Climate change is an obstacle in the path of sustainable economic development. One of the key findings in the economics literature is that the use of natural resources contributes to real income per capita. However, its environmental consequences should not be ignored. This paper examines the nexus among CO2 emission, real income, and natural resources, by incorporating urbanization, and trade in Pakistan from 1971 to 2017. The Auto-Regressive Distributive Lag (ARDL) and Vector Error Correction (VECM) models are used for analyzing time-series data. The empirical findings infer that the use of natural resources accelerates the rate of CO2 emission in Pakistan which worsens environmental quality. In addition, the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) is confirmed in the presence of natural resource use. Besides, urbanization improves environmental quality through mitigating the level of CO2 emission. Moreover, the feedback hypothesis is found between the use of natural resources and CO2 emission. Additionally, bidirectional causality is found between urbanization and the use of natural resources. Overall, this study supports formulating new policies to overcome environmental degradation through energy-saving technologies.
KoçakEUlucakRDedeoğluM, et al.
Is there a trade-off between sustainable society targets in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustain Cities Soc2019;
51: 101705.
2.
AhmedZAsgharMMMalikMN, et al.
Moving towards a sustainable environment: the dynamic linkage between natural resources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecological footprint in China. Resour Policy2020;
67: 101677.
3.
HassanSTXiaEHuangJ, et al.
Natural resources, globalization, and economic growth: evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2019;
26: 15527–15534.
4.
WangB.
Analyzing the role of governance in CO2 emissions mitigation: the BRICS experience. Struct Change Econ Dyn2019;
51: 119–125.
5.
Danish BalochMAMahmoodNZhangJW.
Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Sci Total Environ2019;
678: 632–638.
6.
ZafarMWZaidiSAHKhanNR, et al.
The impact of natural resources, human capital, and foreign direct investment on the ecological footprint: the case of the United States. Resour Policy2019;
63: 101428.
7.
ZaidiSAHWeiZGedikliA, et al.
The impact of globalization, natural resources abundance, and human capital on financial development: evidence from thirty-one OECD countries. Resour Policy2019;
64: 101476.
8.
Danish UlucakRKhanSUBalochMA, et al.
Mitigation pathways toward sustainable development: is there any trade-off between environmental regulation and carbon emissions reduction. Sustain Dev 2020; 28(4): 813–822.
9.
Danish HassanSTBalochMAMehmoodN, et al.
Linking economic growth and ecological footprint through human capital and biocapacity. Sustain Cities Soc2019;
47: 101516.
10.
GrunewaldNKlasenSMartínez-ZarzosoI, et al.
The trade-off between income inequality and carbon dioxide emissions. Ecol Econ2017;
142: 249–256.
11.
ChengHDongSLiF, et al.
A circular economy system for breaking the development dilemma of ‘ecological Fragility–Economic poverty’ vicious circle: a CEEPS-SD analysis. J Clean Prod2019;
212: 381–392.
12.
ChenYLeeCC.
Does technological innovation reduce CO2 emissions? Cross-country evidence. J Clean Prod2020;
263: 121550.
13.
Danish.
Moving toward sustainable development: the relationship between water productivity, natural resource rent, international trade, and carbon dioxide emissions. Sustain Dev 2020; 28(4): 540–549.
14.
NarayanPKPoppS.
A new unit root test with two structural breaks in level and slope at unknown time. J Appl Stat2010;
37: 1425–1438.
15.
NarayanPKPoppS.
Size and power properties of structural break unit root tests. Appl Econ2013;
45: 721–728.
16.
Grossman G and Krueger A. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper, no. 3194, NBER, Cambridge, MA, 1991.
17.
DindaS.
A theoretical basis for the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ2005;
53: 403–413.
18.
WenHLeeCC.
Impact of environmental labeling certification on firm performance: empirical evidence from China. J Clean Prod2020;
255: 120201.
19.
MahmoodNWangZHassanST.
Renewable energy, economic growth, human capital, and CO2 emission: an empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2019;
26: 20619–20630.
LeeCCChiuYBSunCH.
The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for water pollution: do regions matter?Energy Policy2010;
38: 12–23.
22.
NarayanPKNarayanS.
Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy2010;
38: 661–666.
23.
NasirMADuc HuynhTLXuan TramHT.
Role of financial development, economic growth & foreign direct investment in driving climate change: a case of emerging ASEAN. J Environ Manage2019;
242: 131–141.
24.
SolarinSAAl-MulaliU.
Influence of foreign direct investment on indicators of environmental degradation. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2018;
25: 24845–24859.
25.
HaoYDengYLuZN, et al.
Is environmental regulation effective in China? Evidence from city-level panel data. J Clean Prod2018;
188: 966–976.
26.
BeenE-MParkY-KKimK-T.
Effective reduction plan for greenhouse gas inventories of local governments. Energy Environ 2021; 32(1): 62–74.
27.
SinhaAShahbazM.
Estimation of environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emission: role of renewable energy generation in India. Renew Energy2018;
119: 703–711.
28.
RimiIUmarADanoL.
Sustainable urban planning strategies for mitigating climate change in Saudi Arabia. Environ Dev Sustain 2020; 22: 5129–5152.
29.
KupikaOLGandiwaENhamoG.
