Abstract
The foremost theme of the paper is to explore the asymmetric/symmetric impact of energy consumption on the carbon dioxide emission of G7 countries (Germany, Canada, USA, Italy, France, Italy, UK, and Japan). The nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag is used to measure asymmetric/symmetric cointegration by using annual data of G7 countries from 1965 to 2019. The augmented Dickey-Fuller and structural break unit root test is employed to measure the stationarity in variables while the Brock, Dechert, and Scheinkman test is used for measuring nonlinearity and the Wald test is used to figure out short- and long-run asymmetries/symmetries, respectively. The estimated findings of the nonlinear autoregressive distribution lag model show a significant effect of energy use on the ecological footprint. The asymmetric causality test provides evidence of unidirectional, bidirectional, and asymmetrical/symmetrical causality among the variables of G7 nations. The finding of the study suggested policy for the government of Canada and France to use coal instead of oil and gas while the USA, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan are required to consume gas as compared to oil and coal. Similarly, the study also suggests using modern technology, renewable energy, and preventive measurement for ensuring environmental betterment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The human lifestyle and standards are uplifted due to the expansion of technology, but it causes many environmental challenges such as emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and depletion of the ozone layer (Sapovadia and Vrajlal 2020; Fang et al. 2019). In the present time, reducing the risk of environmental hazard along with economic growth is the current global agenda. Therefore, the world economies assured the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UNDP 2018) agenda to protect the environmental quality (Chirambo 2018). These policies exposed the traditional economic development policy which was considered as a blunder with environmental sustainability (Murshed 2020a, b). The race in economic growth among the economies has worsened the global environment which causes a serious risk to maintaining the performance of economic growth (Murshed 2018). The environmental economist considers the emission of greenhouse gases during economic activity a major factor responsible for the environmental degradation worldwide. Therefore, during the Paris Agreement conference under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), most of the countries are agreeing to adopt a friendly environment policy to reduce the GHG emission and retain the temperature below the pre-industrial level (Horton et al. 2016). The World Development Indicators (WDI 2017) reported a tremendous increase in GHG from the last decades. Globally, the carbon dioxide emission during 1980 was observed to be 19.35 million kilotons which are raised to 35.84 million kilotons during 2017 showing about an 84% increase along this period. Such increase in emission is due to the use of fossil fuel in various sectors of the economy. Transportation, agricultural production, power generator, etc., are responsible for the emission of GHG (Naseem et al. 2020; Alola and Joshua 2020; Nasrullah et al. 2021).
The modern challenges and harmful properties of global warming attracted and forced researchers to focus on the association among energy use, economic growth, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission (Cai et al. 2018; Bekun et al. 2018; Roinioti and Koroneos 2017). It is even a big challenge for the policymakers and environmental economists in the modern world to consume energy for sustainable development without harming the environment (Luqman et al. 2019). Hence, the attention of researchers toward energy consumption, GDP, and environmental protection increased significantly in the world to deal with this global hazard (Akadiri et al. 2019; Baz et al. 2019; Ozcan et al. 2019). Therefore, the increases in energy demand and climatic issues due to the massive use of fossil fuels forced many economies to move toward renewable energy to decrease ecological footprint and improve air quality (Kuriqi et al. 2019; Baz et al. 2020). Not only other human activities that substantially ruined the natural ecosystem and atmosphere, but the growth in demand for energy also substantially pressurized the ecological footprint (Nathaniel and Rehman Khan 2020; Baz et al. 2020; Nathaniel et al. 2019). This environmental concern is related to the worldwide policymakers, environmentalists, and energy economists to design environmental policies linked to the use of energy and implement it globally (Khan et al. 2019a, b). Though the association between energy consumption and economic growth is important for sustainable growth, this nexus of energy consumption is also responsible for environmental degradation due to GHG emission, which is emitted from the combustion of fossil fuel in various sectors of the economy (Baz et al. 2020). Still, it is expected that energy consumption has a direct relation with the environment but a strong bond also exists between GDP and the environment (Ali et al. 2019).
The energy consumption and CO2 emission increase much faster than real growth which is a considerable challenge to handle the association among economic growth, energy consumption, and environmental quality (Ozcan et al. 2019; Akadiri et al. 2019; Jafari et al. 2012). Previous studies employed the autoregressive distribution lag (ARDL) model to measure the relation between economic growth, environmental degradation, and energy consumption (Ali et al. 2020; Koengkan 2018; Javid and Sharif 2016). Hence, most of the studies ignored the asymmetries that exist among environmental quality, energy use, economic growth, and gross capital formation of G7 countries. World Bank (2018) reported that the G7 countries emit 27.3% (95 billion tons) of the total world carbon emission due to which these countries are facing a huge risk of environmental degradation. This study covers the gap of asymmetries that exist in the fossil fuel among fossil fuel and environmental quality of G7 economies. The study also highlights the positive and negative shocks of the oil, coal, and gas of G7 countries and also focuses on the shipment of energy source which are missing in the existing literature. The previous study mostly used renewable energy and nonrenewable energy in their study, but this study covers the impact of oil, coal, and gas on CO2 emission. Therefore, the current study added to the existing literature by using the nonlinear ARDL model to measure:
-
a)
The role of fossil fuel on the mitigation of carbon emission in G7 countries
-
b)
The asymmetric/symmetric positive and negative shocks of fossil fuel on carbon emission of G7 economies
-
c)
If there is any asymmetric/symmetric causality among the variables
-
d)
The robustness of our findings by using the different diagnostic techniques
The paper is classified as follows: “Literature reviews” describe the previous literature, while “Data and variables” shows the data and variables used in the study. “Methodology and model specification” highlights the methods and model specification, while “Results and discussion” presents the estimated result with discussion, and finally, the “Conclusion and suggestion” shows the conclusion with the crucial suggestion.
