Along with the increasing aging population (AP) and global interconnectedness in the Mediterranean bloc comes climate change issues faced by the Mediterranean region in its trajectory to energy security and sustainable development. To meet the continuous energy consumption demand while cutting down natural resources extraction and exploitation with a view to minimizing environmental impacts, the policy structure in these countries may require readjustment, which is the motivation for the present study. This study advances a strategic framework for investigating the impact of natural resources rent as well as aging reliance on carbon emissions in the Mediterranean region for the annual frequency data from 1990–2016. Using quantile regression to analyze the highlighted variables, empirical results shows that both income and natural resources rent have an inverted U-Shaped connection with CO2 emission, which affirms the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis. Subsequently, globalization and energy use show a positive relationship with emissions while AP is negatively correlated with emissions. Depending on the outcomes of this analysis, a multi-stage Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) framework has been developed and SDG- 7, SDG -13 as well as SDG-8 were examined in this context. While these three SDGs are the main targets of the study, the SDG System has also provided a way to test other SDGs.
KirikkaleliDGüngörHAdebayoTS. Consumption-based carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in Chile. Bus Strategy Environ2021; 2: 23–31.
2.
BekunFVAlolaAASarkodieSA. Toward a sustainable environment: nexus between CO2 emissions, resource rent, renewable and nonrenewable energy in 16-EU countries. Sci Total Environ2019; 657: 1023–1029.
3.
OlanrewajuVOAdebayoTSAkinsolaGD,et al.Determinants of environmental degradation in Thailand: empirical evidence from ARDL and wavelet coherence approaches. Pollution2021; 7: 181–196.
4.
Asumadu-SarkodieSOwusuPA. The causal effect of carbon dioxide emissions, electricity consumption, economic growth, and industrialization in Sierra Leone. Energy Sources, Part B: Econ, Plan Policy2017; 12: 32–39.
5.
AlolaAAAdebayoTSOnifadeST. Examining the dynamics of ecological footprint in China with spectral Granger causality and quantile-on-quantile approaches. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2021: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2021.1990158
6.
AdebayoTSRjoubHAkadiriSS,et al.The role of economic complexity in the environmental Kuznets curve of MINT economies: evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17524-0
7.
NathanielSPNwuluNBekunF. Natural resource, globalization, urbanization, human capital, and environmental degradation in Latin American and Caribbean countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 6207–6221.
8.
Eurostat. Sustainable development in the European Union d monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context d 2019 edition. European Commission, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi.Accessed 21 August 2021
9.
CarvalhoTSSantiagoFSPerobelliFS. Demographic change in Brazil and its impacts on CO2 emissions. Econ Syst Res2021; 33(2): 197–213.
10.
ZeeshanKAhmadMRahmanZU,et al.Can innovation shocks determine CO2 emissions (CO2e) in the OECD economies? A new perspective. Econ Innov New Technol2021; 30: 89–109.
11.
Balsalobre-LorenteDDrihaOMBekunFV,et al.The asymmetric impact of air transport on economic growth in Spain: fresh evidence from the tourism-led growth hypothesis. Curr Issues Tour2021a; 24: 503–519.
12.
AkadiriSSAdebayoTSAdedapoAT,et al.Does interaction between technological innovation and natural resource rent impact environmental degradation in newly industrialized countries? New evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 3162–3169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17631-y
13.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement (No. w3914). London: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1991.
14.
KirikkaleliDAdebayoTSKhanZ,et al.Does globalization matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual adjustment approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28(11): 14009–14017.
15.
PanayotouT. Demystifying the environmental Kuznets curve: turning a black box into a policy tool. Environ. Dev. Econ1997; 2(4): 465–484.
16.
HeXAdebayoTSKirikkaleliD,et al.Consumption-based carbon emissions in Mexico: An analysis using the dual adjustment approach. Sustain Prod Consum2021; 27: 947–957.
17.
BekunFV. Mitigating Emissions in India: accounting for the role of real income, renewable energy consumption and investment in energy. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy2022; 12(1): 188–192.
18.
OdugbesanJAAdebayoTS. The symmetrical and asymmetrical effects of foreign direct investment and financial development on carbon emission: evidence from Nigeria. SN Appl. Sci2020; 2(12): 1–15.
