al. (2018) have shed light on the nexus between dicators, we apply three different unit root tests. Table 2 represents the
CO2E and its essential components: growth, GLOB, energy use, financial results of the “Panel unit root test” of Hadri (2000), Breitung (2001), and
development, and urbanization for Russia, India, Brazil, South African, Im et al. (2003). The results of all these three tests confirm that all the
and China nations. They have tested the EKC hypothesis and confirmed indicators are stationary at first difference.
the EKC for these countries. Their findings show that CO2E significantly
decreases with an increase in GLOB. However, Shahbaz et al. (2015), in 4.3. Results of cointegration tests
their study, used the test “Bayer and Hanck cointegration” and “vector
error correction model” (VECM) to examine the effects of GLOB on CO2E Before analyzing the association between the indicators, all the in­
for India from 1970 to 2012. Environmental quality was found to be dicators must be cointegrated in the long-term. Table 3 represents the
positively associated with GLOB. statistical results of the Pedroni and Kao cointegration test. Pedroni
Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, many researchers have cointegration test results describe that six out of seven values (three
given less attention to GLOB, energy sources, and CO2E for the countries between and three within the dimension) are significant, confirming the
of South Asia. Thus, this study is based on past research using the EKC cointegration among the variables. The Kao, 1999 cointegration ADF
hypothesis with a few additional variables to fill the gap with a chro­ statistics is 20.078 with the p-values of 0.000. these values show that
nological empirical analysis. long term association exists among all variable CO2E, GDP per capita,
NRENW, and GLOB.
3. Data and methodology
Table-1
This paper examines the impact of globalization (GLOB), non- Descriptive statistics.
renewable energy consumption (NRENW), and EG on CO2 emissions Description CO2E GDP NRENW GLOB
(CO2E). We use the annual data of selected South Asian economies (Sri
Mean 0.565 1032.824 45.682 44.288
Lanka, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Nepal) from 1985-2018. We use Median 0.538 803.684 50.925 44.317
CO2E as a proxy of environmental degradation measured in metric tons Maximum 1.817 3946.194 73.768 62.233
per capita. The GDP per capita (based on constant 2010 US$) is used as Minimum 0.040 317.770 3.37266 22.854
the proxy of EG, and we use the square of GDP for investigating the Sd. Dev. 0.416 753.897 21.342 10.596
Observations 170 170 170 170
presence of the EKC hypothesis in South Asian countries.
Moreover, we measure non-renewable energy consumption as a Source: Author’s Calculation.

3
W. Jun et al. Energy Policy 153 (2021) 112230

Table-2 the countries (Nepal, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka) except Pakistan.
Panel unit root test analysis. This means that at the early stages of development, when EG increases,
Breitung test Im-Pesaran-Shin Hadri test the CO2E increases, but after a threshold point, with the further increase
Variables Breitung test (IPS) test in EG, the CO2E starts to decline. The NRENW is a significant source of
I(0) I(1) I(0) I(1) I(0) I(1) CO2E in all countries. The empirical outcomes demonstrate that a 1%
lnCO2it
upsurge in NRENW leads to increased CO2E by 0.735%, 0.732%,
− 1.09 2.45*** 0.39 3.97*** 1.27 1.93**
0.828%, 2.58%, and 0.419% in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and
− −
lnGDPit
4.81 − 2.41*** 1.87 − 4.69*** 6.74*** 2.12**
lnNRENWit
3.58 − 3.69*** 0.98 − 5.21*** 4.47*** 4.67*** Pakistan, respectively.
lnGLOBit
2.10 − 4.04*** 3.25 − 5.07*** 4.89*** 2.72*** Moreover, the result shows that GLOB has a positive association with
Note: Where ***, ** signifies a 1 and 5% level of significance. CO2E in Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. A 1% increase in GLOB in­
Source: Author’s Calculation. creases CO2E by 2.14%, 0.599%, and 0.562% in Nepal, Pakistan, and
Bangladesh. In India, GLOB’s favorable association with environmental
quality, as a 1% increase in GLOB, reduces CO2E by 0.448%.
Table-3
The statistical results of the Pedroni and Kao cointegration.
4.5. Results of FMOLS (full panel)
Pedroni (2004) residual cointegration test