Literature reviews
Simon Kuznets (1955) proposed the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis which assumes the nonlinear inverted-U-shaped association between income inequality and economic growth. In his study, he observed that the EKC hypothesis replaces the inequality of income and finds the changes in environmental quality and GHG emission with the increase in national income level. Grossman and Krueger (1991) first time check the validity of the EKC hypothesis for Mexico by using sulfur and smoke emission to measure the environmental quality in EKC analysis. The finding of their results verifies the presence of the EKC hypothesis in Mexico. Later, many researchers have followed the EKC hypothesis such as Murshed et al. (2020, 2021), Murshed et al. (2021), Murshed and Dao (2020), Adedoyin et al. (2020), Sun et al. (2019), Ozcan et al. (2018), Asongu et al. (2018), Apergis and Ozturk (2015), Nasrullah et al. (2019, 2020), and Zulfiqar et al. (2020).
Several studies are conducted to measure the impact of various factors responsible for the degradation of environmental quality (Bello et al. 2018; Işik et al. 2017; Acar and Lindmark 2017). Işık et al. (2019) measure the impact of fossil fuel, GDP, population growth, and renewable energy on CO2 emission using the EKC hypothesis of 10 states of the USA. Azam et al. (2016) utilize panel data of China, India, Japan, and the USA by using the fully modified ordinary least square (FMOLS) model for measuring the influence of CO2 emission, trade, energy use, and economic growth. Similarly, Lee et al. (2016) and Al-Mulali et al. (2015) find the unidirectional causality from economic growth and CO2 emission. Hanif (2018) measured the impact of urban sprawling, fossil fuel, and economic growth on CO2 emission using the generalized method of moments (GMM) model, while Saboori et al. (2017) measured the cointegration between CO2 emission, oil consumption, and GDP of three Asian countries using the Johansen cointegration test. Similarly, Baloch et al. (2019) and Saboori et al. (2012) publicized the causal nexus between economic growth and CO2 emission of 59 countries using panel data.
Lei and Zhou (2012) affirmed that inefficient energy and population are the major factors for environmental degradation of 17 countries while Sarkodie and Strezov (2018a, 2018b) analyzed data from 1974 to 2013 of the Australian economy by using the FMOLS model and concluded that nonrenewable energy consumption (NREC) increases the emission factor (EF) by increased CO2 emission while the consumption of renewable energy promotes environmental stability by reducing emission. Remarkably, the economies utilizing high renewable energy have a clean environment and low emission factor. Acheampong et al. (2019) figured out the nexus of EF and NREC of 46 SSA studies and confirmed that the economy’s growth increases from the NREC can generate high emission factor which directly increases the level of CO2 emission. Liu et al. (2017a) find the relation of energy consumption and emission factor of Southeast Asian economies (ASEAN-4 countries: Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia) covering the period from 1970 to 2013. The study ascertains that renewable energy consumption and agriculture decline the level of CO2 emission while nonrenewable energy consumption deteriorates the emission factor. Liu et al. (2017a, 2017b) also measure the agricultural industry of BRICS economies which emits CO2.
The previous study of Wesseh and Lin (2016) measures the renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption impact on the economic performance of 34 African countries using a dynamic panel data analysis. Their study provides evidence of a rapid increase in economic performance with the utilization of nonrenewable energy consumption as compared to renewable energy. On the other hand, Shahbaz et al. (2015) show that the economic performance is also high with the consumption of renewable energy in Pakistan. Boontome et al. (2017) detected that from 1971 to 2013, the race of economic growth forces the Thailand economy to upsurge the nonrenewable energy consumption level which directly increases the emission factor, while Nathaniel et al. (2019) stated that economic growth and emission factor have unidirectional causality, which implies that the environmental worsen is still connected with the increase in the utilization of nonrenewable energy consumption during the period of under review. The literature of Hanif et al. (2019) studied the 25 middle-income economies of the globe and found the shocking effect of nonrenewable energy on environmental sustainability.
In Latin America, Al-Mulali et al. (2014) figure out that the performance of renewable energy performance is better in encouraging the economies of Latin America than nonrenewable energy due to its efficiency issues. To endure better growth and prosperity, it is recommended to strengthen renewable energy by investment and reduce the dependency on fossil fuel in addition to ensure energy security. In the same manner, Feng et al. (2018) and Long et al. (2015) reinforce China that high economic growth is related to the ecosystem service deficit. The existing literature of Ozcan et al. (2019) which studied 35 OECD countries by using the GMM-panel vector autoregression (PVAR) model covering data from 2000 to 2014 fully supports the literature of Feng et al. (2018). The authors also proved that the rise in the economic growth of the economies worsens the ecological indices due to the dependency on fossil fuel and nonrenewable energy consumption.
Westerlund and Edgerton (2007) carried out a deep study of 74 countries using Pedroni cointegration, FMOLS, bootstrap cointegration, and panel causality technique, while Sharif et al. (2019) proved that renewable energy and nonrenewable energy consumption has a positive and negative impact on the environmental degradation. Relatively, Jorgenson and Clark (2011) studied 65 economies around the world and opined that economic growth has no relation with emission factors. Similarly, 24 North African (MENA) and Middle East countries are studied by Charfeddine and Kahia (2019) from 1980 to 2015 using the PVAR model. Their study provides evidence that renewable energy causes a positive shock on the economic growth while its contribution to CO2 emission is a little weak.
Data and variables
The study employed annual data of G7 countries (Canada, USA, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan) from 1965 to 2019 with a total observation of 55 years except for France. Due to the presence of unit root at the first difference I (1) in Gross Capital Formation of France, the time was chosen from 1985 to 2019 with a total observation of 35 years. The selected independent variable of the study is the consumption of three energy sources (oil [million tons], gas [million tons of oil equivalent], coal [million tons of oil equivalent]), gross domestic products (million US dollar), and gross capital formation (constant local currency unit). The dependent variable is the CO2 emission in million tons emitted by each G7 country. The selected data are obtained from World Development Indicators and British Petroleum Energy Statistical review. The descriptive statistics of the selected variables are shown in Table 1. The estimated results of Jarque-Bera statistics show that all the variables follow a normal distribution. Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Appendix show the trend of CO2 emission and oil, coal, and gas consumption of G7 countries which shows that CO2 emission and oil, coal, and gas consumption increase each year after 1965 but, after 2010, the CO2 emission and oil and coal consumption show a decline while gas consumption inclines up to 2019.