19.
DooleyJJ. Unintended consequences: energy R&D in a deregulated energy market. Energy Policy1998; 26(7): 547–555.
20.
AhmedZWangZMahmoodF,et al.Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia. Environ Sci Pollut Res2019; 26: 18565–18582.
21.
PataUK. The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey. Energy2017; 160: 1115–1123.
22.
PataUK. Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. J Cleaner Prod2018; 187: 770–779.
23.
EtokakpanMUAdedoyinFFVedatY,et al.Does globalization in Turkey induce increased energy consumption: insights into its environmental pros and cons. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 26125–26140.
24.
KhanIHouFLeHP. The impact of natural resources, energy consumption, and population growth on environmental quality: fresh evidence from the United States of America. Sci Total Environ2021a; 754: 142222.
25.
KhanZAliSDongK,et al.How does fiscal decentralization affect CO2 emissions? The roles of institutions and human capital. Energy Econ2021b; 94: 105060.
26.
UmarMJiXKirikkaleliD, et al. Environmental cost of natural resources utilization and economic growth: can China shift some burden through globalization for sustainable development?. Sustain. Dev2020; 28(6): 1678–1688.
27.
ZhangLLiZKirikkaleliD, et al. Modeling CO2 emissions in Malaysia: an application of Maki cointegration and wavelet coherence tests. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res2021; 28(20): 26030–26044.
28.
RjoubHOdugbesanJAAdebayoTS, et al. Sustainability of the moderating role of financial development in the determinants of environmental degradation: evidence from Turkey. Sustainability2021; 13(4): 1844.
29.
AdedoyinFFZakariA. Energy consumption, economic expansion, and CO2 emission in the UK: the role of economic policy uncertainty. Sci. Total Environ2020; 738: 140014.
30.
UdiJBekunFVAdedoyinFF. Modeling the nexus between coal consumption, FDI inflow and economic expansion: does industrialization matter in South Africa?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res2020; 27(10): 10553–10564.
31.
Balsalobre-LorenteDSinhaADrihaOM,et al.Assessing the impacts of ageing and natural resource extraction on carbon emissions: a proposed policy framework for European economies. J Cleaner Prod. 2021; 296: 126470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126470
32.
AdedoyinFFGumedeMIBekunFV, et al. Modelling coal rent, economic growth and CO2 emissions: does regulatory quality matter in BRICS economies?. Sci. Total Environ2020; 710: 136284.
33.
ShahbazMSinhaA. Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a literature survey. J. Econ. Stud2019.
34.
PataUK. Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: a sustainability perspective. Renew Energy2021; 173: 197–208.
35.
AdebayoTOladipupoSAdesholaI,et al.Wavelet analysis of impact of renewable energy consumption and technological innovation on CO2 emissions: evidence from Portugal. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17708-8
36.
KirikkaleliDAdebayoTS. Do public-private partnerships in energy and renewable energy consumption matter for consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions in India?Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 30139–30152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12692-5
37.
PataUKCaglarAE. Investigating the EKC hypothesis with renewable energy consumption, human capital, globalization and trade openness for China: evidence from augmented ARDL approach with a structural break. Energy2021; 216: 119220.
38.
PataUKYilanciV. Financial development, globalization and ecological footprint in G7: further evidence from threshold cointegration and fractional frequency causality tests. Environ Ecol Stat2020; 27: 803–825.
39.
KahuthuA. Economic growth and environmental degradation in a global context. Environ, Dev Sustain2006; 8: 55–68.
40.
ShahbazMMallickHMahalikMK, et al. Does globalization impede environmental quality in India?. Ecol. Indic2015; 52: 379–393.
41.
DollarDKraayA. Trade, growth, and poverty. Econ J2004; 114: F22–F49.
42.
LealPHMarquesAC. The environmental impacts of globalisation and corruption: evidence from a set of African countries. Environ Sci Policy2021; 115: 116–124.
43.
ShahbazMTopcuBASarıgülSS, et al. The effect of financial development on renewable energy demand: the case of developing countries. Renew. Energy2021; 178: 1370–1380.
44.