within-dimension Above, Table 5 represented the results of the whole panel. The results
Statistic P-value revealed that GDP has positive, whereas the GDP’s square negatively
Panel ADF-Statistic − 1.41769 0.0781
affects CO2E. The results of GDP and Square of GDP approve the exis­
Panel PP-Statistic − 3.20703 0.0007 tence of EKC-hypothesis in the case of selected South Asian countries.
Panel v-Statistic − 0.67289 0.7495 These empirical findings are in line with the findings of Anwar et al.
Panel rho-Statistic − 1.96615 0.0246 (2021), Khattak et al. (2020), and Yang et al. (2017), who describes that
Between the dimension at early phases of development, the environmental pollution increases as
Statistic P-value EG increases; however, after threshold point, environmental deteriora­
Group ADF-Statistic − 1.58406 0.0566 tion starts to decline with the increase in EG. Moreover, the NRENW has
Group PP-Statistic − 4.00491 0.0000 a positive link with CO2E. As a 1% increase in NRENW increases the
Group rho-Statistic − 1.70207 0.0444 CO2E by 0.80%. Our outcomes support the empirical findings of Dogan
(Kao, 1999) panel cointegration test and Seker (2016), Javid and Sharif (2016a,b), and Khan et al. (2020),
t-statistics P-value who report that NRENW increases the CO2E. Likewise, GLOB is also
ADF − 2.85602 0.0021 positively affecting CO2E as a 1% increase in GLOB increases CO2E by
0.38%. Our finding is parallel to the outcomes of Khan et al. (2019),
Source: Author’s Calculation.
Ahmed et al. (2015), Danish et al. (2018), who claim that GLOB in­
Note: Where *** and ** signify 1 and 5% levels of significance, respectively.
creases environmental degradation.

4.4. FMOLS results (country-wise)

4.6. Results of variance decomposition analysis
Table 4 represented the country-wise outcomes of the FMOLS tech­
nique. The empirical outcomes confirm EKC-hypothesis’s presence in all The findings of the VDA are reported in Table 6 from the perspective
of selected South Asian countries. The lnCO2 outcomes during
1985–2018 reveal that the 76.66% change in CO2E is endogenous,
Table 4 whereas EG, NRENW, and GLOB contribute to CO2E by 4.64%, 17.67%
Country-wise results of FMOLS technique. and1.02%, respectively. It implies that in selected South Asian econo­
Bangladesh mies, NRENW and EG are the leading cause of environmental degra­
dation. Similarly, the GLOB, EG, and NRENW are added by CO2E as
Variables Coefficient St. Error t-statistics P-value
5.15%, 18.32%, and 4.08%. In contrast, the self-contribution of GLOB,
lnGDPit
0.794982 0.078046 10.18601 0.000 EG, and NRENW is 92.11%, 75.11%, and 93.40%.
ln(GDPit)2
− 1.02139 0.550536 − 1.85526 0.0745
lnNRENWit
0.732312 0.243935 3.002081 0.0057
lnGLOBit
0.562063 0.235239 2.389332 0.0241
4.7. Graphical representation of causaulity
India
lnGDPit
1.216011 0.270023 4.503362 0.0001
ln(GDPit)2
− 0.32653 0.183627 − 1.77824 0.0871 The Fig. 1 represents the results of the “impulse response function
lnNRENWit
2.589412 0.37279 6.946028 0.0000 (IRF)." The graphical analysis of the IRF represents the variable and their
lnGLOBit
− 0.44838 0.138336 − 3.24126 0.0033 response, respectively. Moreover, GLOB, EG, NRENW, and CO2E are
Sri Lanka
lnGDPit positively related to the increasing trend. The outcomes indicated that
0.65794 0.040588 16.21019 0.000
ln(GDPit)2
− 0.64784 0.176798 − 3.66429 0.0011 the two-way causality is running from NRENW, GLOB, GDP to CO2E.
lnNRENWit
0.828087 0.099638 8.310937 0.000 The results also reveal that a two-sided casualty exists between GLOB
lnGLOBit
0.264496 0.171812 1.53945 0.1353 and GDP, GDP, and NRENW.
Pakistan
lnGDPit
0.428745 0.057049 7.515334 0.000
ln(GDPit)2
− 0.04123 0.098543 − 0.41843 0.6789 Table-5
lnNRENWit
0.419614 0.180971 2.318682 0.0282 The results FMOLS technique: Full Panel.
lnGLOBit
0.599573 0.102618 5.842742 0.000
Variables Coefficient St. Error t-statistics P-value
Nepal
lnGDPit
3.691641 0.461347 8.001873 0.000 lnGDPit 1.128479 0.155278 7.267491 0.000
ln(GDPit)2
− 1.16236 0.463087 − 2.51003 0.0186 ln(GDPit)2 − 0.41499 0.186935 − 2.21999 0.028
lnNRENWit
0.735745 0.075352 9.764147 0.000 lnNRENWit 0.804641 0.105419 7.632778 0.000
lnGLOBit
2.140398 0.453435 4.720406 0.0001 lnGLOBit 0.389481 0.131498 2.961883 0.0036