Methodology and model specification
The study used nonlinear autoregressive distribution lag (NARDL) pioneered by Shin et al. (2014) to notice that asymmetries arise due to the positive and negative shocks of energy (oil, gas, and coal) consumption. To measure the asymmetries due to positive and negative shocks, Shin et al. (2014) extend the ARDL technique of Pesaran et al. (2001). NARDL technique composes an error correction description that allows capturing the asymmetries which originate from the shocks in time series both short and long run (Mensi et al. 2017). The NARDL model can be applied, when the series is stationary at level, at the first difference and mixed order of integration even if the sample is small (Ahmad et al. 2018a, b). Additionally, the NARDL model also detects the hidden cointegration which is proposed by Granger and Yoon (2002). Hence, this cointegration approach covers all the linkages in macroeconomic variables that a simple ARDL cannot be detected. Due to nonlinear ARDL, it becomes possible to differentiate between the linear and nonlinear cointegration. Many researchers use this technique in the field of applied and theoretical economics due to its multiple functions and advantages (Mensi et al. 2017; Uddin et al. 2018; Rahman and Ahmad 2019). Generally, the relation among the variable can be presented in the following linear equation form:
where CO2t is the total carbon dioxide emission in time t, Oil represents the total consumption of oil in time t, Gas represents the total consumption of gas in time t, Coal represents the total consumption of coal in time t, GDP is the gross domestic product in time t, GCF is the gross capital formation in time t, μt represents the residual, δ0 is constant, and δ1, δ2, δ3, δ4, and δ5 are the coefficients. The asymmetric cointegration equation is as follows:
The modified version of Eq. (2) for the NARDL model can be written as
Keep in mind that the main objective of the study is to measure whether oil, gas, and coal consumption symmetrically or asymmetrically affects the CO2 emission of G7 countries. Therefore, the study follows the methodology of Shin et al. (2014) to capture the symmetric or asymmetric effect. The oil, gas, and coal consumption will be decomposed into two new variables which will capture the positive and negative shocks in oil, gas, and coal as follows:
The error correction mechanism (ECM) can be developed to measure the short-term effect and also to check the consistency of long-term parameters as follows:
ΔCO2t is the first difference of carbon dioxide emission in time t; ΔOilt − k, ΔGast – k, and ΔCoalt − k are the first difference of oil, gas, and coal consumption in time t with a lagged value of k, respectively; η1–η9 are the short-term elasticity whereas ς1–ς9 are the long-term elasticity; τ0 represents the elasticity of lag error correction term (ECT); and μt is the error correction term.
The presence of long-term cointegration among the selected variables in Eq. (3) is determined by checking the association by using a standard F-test. Precisely, the null hypothesis of ς1 = ς2 = ς3 = ς4 = ς5 = ς6 = ς7 = ς8 = ς9 = 0 is tested. The F-statistics has a lack of normal standard F-distribution due to which the critical value below the null hypothesis cannot be used. Therefore, Pesaran et al. (2001) used upper and lower bound critical values to deal with this problem. The null hypothesis can be accepted in the case where the estimated F-statistics is less than the upper bound critical value. If there is evidence of cointegration, then Eq. (3) can be used to find the response of CO2 emission with a change in oil, gas, and coal consumption both in the long and short run. The estimated result of Eq. (3) can be checked through the Wald test to identify the possible asymmetric effect of oil, gas, and coal consumption on CO2 emission. The null hypothesis of the symmetrical effect of oil, gas, and coal on CO2 emission for the short and long run can be identified if the null hypothesis of the short run (\( \frac{\eta_2}{\eta_1}=\frac{\eta_3}{\eta_1},\kern0.5em \frac{\eta_4}{\eta_1}=\frac{\eta_5}{\eta_1},\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\ \frac{\eta_6}{\eta_1}=\frac{\eta_7}{\eta_1}\Big) \) and long run (\( \frac{\varsigma_2}{\varsigma_1}=\frac{\varsigma_3}{\varsigma_1},\kern0.5em \frac{\varsigma_4}{\varsigma_1}=\frac{\varsigma_5}{\varsigma_1},\kern0.5em \mathrm{and}\ \frac{\varsigma_6}{\varsigma_1}=\frac{\varsigma_7}{\varsigma_1}\Big) \) is rejected.
Results and discussion
Unit root test
To measure the possible stationarity level in a series, the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) unit root test is considered the most suitable approach. The estimated results of ADF are shown in Table 2 which demonstrates that some of the variables are stationary at level, but at first difference, all the variables of G7 countries are stationary.
Structural break unit root test
The traditional unit root used in various studies does not figure out multiple breaks in the series due to various macroeconomic shifts and policy which cause spurious results for policymaking. Therefore, Narayan and Popp (2010) proposed a structural break unit root test at unknown time intervals with two breaks at slope and level. The estimated results in Table 3 show that the Narayan and Popp (2010) test has the correct size and stable power and detects structural break more accurately as compared to various other tests that are used in previous studies (Mishra and Smyth 2014; Salisu et al. 2016)
Brock, Dechert, and Scheinkman test
After confirming the presence of structural breaks in macroeconomic variables, the study applies the Brock-Dechert-Scheinkman (BDS) test proposed by Broock et al. (1996) to detect the nonlinearity dependencies in the time series. The estimated results of the BDS independence test shown in Table 4 demonstrate that the data series are not identically and independently distributed (iid) and reject the null hypothesis of linearity. Therefore, an asymmetric analysis is important to detect the structural shift and nonlinear association in energy consumption (oil, gas, and coal) and CO2 emission. Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 show the positive and negative shocks of oil, gas, and coal consumption and their effects on carbon dioxide emission.