Green economy initiatives in the face of climate change : experiences from the Middle Zambezi Biosphere. Environ Dev Sustain2019;
21: 2507–2533.
30.
HassanSTXiaEKhanNH, et al.
Economic growth, natural resources, and ecological footprints: evidence from Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int2019;
26: 2929–2938.
31.
Danish WangZ.
Investigation of the ecological footprint’s driving factors: what we learn from the experience of emerging economies. Sustain Cities Soc2019;
49: 101626.
32.
ShahbazMRaghutlaCSongM, et al.
Public-private partnerships investment in energy as new determinant of CO2 emissions: the role of technological innovations in China. Energy Econ2020;
86: 104664.
33.
ShahbazMShahzadSJHMahalikMK, et al.
Does globalisation worsen environmental quality in developed economies?Environ Model Assess2018;
23: 141–156.
34.
BildiriciME.
Terrorism, environmental pollution, foreign direct investment (FDI), energy consumption, and economic growth: evidences from China, India, Israel, and Turkey. Energy Environ 2021; 32(1): 75–95.
35.
BalochMADanish MengFZhangJ, et al.
Financial instability and CO2 emissions: the case of Saudi Arabia. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018;
25: 26030–26045.
36.
Danish KhanNBalochMASaudS, et al.
The effect of ICT on CO2 emissions in emerging economies: does the level of income matters?Environ Sci Pollut Res2018;
25: 22850–22860.
37.
KhanZHussainMShahbazM, et al.
Natural resource abundance, technological innovation, and human capital nexus with financial development: a case study of China. Resour Policy2020;
65: 101585.
38.
WuSLiLLiS.
Natural resource abundance, natural resource-oriented industry dependence, and economic growth: evidence from the provincial level in China. Resour Conserv Recycl2018;
139: 163–171.
39.
SinhaASenguptaT.
Impact of natural resource rents on human development: what is the role of globalization in Asia Pacific countries?Resour Policy2019;
63: 101413.
40.
HassanSTXiaELatifK, et al.
Another look at the nexus among energy consumption, natural resources, and gross capital formation: evidence from Pakistan. Nat Resour Res 2020; 29: 2801–2812.
41.
RiekhofMCRegnierEQuaasMF.
Economic growth, international trade, and the depletion or conservation of renewable natural resources. J Environ Econ Manag2019;
97: 116–133.
42.
ShahbazMMallickHMahalikMK, et al.
Does globalization impede environmental quality in India?Ecol Indicat2015;
52: 379–393.
43.
SongMZhuSWangJ, et al.
China’s natural resources balance sheet from the perspective of government oversight: based on the analysis of governance and accounting attributes. J Environ Manage2019;
248: 109232.
44.
ErumNHussainS.
Corruption, natural resources and economic growth: evidence from OIC countries. Resour Policy2019;
63: 101429.
45.
NawazKLahianiARoubaudD.
Natural resources as blessings and finance-growth nexus: a bootstrap ARDL approach in an emerging economy. Resour Policy2019;
60: 277–287.
46.
MawejjeJ.
Natural resources governance and tax revenue mobilization in sub Saharan Africa: the role of EITI. Resour Policy2019;
62: 176–183.
47.
ZalléO.
Natural resources and economic growth in Africa: the role of institutional quality and human capital. Resour Policy2019;
62: 616–624.
48.
AhmadovAKvan der BorgC.
Do natural resources impede renewable energy production in the EU? A mixed-methods analysis. Energy Policy2019;
126: 361–369.
49.
NdikumanaLSarrM.
Capital flight, foreign direct investment and natural resources in Africa. Resour Policy2019;
63: 101427.
50.
ChantaratSOumSSamphantharakK, et al.
Natural disasters, preferences, and behaviors: evidence from the 2011 mega flood in Cambodia. J Asian Econ2019;
63: 44–74.
51.
PesaranMHShinYSmithRJ.
Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ2001;
16: 289–326.
52.
NarayanPK.
The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Appl Econ2005;
37: 1979–1990.
53.
EngleRFGrangerCWJ.
Co-Integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica1987;
55: 251–276.
ShakeelMAhmedA.
Economic growth, exports, and role of energy conservation: evidence from panel co-integration-based causality models in South Asia. Energy Environ 2021; 32(1): 3–24.
56.
OmriANguyenDKRaultC.
Causal interactions between CO2 emissions, FDI, and economic growth: evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equation models. Econ Modell2014;
42: 382–389.
57.
SadorskyP.
The effect of urbanization on CO2 emissions in emerging economies. Energy Econ2014;
41: 147–153.
58.
ShengPGuoX.
The long-run and short-run impacts of urbanization on carbon dioxide emissions. Econ Modell2016;
53: 208–215.
59.
LeeS-HParkSKimT.
Review on investment direction of green technology R&D in Korea. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2015;
50: 186–193.
60.
RenSYuanBMaX, et al.
International trade, FDI (foreign direct investment) and embodied CO2 emissions: a case study of Chinas industrial sectors. China Econ Rev2014;
28: 123–134.
61.
HuangMCHosoeN.
Fiscal and social costs of recovery programs for an earthquake disaster in northern Taiwan. J Asian Econ2017;
53: 1–17.