Source: Author’s Calculation. Source: Author’s Calculation.

4
W. Jun et al. Energy Policy 153 (2021) 112230

Table-6 additional explanatory variables in assessments of EG and GHG emis­

Variance decomposition analysis. sions under the premises of the EKC hypothesis. These studies included
Variance Decomposition of LnCO2it energy efficiency, energy dependency, and economic structure as the
control variables with EG to observe the growth-environment relation­
Period SE. LnCO2it LnGDPit LnNRENWit LnGLOBit
ship under the EKC hypothesis. Their results show that EG activities
1 0.082655 100 0 0 0 significantly increase GHG emissions. Lise (2006) has also tested this
2 0.107209 90.96589 0.560445 8.239422 0.234242
3 0.139549 82.99616 1.378402 14.71601 0.909428
hypothesis for Turkey and India, and he has not found any relationship
4 0.16212 81.25433 1.997638 15.6677 1.080326 between growth and CO2E.
5 0.184778 79.52203 2.761179 16.56547 1.151321 The link between growth level and environmental pollution have
6 0.204077 78.51854 3.300066 17.02422 1.15717 been well defined by Grossman and Krueger (1991) in their analysis
7 0.222216 77.80627 3.763549 17.29118 1.13901
indicate per capita income increases SO2 also increases, but it decreases
8 0.238816 77.32094 4.120599 17.45457 1.103895
9 0.254442 76.94499 4.410123 17.58042 1.064465 with upsurges in the per capita income after a certain point. Subse­
10 0.269137 76.66331 4.640671 17.67324 1.022778 quently, Shafik and Bandyopadhyay (1992) examined the GDP growth
Variance Decomposition of LnGDPit
driven environmental pollution nexus and confirmed the presence of the
Period SE. LnCO2it LnGDPit
LnNRENWit LnGLOBit inverted U-shaped EKC. Panayotou (1993) first defined the indicators of
environmental pollution and GDP growth nexus in the EKC presence. In
1 0.018137 4.653171 95.34683 0 0
2 0.03031 6.537543 93.03946 0.338109 0.08489 recent years, several researchers have found that NRENW is the main
3 0.04145 5.578471 93.7079 0.664663 0.048964 source of environmental degradation. Environmental pollution can be
4 0.051531 5.313301 93.76121 0.888664 0.036828 increased through the combustion of fossil fuels. EG and non-renewable
5 0.060495 4.942696 93.83145 1.171091 0.054766
energy-driven carbon emissions are well studied in the existing litera­
6 0.068651 4.702557 93.82293 1.36167 0.112839
7 0.076081 4.481989 93.77682 1.533315 0.207872
ture, for instance; Jalil and Mahmud (2009) and Apergis and Payne
8 0.082961 4.304322 93.68539 1.668271 0.342019 (2009) for China and Central America, respectively; Seker et al. (2015)
9 0.089381 4.146595 93.55946 1.783752 0.510196 for Turkey; Shabbir and Yaqoob (2019) for Pakistan; Shahbaz et al.
10 0.09543 4.008126 93.4016 1.880486 0.709785 (2014) for Tunisia; Javid and Sharif (2016a,b) and Ahmad et al. (2016)
Variance Decomposition of LnNRENWit for India and Rafindadi (2016) for China and Japan.
LnGDPit
Period SE. LnCO2it LnNRENWit LnGLOBit