Testing for asymmetries hypothesis
After the estimation of Eq. (3) for possible cointegration among the series, the study uses the standard Wald test to measure the possible short- and long-run asymmetries in the series. The estimated results of the Wald test in Table 5 show that there is a short-term asymmetry in oil and coal consumption of Canada, gas consumption of the USA, oil and coal consumption of Italy, and oil, coal, and gas consumption of the UK. Similarly, it is also reported that there is a long-term asymmetry in coal consumption of Canada; oil and coal consumption of the USA and France; oil, gas, and coal consumption of Italy; and oil and gas consumption of the UK. The estimated results also show that there is short-term symmetry in gas consumption of Canada, oil and coal of the USA, gas consumption of Italy, and oil, coal, and gas consumption of France, Germany, and Japan. Likewise, there is also long-term symmetry in the oil and gas consumption of Canada, gas consumption of the USA and France, oil and coal consumption of Germany, coal consumption of the UK, and oil, coal, and gas consumption of Japan.
Cointegration bound test
After the confirmation of structural break, the study compares the critical F-statistics with lower and upper bound values (Pesaran et al. 2001). The estimated results of the bound test shown in Table 6 demonstrate the presence of a long-term cointegration association between oil, gas, and coal consumption; GDP; GFC; and CO2 emission. The F-statistics estimate (CO2 = f(Oil,Gas,Coal,GDP,GCF) for all G7 countries is greater than the upper bound value.
Short-term and long-term estimates of NARDL
The estimated elasticity of the nonlinear ARDL for the short run is shown in Table 7. The estimated coefficient of NARDL indicates that the positive shock and negative shock of oil, gas, and coal consumption increase the CO2 emission of G7 economies. The results imply that the estimated coefficient is positive for oil, gas, and coal consumption, which increases the CO2 emission, and negative for oil, gas, and coal consumption, which decreases the CO2 emission. For instance, the estimated coefficient of oil consumption shows that an increase (decrease) of 1% in oil consumption can significantly increase (decrease) the CO2 emission by 0.422% (−0.487%), 0.430% (−0.436%), 0.806% (−0.367%), 0.377% (−0.292%), 0.871% (−0.388%), 0.092% (−0.546%), and 0.780% (−0.694%) of Canada, USA, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan, respectively. Similarly, the estimated elasticity for the positive and negative shocks of gas consumption is also significant for the G7 countries. The estimated elasticity shows that an increase (decrease) of 1% in gas consumption can increase (decrease) the CO2 emission by 0.398% (−0.201%), 0.178% (−0.167%), 0.188% (−0.452%), 0.060% (−0.223%), 0.147% (−0.383%), and 0.093% (−0.315%) of Canada, USA, France, Germany, Italy, and UK, respectively; the positive shock of gas consumption has no effect, while the negative shock can decrease CO2 emission by 0.384%. Likewise, the estimated results of coal consumption show that an increase (decrease) of 1% coal consumption can significantly upsurge (drop) the CO2 emission by 0.195% (−0.176%), 0.299% (−0.276%), 0.108% (−0.082%), 0.278% (−0.341%), 0.148% (−0.132%), 0.382% (−0.163%), and 0.357% (−0.252%) of Canada, USA, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan, respectively. The coefficient of economic growth shows that in G7 countries, only France and Japan have a significant negative impact on CO2 emission. This implies that a partial sum of 1% increase in the economic growth of France and Japan decreases the environmental degradation and pollution by 0.029% and 0.020%. Similarly, the finding also shows that among the G7 countries, only the gross capital formation of France can increase the air pollution by 0.073% with a 1% increase in France GCF. Furthermore, the estimated results of ΔECT are significant with a negative coefficient implying the existence of cointegration among variables of G7 countries.
The estimated results of NARDL for the long run shown in Table 8 imply that an increase (decrease) of 1% in oil consumption in the long run can significantly increase (decrease) the CO2 emission by 0.498% (−0.505%), 0.224% (−0.308%), 0.547% (−1.643%), 0.128% (−0.566%), and 0.911% (−0.583%) of the USA, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan, respectively. The rise in consumption of oil can increase the air pollution of France by 0.247% while a decrease in oil consumption decreases the air pollution of Canada by 0.772%. The estimated results are coinciding with the previous study of Munir and Riaz (2020) which implies that an increase in oil consumption can significantly increase environmental degradation and air pollution. Similarly, Hossain (2011), Jebli et al. (2016), and Khan et al. (2019) also stated that an increase in oil consumption can boost environmental degradation. The empirical findings demonstrate that growth (reduction) of 1% in gas consumption can escalate (decline) the air pollution by 0.206% (−0.102%), 0.279% (−0.491%), 0.063% (−0.0.059%), 0.206% (−0.642%), and 0.023% (−0.441%) of the USA, France, Germany, Italy, and UK, respectively. The positive shock of gas consumption in Canada can increase CO2 emission in the long run, but the negative shock has no impact. Similarly, the positive and negative shocks of gas consumption in Japan have no impact on environmental degradation. The estimated results are familiar to the previous study of Dong et al. (2017) which stated that consumption of natural gas increases CO2 emission. Similarly, Solarin and Shahbaz et al. (2015) stated that combustion of gas induces the level of CO2 emission but causes 50% less air pollution than combustion of other fossil fuels, while De Gouw et al. (2014) publicized that combustion of gas is cleaner than that of other fossil fuels which leads to lower CO2 emission.