ShahbazMLahianiAAbosedraS, et al. The role of globalization in energy consumption: a quantile cointegrating regression approach. Energy Econ2018; 71: 161–170.
45.
ShahbazMVan HoangTHMahalikMK, et al. Energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in India: new evidence from a nonlinear and asymmetric analysis. Energy Econ2017; 63: 199–212.
46.
RahmanMM. Environmental degradation: The role of electricity consumption, economic growth and globalisation. J. Environ. Manage2020; 253:109742.
47.
AutyRM. The political economy of resource-driven growth. Eur Econ Rev2001; 45: 839–846.
48.
Bravo-OrtegaCDe GregorioJ. The relative richness of the poor? Natural resources, human capital, and economic growth. Natural Resources, Human Capital, and Economic Growth; 2005: January.
49.
AsifMKhanKBAnserMK, et al. Dynamic interaction between financial development and natural resources: Evaluating the ‘Resource curse’ hypothesis. Resour. Policy2020; 65: 101566.
50.
BrunnschweilerCNBulteEH. The resource curse revisited and revised: a tale of paradoxes and red herrings. J Environ Econ Manage2008; 55: 248–264.
51.
PataUKIsikC. Determinants of the load capacity factor in China: a novel dynamic ARDL approach for ecological footprint accounting. Resour Policy2021; 74: 102313.
52.
WangKHLiuLAdebayoTS, et al. Fiscal decentralization, political stability and resources curse hypothesis: a case of fiscal decentralized economies. Resour. Policy2021; 72: 102071.
53.
Balsalobre-LorenteDShahbazMRoubaudD,et al.How economic growth, renewable electricity and natural resources contribute to CO2 emissions?Energy Policy2018; 113: 356–367.
54.
BalochMAMahmoodNZhangJW. Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Sci. Total Environ2019; 678: 632–638.
55.
PataUKAydinMHaouasI. Are natural resources abundance and human development a solution for environmental pressure? Evidence from top ten countries with the largest ecological footprint. Resour Policy2021; 70: 101923.
56.
FarzinYHBondCA. Democracy and environmental quality. J Dev Econ2006; 81(1): 213–235.
57.
ShiA. The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions, 1975–1996: evidence from pooled cross-country data. Ecol Econ2003; 44(1): 29–42.
58.
FanYLiuLCWuG, et al. Analyzing impact factors of CO2 emissions using the STIRPAT model. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev2006; 26(4): 377–395.
59.
HassanKSalimR. Population ageing, income growth and CO2 emission: empirical evidence from high income OECD countries. J Econ Studies2015; 42: 54–67.
60.
O’NeillBCDaltonMFuchsR, et al. Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci2010; 107(41): 17521–17526.
61.
MenzTWelschH. Population aging and environmental preferences in OECD countries: the case of air pollution. Ecol Econ2010; 69: 2582–2589.
62.
MenzTWelschH. Population aging and carbon emissions in OECD countries: accounting for life-cycle and cohort effects. Energy Econ2012; 34: 842–849.
63.
HeijdraBJKooimanJPLigthartJE. Environmental quality, the macroeconomy, and intergenerational distribution. Resour Energy Econ2006; 28: 74–104.
64.
ThalmannP. The public acceptance of green taxes: 2 million voters express their opinion. Public Choice2004; 119(1): 179–217.
65.
GygliSHaelgFPotrafkeN,et al.The KOF globalization indexerevisited. Rev Int Organ2019; 14: 543–574.
66.
GyamfiBAAdedoyinFFBeinMA,et al.The anthropogenic consequences of energy consumption in E7 economies: juxtaposing roles of renewable, coal, nuclear, oil and gas energy: evidence from panel quantile method. J Cleaner Prod2021a; 295: 126373.
67.
GyamfiBABeinMAUdembaEN,et al.Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in oil and non-oil sub-Saharan Africa countries: evidence from quantile regression technique. Resour Policy2021b; 73: 102119.
68.
SalehniaNAlavijehNKSalehniaN. Testing Porter and pollution haven hypothesis via economic variables and CO 2 emissions: a cross-country review with panel quantile regression method. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 31527–31542.
69.
BouriEJalkhNRoubaudD. Commodity volatility shocks and BRIC sovereign risk: a GARCH-quantile approach. Resour Policy2019; 61: 385–392.