1 0.063351 18.44137 2.751064 78.80757 0 5. Conclusion and policy implications

2 0.08491 15.3137 2.303884 82.35395 0.028471
3 0.107613 16.98041 3.271696 79.70218 0.045714 This study investigates the impact of NRENW, GDP, and GLOB on
4 0.125448 17.12113 3.911299 78.93309 0.034481
CO2E for selected South Asian economies (Sri Lanka, Nepal, India,
5 0.142273 17.47413 4.566595 77.92516 0.034117
6 0.157005 17.70045 5.051074 77.18472 0.06375 Bangladesh, and Pakistan) during 1985–2018. For this purpose, first, we
7 0.170766 17.91368 5.447824 76.52268 0.115816 check the stationarity of the variables; after confirmation that all the
8 0.183526 18.07364 5.744767 75.9886 0.192989 variables are stationary, we use two different panel cointegration tests.
9 0.195576 18.21348 5.974979 75.52235 0.289192
These tests confirm that the variables are cointegrate in the long run.
10 0.207003 18.32993 6.150386 75.11679 0.402896
After that, we estimate the long-term relationship among the variables
Variance Decomposition of LnGLOBit by using the FMOLS technique. The results of FMOLS indicate that
LnGDPit
Period SE. LnCO2it LnNRENWit LnGLOBit
NRENW and GLOB increasing environmental degradation. The results
1 0.024763 5.004865 0.001411 0.284707 94.70902 also confirm the presence of EKC-hypothesis in selected South Asian
2 0.035249 4.057566 0.810397 0.235994 94.89604
countries.
3 0.043147 3.786097 1.157892 0.165717 94.89029
4 0.049162 3.779745 1.502764 0.13913 94.57836 An innovative accounting approach (IAA) is applied using the vari­
5 0.054004 3.910168 1.788165 0.122178 94.17949 ance decomposition test and the impulse response function to examine
6 0.058021 4.078517 2.0117 0.11138 93.7984 the causality between vectors. The outcomes indicated that the two-way
7 0.061437 4.305785 2.200952 0.102729 93.39053 causality is running from NRENW, GLOB, GDP to CO2E. The results also
8 0.064381 4.563263 2.364382 0.095251 92.9771
9 0.066954 4.849716 2.511201 0.088572 92.55051
reveal that a two-sided casualty exists between GLOB and GDP, GDP,
10 0.069221 5.158133 2.645486 0.08292 92.11346 and NRENW.
Moreover, this study examines the GLOB, growth-energy relation­
Source: Author’s Calculation.
ship, which sheds light on the CO2E relationship in the South Asian
economies. A variety of studies have noted that EG and CO2E are highly
4.8. The comparative discussion of results and EKC associated with each other according to the EKC framework. Still,
several studies do not support the growth-induced CO2 emissions hy­
This study tries to scrutinize the relationship between energy, envi­ pothesis. This study has fully supported the existence of the EKC hy­
ronment, growth, and GLOB under the EKC framework. Thus Kao, pothesis in this selected South Asian region. The conflict between GLOB
Pedroni cointegration, and FMOLS tests were used to identify the asso­ and environmental degradation can re-visit by sustainable development
ciations among these variables. The full FMOLS findings indicate that policies.
these variables significantly increase environmental degradation in Additionally, massive dependence on fossil fuel energy consumption
South Asian regions. Moreover, these findings showed that GDP growth, is not environmentally friendly to this South Asian region’s sustainable
NRENW, and GLOB significantly influence the CO2E in the South Asian development. However, these countries under the “South Asian Asso­
regions. The full panel of FMOLS findings reveals that these variables ciation of Regional Cooperation” (SAARC) block can overcome envi­
significantly increase environmental degradation in South Asian re­ ronmental degradation through global cooperation. The governments of
gions. Furthermore, the empirical results for these economies suggest Selected South Asian countries should promote and subsidize green
that fossil fuel is substantially increasing the CO2E in this region. This energy to control environmental pollution. Finally, policies for
study gives us vital information about future policies and suggestions to environment-friendly energy consumption can significantly control CO2
government agencies with the estimation of FMOLS. emissions and increase GDP growth. In contrast, the expansion of GLOB
The empirical studies of Shi (2003), Acaravci and Ozturk (2010),
Ejaz et al. (2017), Liu et al. (2020), Tugcu et al. (2012), Mensah (2014),
Muhammad et al. (2020), and Jebli et al. (2016) have included various