Likewise, a single positive shock in coal consumption can uplift the environmental degradation of Canada, USA, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan by 0.124%, 0.192%, 0.293%, 0.390%, 0.375%, and 0.513%, respectively, while a negative shock in coal consumption can decrease the environmental degradation of the USA, France, Germany, and UK by 0.277%, 0122%, 0.360%, and 0.092%, respectively. Agrawal et al. (2014) stated that coal consumption is a more toxic pollutant and emits more CO2 compared to other fuels while Wei et al. (2009) insisted that coal is a low-quality energy source and its consumption should be limited for preserving the environment. The results imply that G7 countries are developed economies and their energy consumption is more than that in developing countries. Therefore, an increase in energy consumption (oil, gas, and coal) causes environmental degradation in G7 countries and a decrease in energy consumption decreases environmental degradation and pollution in G7 countries. In the long run, the estimated results show that the GDP and GCF of France are only significant. The results imply that an increase of 1% in GDP of France can decrease the air pollution by 0.043% following the EKC hypothesis with inverted-U shape which implies that a certain amount of increase in income of France can improve the environment until stabilization point and later will decrease which is consistent to the previous study of Jardon et al. (2017) and Rahman and Ahmad (2019). Similarly, an upsurge of 1% in GCF can increase air pollution by 0.108% following the study of Althor et al. (2016) and Rahman and Ahmad (2019). The estimated findings of economic growth for Canada, USA, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan are not supporting the EKC hypothesis as similar to Aye and Edoja (2017). The dynamic multiplier graph shows the quick response of carbon dioxide to the positive and negative shocks of oil, gas, and coal consumption of G7 countries as shown in Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Stability check and diagnostic tests
The study measures the cumulative sum (CUSUM) and cumulative sum of squares (CUSUMSQ) for measuring the stability of the model. The estimated results shown in Figs. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 show that the recursive residuals of the CUSUM and CUSUMSQ remain within the boundaries of 5% critical value of G7 countries. These results employed that the model used for G7 countries is stable.
Various diagnostic tests are applied to the model to check the biases as shown in Table 9. The estimated R-squared and adjusted R-squared of the G7 countries fall above 90, which is greater than 50, implying our models are good fitted. The estimated results of the diagnostic test show that there is no problem of serial correlation, abnormality, functional form, and heteroscedasticity. These results confirm the nonexistence of biases in the model.
Symmetric and asymmetric causality test
The estimated results of Hatemi-J (2012) depicted in Table 10 show that there is asymmetric causality between CO2 emission and oil consumption of Canada and UK at 10% and 1% as shown in line 1. Similarly, in line 3, the result shows that the ecological footprint can asymmetrically cause positive change in oil consumption of Canada, USA, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, while in line 4, a positive change in oil consumption can cause the ecological footprint of France. The estimated results in line 7 show a unidirectional symmetric causality between CO2 emission and gas consumption of Germany and Japan at a 5% significant level. The projected results in lines 9 and 10 show that an asymmetric unidirectional casualty between CO2 emission and positive change in gas consumption of the USA, UK, and Japan exists while there is a bidirectional causality in the CO2 emission and positive change in gas consumption of Canada and France. Lines 11 and 12 show an asymmetric unidirectional causality between ecological footprint and negative shock of the USA and UK while there is a bidirectional asymmetric causality between ecological footprint and negative shock of France. The projected results show that CO2 emission symmetrically causes the coal consumption of Italy in line 13 while an asymmetrical causality exists between CO2 emission with positive change and CO2 emission with a negative change in coal consumption of the USA, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan as shown in lines 15 to 17. The findings in lines 2, 5, 6, 8, 14, and 18 show that there is no causality among the variables.
Conclusion and suggestion
With the rapid increase in urbanization and industrialization after the industrial revolution, the dependencies on energy increase the environmental degradation in the universe. During this race of economics and sustainable development, environmental degradation and air pollution were ignored by various economies. Numerous studies are carried out to measure the impact of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption on CO2 emission, but still, the literature is missing to measure the impact of oil, coal, and gas consumption on CO2 emission in G7 economies. Therefore, to cover this gap, this study was carried out to measure the asymmetric impact of oil, gas, and coal consumption on CO2 emission in G7 countries. Nonlinear ARDL is applied to the annual time series data from 1965 to 2019 (France from 1985 to 2019) of G7 countries to figure out the short- and long-run associations among variables. The ADF test demonstrates that some of the variables are stationary at level, but at first difference, all the variables of G7 countries are stationary.
The estimated results of NARDL for the long run imply that an increase in oil consumption in the long run can significantly increase the CO2 emission of the USA, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan while a decrease in oil consumption can decrease the air pollution of Canada, USA, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan. On the other hand, the empirical findings demonstrate that growth in gas consumption can escalate the air pollution of Canada, USA, France, Germany, Italy, and UK while a negative shock of gas consumption can reduce the ecological footprint of the USA, France, Germany, Italy, and UK. Similarly, a single positive shock in coal consumption can uplift the environmental degradation of Canada, USA, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan while a negative shock in coal consumption can decrease the environmental degradation of the USA, France, Germany, and UK. In the long run, the estimated results show that the GDP and GCF of France are only significant. The study concluded that a 1% movement of oil and gas consumption toward coal consumption in Canada and France can decrease the carbon emission by 1.21% and 0.64%, while a 1% movement of oil and coal consumption toward gas consumption in the USA, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan can decrease the carbon emission by 1.48%, 1.18%, 2.58%, 1.07%, and 2.34%. It is also concluded that there is symmetric and asymmetric causality between CO2 emission and oil, gas, and coal consumption of G7 countries.
It is concluded from the estimated results of Hatemi-J (2012) that there is asymmetric causality between CO2 emission and oil consumption of Canada and UK, while CO2 emission can asymmetrically cause positive change in oil consumption of Canada, USA, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan and the positive change in oil consumption can cause the CO2 emission of France. There is also a unidirectional symmetric causality between CO2 emission and gas consumption of Germany and Japan. Similarly, an asymmetric unidirectional casualty between CO2 emission and positive change in gas consumption of the USA, UK, and Japan exists while there is a bidirectional causality in the CO2 emission and positive change in gas consumption of Canada and France. Meanwhile, asymmetric unidirectional causality exists between the ecological footprint and negative shock of the USA and UK while there is a bidirectional asymmetric causality between the ecological footprint and negative shock of France. The projected results show that CO2 emission symmetrically causes the coal consumption of Italy while an asymmetrical causality exists between CO2 emission with positive change and CO2 emission with a negative change in coal consumption of the USA, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan. As per the results, it is concluded that there is unidirectional, bidirectional causality between the consumption of oil, coal, and gas and CO2 emission of G7 economies.