70.
BinderMCoadA. From average Joe’s happiness to miserable Jane and cheerful John: using quantile regressions to analyze the full subjective well-being distribution. J Econ Behav Organ2011; 79: 275–290.
PowellJL. Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. Rev1984; 34: 1089–1117.
73.
IsmailSLoganathanNStreimikieneD,et al.Influencing factors mitigate Middle East tourist travelling to Malaysia: the quantile estimates. J Int Studies2018; 11(2): 11–25.
74.
HalliruAMLoganathanNGolam HassanAA. Does FDI and economic growth harm environment? Evidence from selected West African countries. Transnatl Corp Rev2020: 1–15.
75.
PesaranMH. Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica2006; 74: 967–1012.
76.
GyamfiBABeinMABekunFV. Investigating the nexus between hydroelectricity energy, renewable energy, nonrenewable energy consumption on output: evidence from E7 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020a; 27: 25327–25339.
77.
PesaranMH. Testing weak cross-sectional dependence in large panels. Econom2015; 6(4): 102–115.
78.
PesaranMH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econ2007; 22: 265–312.
79.
BreuschTSPaganAR. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud1980; 47: 239–253.
80.
HaoLNUmarMKhanZ,et al.Green Growth and low carbon emission in G7 countries: how critical the network of environmental taxes, renewable energy and human capital is?Sci Total Environ2021; 752: 141853.
81.
SuC-WKhanKTaoR,et al.A review of resource curse burden on inflation in Venezuela. Energy2020; 204: 117925.
82.
ImKSPesaranMHShinY. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J Econom2003; 115: 53–74.
83.
WesterlundJ. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxf Bull Econ Stat2007; 69: 709–748.
84.
WaqihMAIBhuttoNAGhumroNH,et al.Rising environmental degradation and impact of foreign direct investment: an empirical evidence from SAARC region. J Environ Manag2019; 243: 472–480.
85.
GyamfiBABeinMAOzturkI,et al.The moderating role of employment in an environmental Kuznets curve framework revisited in G7 countries. Indonesian J Sustain Account Management2020b; 4: 241–248.
86.
BekunFVAlolaAAGyamfiBA,et al.The environmental aspects of conventional and clean energy policy in sub-Saharan Africa: is N-shaped hypothesis valid?Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28(47): 66695–66708.
87.
BekunFVAlolaAAGyamfiBA,et al.The relevance of EKC hypothesis in energy intensity real-output trade-off for sustainable environment in EU-27. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021b: 1–12.
88.
HanifIRazaSMFGago-de-SantosP,et al.Fossils fuels, foreign direct investment, and economic growth have triggered CO2 emissions in emerging asian economies: some empirical evidence. Energy2019; 171: 493–501.
89.
DestekMASinhaA. Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 242: 118537.
90.
HamzaNGilroyR. The challenge to UK energy policy: an ageing population perspective on energy saving measures and consumption. Energy Policy2011; 39: 782–789.
91.
RudolphAFiggeL. Determinants of ecological footprints: what is the role of globalization?Ecol Indic2017; 81: 348–361.
92.
OnifadeSTGyamfiBAHaouasI,et al.Re-examining the roles of economic globalization and natural resources consequences on environmental degradation in E7 economies: are human capital and urbanization essential components?Resources Policy2021; 74: 102435.
93.
Al-MulaliUTangFC. Investigating the validity of pollution haven hypothesis in the gulf cooperation council (GCC) countries. Energy Policy2013; 60: 813–819.
94.
JiaXKlemešJJVarbanovPS,et al.Analyzing the energy consumption, GHG emission, and cost of seawater desalination in China. Energies2019; 12: 463. Journal of Econometrics, 25(3), 303–325.
95.
UdembaENAghaCO. Abatement of pollutant emissions in Nigeria: a task before multinational corporations. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020: 1–11.
96.
SteveYSMuradABGyamfiBA,et al.Renewable energy consumption a panacea for sustainable economic growth: panel causality analysis for African blocs. Int J Green Energy2021: 1–10.
97.
DumitrescuEIHurlinC. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model2012; 29: 1450–1460