5
W. Jun et al. Energy Policy 153 (2021) 112230

Fig. 1. Impulse Response Function

increases energy consumption overall. Appendix A. Supplementary data

Acronyms

NRENW Non-renewable Energy Consumption.

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
FMOLS Fully Modified OLS. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112230.
GLOB Globalization.
EG Economic Growth.
References
CO2E CO2 Emission.

CRediT authorship contribution statement
Wen Jun: completed Introduction part. Nafeesa Mughal: Formal
analysis. Jin Zhao: Methodology. Malik Shahzad Shabbir: written
Literature. Gniewko Niedbała: wrote the comparative discussion of
results. Vipin Jain: wrote Conclusion. Ahsan Anwar: paper as per
journal guideline.
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.
Acaravci, A., Ozturk, I., 2010. On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2
emissions, and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35 (12), 5412–5420.
Ahmad, A., Zhao, Y., Shahbaz, M., Bano, S., Zhang, Z., Wang, S., Liu, Y., 2016. Carbon
emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth: an aggregate and
disaggregate analysis of the Indian economy. Energy Pol. 96, 131–143.
Ahmed, K., Shahbaz, M., Qasim, A., Long, W., 2015. The linkages between deforestation,
energy, and growth for environmental degradation in Pakistan. Ecol. Indicat. 49,
95–103.
Ajmi, A.N., Hammoudeh, S., Nguyen, D.K., Sato, J.R., 2015. On the relationships
between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and income: the importance of time
variation. Energy Econ. 49, 629–638.
Al Sayed, A.R., Sek, S.K., 2013. Environmental Kuznets curve: evidences from. Appl.
Math. Sci. 7 (22), 1081–1092.
Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I., Solarin, S.A., 2016. Investigating the environmental Kuznets
curve hypothesis in seven regions: the role of renewable energy. Ecol. Indicat. 67,
267–282.
Al-Mulali, U., Weng-Wai, C., Sheau-Ting, L., Mohammed, A.H., 2015. Investigating the
environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis by utilizing the ecological footprint
as an indicator of environmental degradation. Ecol. Indicat. 48, 315–323.
Anwar, A., Siddique, M., Dogan, E., Sharif, A., 2021. The moderating role of renewable
and non-renewable energy in environment-income nexus for ASEAN countries:
evidence from Method of Moments Quantile Regression. Renew. Energy 164,
956–967.
Apergis, N., Ozturk, I., 2015. Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Asian
countries. Ecol. Indicat. 52, 16–22.