The results show that both in the short and long run, the consumption of oil, coal, and gas destabilizes the environment of G7 economies. Therefore, the study recommends the G7 economies to shift toward green technology to stabilize their environment. The study also recommends G7 countries to discourage the consumption of fossil fuel through various barriers and obtain their required energy from the nonrenewable energy source. For the short term, the study suggested that firstly, the government of Canada and France is required to use coal instead of oil and gas while the USA, Germany, Italy, UK, and Japan are required to consume more gas as compared to oil and coal. Secondly, international regulation and framework should be enforced to ensure sustainable development with preventive measurement of environmental degradation. Thirdly, research centers should be developed and encouraged to reduce environmental degradation by using various new technologies.
Limitation of the study
The study is limited to measure the asymmetric cointegration and causality among CO2 emission, fossil fuel consumption, GDP, and FDI of G7 economies. It is observed from the findings that further empirical studies are needed to use different methodologies to examine different countries. The study also needs to be conducted to measure the efficiency level of different energy sources on environmental stability.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Acar S, Lindmark M (2017) Convergence of CO2 emissions and economic growth in the OECD countries: did the type of fuel matter? Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 12(7):618–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2016.1249807
Acheampong AO, Adams S, Boateng E (2019) Do globalization and renewable energy contribute to carbon emissions mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa? Sci Total Environ 677:436–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.353
Adedoyin FF, Alola AA, Bekun FV (2020) An assessment of environmental sustainability corridor: the role of economic expansion and research and development in EU countries. Sci Total Environ 136726:136726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136726
Agrawal KK, Jain S, Jain AK, Dahiya S (2014) Assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas thermal power plants using life cycle approach. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11:1157–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-013-0420-z
Ahmad M, Khan Z, Rahman ZU, Khan S (2018a) Does financial development asymmetrically affect CO2 emissions in China: an application of nonlinear autoregressive distribution lag (NARDL) model. Carbon Manag 9:631–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1529998
Ahmad N, Du L, Tian X-L, Wang J (2018b) Chinese growth and dilemmas: modelling energy consumption, CO2 emissions and growth in China. Qual Quant 53:315–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0755-0
Akadiri SS, Bekun FV, Sarkodie SA (2019) Contemporaneous interaction between energy consumption, economic growth and environmental sustainability in South Africa: what drives what? Sci Total Environ 686:468–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.421
Ali R, Kuriqi A, Abubaker S, Kisi O (2019) Hydrologic alteration at the upper and middle part of the Yangtze River, China: towards sustainable water resource management under increasing water exploitation. Sustainability. 11:5176. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195176
Ali MU, Gong Z, Ali MU, Wu X, Yao C (2020) Fossil energy consumption, economic development, inward FDI impact on CO2 emissions in Pakistan: testing EKC hypothesis through ARDL model. Int J Financ Econ:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.1958
Al-Mulali U, Fereidouni HG, Lee JYM (2014) Electricity consumption from renewable and non-renewable sources and economic growth: evidence from Latin American countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 30:290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.006
Al-Mulali U, Saboori B, Ozturk I (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 76:123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.11.019
Alola AA, Joshua U (2020) Carbon emission effect of energy transition and globalization: inference from the low-, lower middle-, upper middle-, and high-income economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:38276–38286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09857-z
Althor G, Watson J, Fuller R (2016) Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change. Sci Rep 6:20281. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20281
Apergis N, Ozturk I (2015) Testing environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis in Asian countries. Ecol Indic 52:16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.026
Asongu SA, Le Roux S, Biekpe N (2018) Enhancing ICT for environmental sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 127:209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.022
Aye GC, Edoja PE (2017) Effect of economic growth on CO2 emission in developing countries: Evidence from a dynamic panel threshold model. Cogent Economics & Finance 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2017.1379239
Azam M, Khan AQ, Abdullah HB, Qureshi ME (2016) The impact of CO2 emissions on economic growth: evidence from selected higher CO2 emissions economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(7):6376–6389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5817-4
Baloch MA, Zhang J, Iqbal K, Iqbal Z (2019) The effect of financial development on ecological footprint in BRI countries: evidence from panel data estimation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:6199–6208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3992-9
Baz K, Deyi X, Kwaku Ampofo GM, Ali I, Khan I, Cheng J, Ali H (2019) Energy consumption and economic growth nexus: new evidence from Pakistan using asymmetric analysis. Energy 116254:116254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116254
Baz K, Xu D, Ali H, Ali I, Khan I, Khan MM, Cheng J (2020) Asymmetric impact of energy consumption and economic growth on ecological footprint: using asymmetric and nonlinear approach. Sci Total Environ 137364:137364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137364
Bekun FV, Emir F, Sarkodie SA (2018) Another look at the relationship between energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions, and economic growth in South Africa. Sci Total Environ 655:759–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.271
Bello MO, Solarin SA, Yen YY (2018) The impact of electricity consumption on CO2 emission, carbon footprint, water footprint and ecological footprint: the role of hydropower in an emerging economy. J Environ Manag 219:218–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.101
Boontome P, Therdyothin A, Chontanawat J (2017) Science Direct investigating the causal relationship between non-renewable assessing the feasibility of using the heat demand-outdoor and renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions temperature function for a long-term district heat demand. Energy Procedia 138:925–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.141
Broock WA, Scheinkman JA, Dechert WD, LeBaron B (1996) A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econ Rev 15(3):197–235
Cai Y, Sam CY, Chang T (2018) Nexus between clean energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions. J Clean Prod 182:1001–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.035
Charfeddine L, Kahia M (2019) Impact of renewable energy consumption and financial development on CO2 emissions and economic growth in the MENA region: a panel vector autoregressive (PVAR) analysis. Renew Energy 139:198–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.010
Chirambo D (2018) Towards the achievement of SDG 7 in sub-Saharan Africa: creating synergies between Power Africa, sustainable energy for all and climate finance in-order to achieve universal energy access before 2030. Renew Sust Energ Rev 94:600–608
De Gouw J, Parrish D, Frost G, Trainer M (2014) Reduced emissions of CO2, NOx, and SO2 from U.S. power plants owing to switch from coal to natural gas with combined cycle technology. Earth’s Future 2:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013ef000196
Dong K, Sun R, Hochman G, Zeng X, Li H, Jiang H (2017) Impact of natural gas consumption on CO2 emissions: panel data evidence from China’s provinces. J Clean Prod 162:400–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.100
Fang X, Pyle JA, Chipperfield MP, Daniel JS, Park S, Prinn RG (2019) Challenges for the recovery of the ozone layer. Nat Geosci 12:592–596. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0422-7
Feng Z, Cui Y, Zhang H, Gao Y (2018) Assessment of human consumption of ecosystem services in China from 2000 to 2014 based on an ecosystem service footprint model. Ecol Indic 94:468–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.07.015
Granger C, Yoon G (2002) Hidden Cointegration. In: Hidden cointegration
Grossman G, Krueger A (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. Working Paper 3914, National Bureau of Economics Research, November. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3914.pdf.