6
W. Jun et al.
Apergis, N., Payne, J.E., 2009. CO2 emissions, energy usage, and output in Central
America. Energy Pol. 37 (8), 3282–3286.
Breitung, J., 2001. The Local Power of Some Unit Root Tests for Panel Data. Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Brock, W.A., Taylor, M.S, 2004, June. The Green Solow Model (Working Paper 10557).
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
Cicea, C., Marinescu, C., Popa, I., Dobrin, C., 2014. Environmental efficiency of
investments in renewable energy: comparative analysis at the macroeconomic level.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 30, 555–564.
Cole, M.A., Rayner, A.J., Bates, J.M., 1997. The Environmental Kuznets Curve: an
Empirical Analysis. Environment and development economics, pp. 401–416.
Cowan, W.N., Chang, T., Inglesi-Lotz, R., Gupta, R., 2014. The nexus of electricity
consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emissions in the BRICS countries. Energy
Pol. 66, 359–368.
Danish, Saud, S., Baloch, M.A., Lodhi, R.N., 2018. The nexus between energy
consumption and financial development: estimating the role of globalization in Next-
11 countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 25 (19), 18651–18661.
Diao, X.D., Zeng, S.X., Tam, C.M., Tam, V.W., 2009. EKC analysis for studying economic
growth and environmental quality: a case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (5),
541–548.
Dinda, S., 2004. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol. Econ. 49 (4),
431–455.
Dogan, E., Seker, F., 2016. The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable
energy, trade, and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable
energy countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60, 1074–1085.
Ejaz, S., Amır, H., Shabbır, M.S., 2017. Public expenditure and its impact on economic
growth: a case of Pakistan. Kashmir Econ. Rev. 26 (1).
Esteve, V., Tamarit, C., 2012. Threshold cointegration and nonlinear adjustment between
CO2 and income: the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Spain, 1857–2007. Energy
Econ. 34 (6), 2148–2156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.03.001.
Farhani, S., Chaibi, A., Rault, C., 2014. CO2 emissions, output, energy consumption, and
trade in Tunisia. Econ. Modell. 38, 426–434.
Fodha, M., Zaghdoud, O., 2010. Economic growth and pollutant emissions in Tunisia: an
empirical analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Pol. 38 (2),
1150–1156.
Ghosh, S., 2010. Examining carbon emissions economic growth nexus for India: a
multivariate cointegration approach. Energy Pol. 38 (6), 3008–3014.
Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1991. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free-
Trade Agreement (No. W3914). National Bureau of economic research.
Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1995. Economic growth and the environment. Q. J. Econ.
110 (2), 353–377.
Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., Sturm, J.-E., 2019. The KOF Globalisation Index –
revisited. Rev. Int. Organ. 14 (3), 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-
09344-2.
Hadri, K., 2000. Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econom. J. 3 (2),
148–161.
Halkos, G.E., 2013. Exploring the economy–environment relationship in the case of
sulfur emissions. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 56 (2), 159–177.
Hanif, I., Gago-de-Santos, P., 2017. The importance of population control and
macroeconomic stability to reducing environmental degradation: an empirical test of
the environmental Kuznets curve for developing countries. Environ. Dev. 23, 1–9.
Haseeb, A., Xia, E., Baloch, M.A., Abbas, K., 2018. Financial development, globalization,
and CO 2 emission in the presence of EKC: evidence from BRICS countries. Environ.
Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 25 (31), 31283–31296.
Heil, M.T., Selden, T.M., 2001. Carbon emissions and economic development: future
trajectories based on historical experience. Environ. Dev. Econ. 6 (1), 63–83.
Hettige, H., Mani, M., Wheeler, D., 2000. Industrial pollution in economic development:
the environmental Kuznets curve re-visited. J. Dev. Econ. 62 (2), 445–476.
Holtz-Eakin, D., Selden, T.M., 1995. Stoking the fires? CO2 emissions and economic
growth. J. Publ. Econ. 57 (1), 85–101.
Ibrahim, M.H., Law, S.H., 2014. Social capital and CO2 emission—output relations: a
panel analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 528–534.
IEA, (International Energy Agency), 2015. Statistics, CO2 emissions from fuel
combustion highlights. available at: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublicati
ons/publication/.
Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels.
J. Econom. 115 (1), 53–74.
Jalil, A., Mahmud, S.F., 2009. Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a
cointegration analysis for China. Energy Pol. 37 (12), 5167–5172.
Jaunky, V.C., 2011. The CO2 emissions-income nexus: evidence from rich countries.
Energy Pol. 39 (3), 1228–1240.
Javid, M., Sharif, F., 2016a. Environmental Kuznets curve and financial development in
Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 406–414.
Javid, M., Sharif, F., 2016b. Environmental Kuznets curve and financial development in
Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 54, 406–414.
Jebli, M.B., Youssef, S.B., Ozturk, I., 2016. Testing environmental Kuznets curve
hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade
in OECD countries. Ecol. Indicat. 60, 824–831.
Kahuthu, A., 2006. Economic growth and environmental degradation in a global context.
Environ. Dev. Sustain. 8 (1), 55–68.
Kao, C., 1999. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel
data. J. Econom. 90 (1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2.
Keho, Y., 2017. Re-visiting the income, energy consumption, and carbon emissions
nexus: new evidence from quantile regression for different country groups. Int. J.
Energy Econ. Pol. 7 (3), 356–363.
7
Energy Policy 153 (2021) 112230
Khan, M.K., Teng, J.Z., Khan, M.I., Khan, M.O., 2019. Impact of globalization, economic
factors, and energy consumption on CO2 emissions in Pakistan. Sci. Total Environ.
688, 424–436.
Khan, M.K., Khan, M.I., Rehan, M., 2020. The relationship between energy consumption,
economic growth, and carbon dioxide emissions in Pakistan. Financ. Innov. 6 (1),
1–13.
Khattak, S.I., Ahmad, M., Khan, Z.U., Khan, A., 2020. Exploring the impact of innovation,
renewable energy consumption, and income on CO2 emissions: new evidence from
the BRICS economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27, 13866–13881.
Kuznets, S., 1955. Economic growth and income inequality. Am. Econ. Rev. 45 (1), 1–28.
Li, Q., Cherian, J., Shabbir, M.S., Sial, M.S., Li, J., Mester, I., Badulescu, A., 2021.
Exploring the relationship between renewable energy sources and economic growth.
The case of SAARC countries. Energies 14 (3), 520.
Lise, W., 2006. Decomposition of CO2 emissions over 1980–2003 in Turkey. Energy Pol.
34 (14), 1841–1852.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., et al., 2007. The
complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317 (5844), 1513–1516.
Liu, X., Zhang, S., Bae, J., 2017. The impact of renewable energy and agriculture on
carbon dioxide emissions: investigating the environmental Kuznets curve in four
selected ASEAN countries. J. Clean. Prod. 164, 1239–1247.
Liu, Y., Saleem, S., Shabbir, R., Shabbir, M.S., Irshad, A., Khan, S., 2020. The relationship
between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: a moderate role
of fintech technology. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 1–14.
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens, 1972. Club of Rome. The Limits to
growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind.
Potomac Associates, London.
Mensah, J.T., 2014. Carbon emissions, energy consumption, and output: a threshold
analysis on the causal dynamics in emerging African economies. Energy Pol. 70,
172–182.
Moomaw, W.R., Unruh, G.C., 1997. Are environmental Kuznets curves misleading us?
The case of CO₂ emissions. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2 (4), 451–463.
Muhammad, I., Shabbir, M.S., Saleem, S., Bilal, K., Ulucak, R., 2020. Nexus between
willingness to pay for renewable energy sources: evidence from Turkey. Environ. Sci.
Pollut. Control Ser. 28, 2972–2986.
Narayan, P.K., Narayan, S., 2010. Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel
data evidence from developing countries. Energy Pol. 38 (1), 661–666.
Nasreen, S., Anwar, S., Ozturk, I., 2017. Financial stability, energy consumption, and
environmental quality: evidence from South Asian economies. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 67, 1105–1122.
Nassani, A.A., Aldakhil, A.M., Abro, M.M.Q., Zaman, K., 2017. Environmental Kuznets
curve among BRICS countries: spot lightening finance, transport, energy and growth
factors. J. Clean. Prod. 154, 474–487.
Niu, S., Ding, Y., Niu, Y., Li, Y., Luo, G., 2011. Economic growth, energy conservation,
and emissions reduction: a comparative analysis based on panel data for 8 Asian-
Pacific countries. Energy Pol. 39 (4), 2121–2131.
Oliver,T .,S mithers,R .,B ailey,S .,W almsley,C .,& W atts,K .( 2012).O livere ta l2 012T
ableS 1.