Hanif I (2018) Impact of economic growth, nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption, and urbanization on carbon emissions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(15):15057–15067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1753-4
Hanif I, Aziz B, Chaudhry IS (2019) Carbon emissions across the spectrum of renewable and nonrenewable energy use in developing economies of Asia. Renew Energy 143:586–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.032
Hatemi-J A (2012) Asymmetric causality tests with an application. Empir Econ 43:447–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-011-0484-x
Horton JB, Keith DW, Honegger M (2016) Implications of the Paris Agreement for carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering. Viewpoints. In: Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Cambridge
Hossain MS (2011) Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy 39(11):6991–6999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.042
Işik C, Kasımatı E, Ongan S (2017) Analyzing the causalities between economic growth, financial development, international trade, tourism expenditure and/on the CO2 emissions in Greece. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 12(7):665–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2016.1263251
Işık C, Ongan S, Özdemir D (2019) Testing the EKC hypothesis for ten US states: an application of heterogeneous panel estimation method. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:10846–10853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04514-6
Jafari Y, Othman J, Nor AHSM (2012) Energy consumption, economic growth and environmental pollutants in Indonesia. J Policy Model 34(6):879–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2012.05.020
Jardon A, Kuik O, Richard SJT (2017) Economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions: an analysis of Latin America and the Caribbean. Atmósfera 30(2):87–100. https://doi.org/10.20937/atm.2017.30.02.02
Javid M, Sharif F (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve and financial development in Pakistan. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:406–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.019
Jebli MB, Youssef SB, Ozturk I (2016) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol Indic 60:824–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.031
Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2011) Societies consuming nature: a panel study of the ecological footprints of nations, 1960-2003. Soc Sci Res 40:226–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.09.004
Khan I, Javed T, Khan A, Lei H, Muhammad I, Ali I, Huo X (2019a) Impact assessment of land use change on surface temperature and agricultural productivity in Peshawar-Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:33076–33085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06448-5
Khan MK, Teng JZ, Khan MI (2019b) Effect of energy consumption and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions in Pakistan with dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:23480–23490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05640-x
Koengkan M (2018) The decline of environmental degradation by renewable energy consumption in the MERCOSUR countries: an approach with ARDL modeling. Environ Syst Decis 38:415–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9671-z
Kuriqi A, Pinheiro AN, Sordo-Ward A, Garrote L (2019) Influence of hydrologically based environmental flow methods on flow alteration and energy production in a run-of-river hydropower plant. J Clean Prod 232:1028–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.358
Kuznets S (1955) Economic growth and income inequality. Am Econ Rev 45(1):1–28
Lee JY, Yoo KH, Kim DK, Kim S-H, Kim T-E, Kim T-H, Rhee CK, Park YB, Yoon HK, Yum H-K (2016) Effects of educational interventions for chronic airway disease on primary care. J Korean Med Sci 31:1069–1074. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.7.1069
Lei K, Zhou S (2012) Per capita resource consumption and resource carrying capacity: a comparison of the sustainability of 17 mainstream countries. Energy Policy 42:603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.12.030
Liu X, Zhang S, Bae J (2017a) 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.086
Liu X, Zhang S, Bae J (2017b) The nexus of renewable energy-agriculture-environment in BRICS. Appl Energy 204:489–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.077
Long X, Naminse EY, Du J, Zhuang J (2015) Nonrenewable energy, renewable energy, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth in China from 1952 to 2012. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:680–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.176
Luqman M, Ahmad N, Bakhsh K (2019) Nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in Pakistan: evidence from non-linear autoregressive distributed lag model. Renew Energy 139:1299–1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.008
Mensi W, Shahzad SJH, Hammoudeh S, Hamed AlYahyaee K (2017) Asymmetric impacts of public and private investments on the non-oil GDP of Saudi Arabia. Int Econ 156:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2017.10.003
Mishra V, Smyth R (2014) Is monthly US natural gas consumption stationary? New evidence from a GARCH unit root test with structural breaks. Energy Policy 69:258–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.033
Munir K, Riaz N (2020) Asymmetric impact of energy consumption on environmental degradation: evidence from Australia, China, and USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:11749–11759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07777-6
Murshed M (2018) Does improvement in trade openness facilitate renewable energy transition? Evidence from selected South Asian economies. South Asia Econ J 19(2):151–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1391561418794691
Murshed M (2020a) Are trade liberalization policies aligned with renewable energy transition in low and middle income countries? An instrumental variable approach. Renew Energy 151(3):1110–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.106
Murshed M (2020b) An empirical analysis of the non-linear impacts of ICT-trade openness on renewable energy transition, energy efficiency, clean cooking fuel access and environmental sustainability in South Asia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:36254–36281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09497-3
Murshed M, Dao NTT (2020) Revisiting the CO2 emission-induced EKC hypothesis in South Asia: the role of Export Quality Improvement. GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10270-9
Murshed M, Nurmakhanova M, Elheddad M, Ahmed R (2020) Value addition in the services sector and its heterogeneous impacts on CO2 emissions: revisiting the EKC hypothesis for the OPEC using panel spatial estimation techniques. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:38951–38973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09593-4
Murshed M, Ferdaus J, Rashid S, Tanha MM, Islam MJ (2021) The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for deforestation in Bangladesh: an ARDL analysis with multiple structural breaks. Energ Ecol Environ 6:111–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00188-w
Narayan PK, Popp S (2010) A new unit root test with two structural breaks in level and slope at unknown time. J Appl Stat 37(9):1425–1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760903039883
Naseem S, Guang Ji T, Kashif U (2020) Asymmetrical ARDL correlation between fossil fuel energy, food security, and carbon emission: providing fresh information from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:31369–31382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09346-3
Nasrullah M, Chang L, Saddozai KN, Khalid AO, Bayisenge R, Hameed G (2019) Cost and net return of tobacco growers – a case study of district Mardan (KP- Pakistan). Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 35(2):565–571
Nasrullah M, Chang L, Khan K, Rizwanullah M, Zulfiqar F, Ishfaq M (2020) Determinants of forest product group trade by gravity model approach: a case study of China. Forest Policy Econ 113:102117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102117
Nasrullah M, Rizwanullah M, Yu X, Jo H, Sohail MT, Liang L (2021) Autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach to study the impact of climate change and other factors on rice production in South Korea. Journal of Water and Climate Change:jwc2021030. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.030
Nathaniel S, Rehman Khan SA (2020) The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy, trade, and ecological footprint in ASEAN countries. J Clean Prod 122709:122709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122709
Nathaniel S, Nwodo O, Adediran A, Sharma G, Shah M, Adeleye N (2019) Ecological footprint, urbanization, and energy consumption in South Africa: including the excluded. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:27168–27179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05924-2
Ozcan B, Apergis N, Shahbaz M (2018) A revisit of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey: new evidence from bootstrap rolling window causality. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:32381–32394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3165-x
Ozcan B, Tzeremes PG, Tzeremes NG (2019) Energy consumption, economic growth and environmental degradation in OECD countries. Econ Model 84:203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.04.010
Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16(3):289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
Rahman ZU, Ahmad M (2019) Modeling the relationship between gross capital formation and CO2 (a)symmetrically in the case of Pakistan: an empirical analysis through NARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:8111–8124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-04254-7
Roinioti A, Koroneos C (2017) The decomposition of CO2 emissions from energy use in Greece before and during the economic crisis and their decoupling from economic growth. Renew Sust Energ Rev 76:448–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.026
Saboori B, Sulaiman J, Mohd S (2012) Economic growth and CO2 emissions in Malaysia: a cointegration analysis of the environmental Kuznets curve. Energy Policy 51:184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.08.065
Saboori B, Rasoulinezhad E, Sung J (2017) The nexus of oil consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in China, Japan and South Korea. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:7436–7455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8428-4
Salisu, Ndako UB, Oloko TF, Akanni LO (2016) Unit root modeling for trending stock market series. Borsa Istanbul Rev 16:82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2016.05.001
Sapovadia, Vrajlal K (2020) Devastating influence of technology on environment in 2020s (January 17, 2020). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3520991
Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2018a) Science of the total environment assessment of contribution of Australia’s energy production to CO 2 emissions and environmental degradation using statistical dynamic approach. Sci Total Environ 639:888–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.204
Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2018b) Assessment of contribution of Australia’s energy production to CO2 emissions and environmental degradation using statistical dynamic approach. Sci Total Environ 639:888–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.204
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 Sust Energ Rev 44:576–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.017
Sharif A, Raza SA, Ozturk I, Afshan S (2019) The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: a global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renew Energy 133:685–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.10.052
Shin Y, Yu B, Greenwood-Nimmo M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In: Festscrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt. Springer, pp 281–314
Sun H, Mohsin M, Alharthi M, Abbas Q (2019) Measuring environmental sustainability performance of South Asia. J Clean Prod 119519:119519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119519
Uddin GS, Hernandez JA, Shahzad SJH, Hedstrom A (2018) Multivariate dependence and spillover effects across energy commodities and diversification potentials of carbon assets. Energy Econ 71:35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.01.035
UNDP (2018) Goal 13: Climate Action. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-13-climate-action.html
Wei P, Yaoguo D, Xia Z (2009) Analysis on grey relation of the impact of China’s energy consumption on environment quality. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services, Nanjing, China, 10–12, pp 290–294
Wesseh PK Jr, Lin B (2016) Can African countries efficiently build their economies on renewable energy? Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:161–173
Westerlund J, Edgerton DL (2007) A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Econ Lett 97(3):185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.03.003
World Bank (2018) World Development Indicators databank.worldbank.org.
World Development Indicator (2017) https://www.data.worldbank.org (accessed on 25.03.2021).
Zulfiqar F, Shang J, Nasrullah M, Rizwanullah M (2020) Allocative efficiency analysis of wheat and cotton in district Khanewal, Punjab, Pakistan. GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10228-x
Acknowledgements
The authors extend their heartfelt thanks to the editorial board and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
Funding
This research was sponsored by the Innovation Platform Open Fund Project of Hunan Education Department, China (19K087).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Muhammad Nasrullah: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, and writing the original draft. Muhammad Rizwanullah: data collection, software, methodology, and formal analysis. Yu Xiu Yuan: writing review, investigation, software, and methodology. Liang Li Zhi: supervision, investigation, data correction, formal analysis, methodology, and editing
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This is an observational study. We confirmed that no ethical approval is required. Consent to participate is not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Nicholas Apergis
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 105 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nasrullah, M., Rizwanullah, M., Yu, X. et al. An asymmetric analysis of the impacts of energy use on carbon dioxide emissions in the G7 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28, 43643–43668 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13799-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13799-5