Panayotou, T., 1993. Empirical Tests and Policy Analysis of Environmental Degradation at
Different Stages of Economic Development (No. 992927783402676). International
Labour Organization.
Pedroni, P., 2004. Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled
time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econom. Theor. 20 (3),
597–625.
Rafindadi, A.A., 2016. Re-visiting the concept of environmental Kuznets curve in the
period of energy disaster and deteriorating income: empirical evidence from Japan.
Energy Pol. 94, 274–284.
Sahir, M., Qureshi, A., 2007. Specific concerns of Pakistan in the context of energy
security issues and geopolitics of the region. Energy Pol. 35, 2031–2037. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.08.010.
Schmalensee, R., Joskow, P.L., Ellerman, A.D., Montero, J.P., Bailey, E.M., 1998. An
interim evaluation of sulfur dioxide emissions trading. J. Econ. Perspect. 12 (3),
53–68.
Seker, F., Ertugrul, H.M., Cetin, M., 2015. The impact of foreign direct investment on
environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 52, 347–356.
Selden, T.M., Song, D., 1994. Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznets
curve for air pollution emissions? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 27 (2), 147–162.
Shabbir, M.S., Yaqoob, N., 2019. The impact of technological advancement on total
factor productivity of cotton: a comparative analysis between Pakistan and India.
J. Econ. Struct. 8 (1), 1–16.
Shafik, N., Bandyopadhyay, S., 1992. Economic Growth and Environmental Quality:
Time-Series and Cross-Country Evidence, vol. 904. World Bank Publications.
Shahbaz, M., Lean, H.H., Shabbir, M.S., 2012. Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis
in Pakistan: cointegration and Granger causality. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16
(5), 2947–2953.
Shahbaz, M., Loganathan, N., Zeshan, M., Zaman, K., 2015. Does renewable energy
consumption add in economic growth? An application of auto-regressive distributed
lag model in Pakistan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44, 576–585.
Shahbaz, M., Shahzad, S.J.H., Mahalik, M.K., Hammoudeh, S., 2018. Does globalisation
worsen environmental quality in developed economies? Environ. Model. Assess. 23
(2), 141–156.
Shahbaz, M., Sbia, R., Hamdi, H., Ozturk, I., 2014. Economic growth, electricity
consumption, urbanization, and environmental degradation relationship in the
United Arab Emirates. Ecol. Indicat. 45, 622–631.
Shahbaz, M., Khan, S., Ali, A., Bhattacharya, M., 2017a. The impact of globalization on
CO2 emissions in China. Singapore Econ. Rev. 62, 929–957, 04.
W. Jun et al.
Shahbaz, M., Van Hoang, T.H., Mahalik, M.K., Roubaud, D., 2017b. Energy consumption,
financial development and economic growth in India: new evidence from a non-
linear and asymmetric analysis. Energy Econ. 63, 199–212.
Shi, A., 2003. The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions,
1975–1996: evidence from pooled cross-country data. Ecol. Econ. 44 (1), 29–42.
Soytas, U., Sari, R., 2009. Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions:
challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecol. Econ. 68 (6), 1667–1675.
Soytas, U., Sari, R., Ewing, B.T., 2007. Energy consumption, income, and carbon
emissions in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 62 (3–4), 482–489.
Stern, D.I., 2004. The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev. 32
(8), 1419–1439.
Tao, S., Zheng, T., Lianjun, T., 2008. An empirical test of the environmental Kuznets
curve in China: a panel cointegration approach. China Econ. Rev. 19 (3), 381–392.
Energy Policy 153 (2021) 112230
Tugcu, C.T., Ozturk, I., Aslan, A., 2012. Renewable and non-renewable energy
consumption and economic growth relationship re-visited: evidence from G7
countries. Energy Econ. 34 (6), 1942–1950.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Climate change indicators in the United
States, 2016. Fourth edition. EPA 430-R-16-004. www.epa.gov/climate-indicators.
Vincent, J.R., 1997. Testing for environmental Kuznets curves within a developing
country. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2 (4), 417–431.
Wang, Y., Chen, L., Kubota, J., 2016. The relationship between urbanization, energy use,
and carbon emissions: evidence from a panel of Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) countries. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1368–1374.
World Bank, 2020. World Development Indicators.
Yang, X., Lou, F., Sun, M., Wang, R., Wang, Y., 2017. Study of the relationship between
greenhouse gas emissions and the economic growth of Russia based on the
Environmental Kuznets Curve. Appl. Energy 193, 162–173.