Developing an inclusive policy agenda for ensuring sustainable development is a challenge for both developed and developing countries. The developing countries face challenges in designing policy that achieves sustainable development goals based on environmental awareness, and that is one of the main contributions of this research. By taking into account the SDG 13 (climate action) and 7 (clean and affordable energy) this study examines the influence of education, natural resource availability, financial development, urbanization, and economic growth for ASEAN nations from 1991 to 2018. For an empirical estimate, second-generation approaches are used. The findings demonstrate the energizing influence of renewable energy usage in altering the environmental quality. According to the empirical findings, renewable energy and education lower CO2 emissions by 0.46% and 0.22%, respectively. Financial development, urbanization, and natural resource depletion all have a 0.14%, 0.03%, and 0.08% impact on the environment, respectively. The heterogeneous causality analysis reveals the feedback effect, i.e., bidirectional causal links between education, carbon emissions, and the use of renewable energy. This empirical data implies that nations should enhance investment in renewable energy and education sectors, as well as prepare for renewable energy research and development, to ensure environmental sustainability. This research has policy implications for ASEAN countries in terms of renewable energy and education investments. Through this agenda, the objectives of SDG 13 and SDG 7 will be achieved, while SDG 4 will be targeted.
BaumeisterS. We are still in! conference report from the 2018 ceres conference. J Cleaner Prod2018; 196: 183–184.
2.
BisbisMBGrudaNBlankeM. Potential impacts of climate change on vegetable production and product quality–A review. J Cleaner Prod2018; 170: 1602–1620.
3.
Le QuéréCAndrewRMFriedlingsteinP, et al. Global carbon budget 2017. Earth System Science Data2018; 10: 405–448.
4.
FigueresCLe QuéréCMahindraA, et al. Emissions are still rising: ramp up the cuts. Hershey, PA: Nature Publishing Group, 2018, 27–30.
5.
SartiMSt JohnSK. Raising long-term awareness: eU environmental policy and education. Education and public policy in the European Union. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, 165–181.
6.
SinhaASenguptaTAlvaradoR. Interplay between technological innovation and environmental quality: formulating the SDG policies for next 11 economies. J Cleaner Prod2020; 242: 118549.
7.
WangYZhouYZhuL, et al. Influencing factors and decoupling elasticity of China’s transportation carbon emissions. Energies2018; 11: 1157.
8.
HessDJCollinsBM. Climate change and higher education: assessing factors that affect curriculum requirements. J Cleaner Prod2018; 170: 1451–1458.
9.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of economic research Cambridge, Mass., USA, 1991.
10.
EastinJ. Climate change and gender equality in developing states. World Dev2018; 107: 289–305.
11.
RoyVSinghS. Mapping the business focus in sustainable production and consumption literature: review and research framework. J Cleaner Prod2017; 150: 224–236.
12.
PanayotouT. Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. World Employment Programme Research. Geneva: ILO, 1993.
13.
ZafarMWShahbazMSinhaA, et al. How renewable energy consumption contribute to environmental quality? The role of education in OECD countries. J Cleaner Prod2020; 268: 122149.
14.
TamazianAChousaJPVadlamannatiKC. Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy2009; 37: 246–253.
15.
DasguptaSLaplanteBMamingiN. Pollution and capital markets in developing countries. J Environ Econ Manage2001; 42: 310–335.
16.
IRENA. Renewable energy in cities. International Renewable Agency: Abu Dhabi, UAE2016.
17.
World Bank. Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals 2017 : From World Development Indicators. 2017.
18.
DestekMASarkodieSA. Investigation of environmental kuznets curve for ecological footprint: the role of energy and financial development. Sci Total Environ2019; 650: 2483–2489.
19.
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.
20.
UddinGASalahuddinMAlamK, et al. Ecological footprint and real income: Panel data evidence from the 27 highest emitting countries. Ecol Indic2017; 77: 166–175.
21.
WangZJebliMBMadalenoM, et al. Does export product quality and renewable energy induce carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from leading complex and renewable energy economies. Renewable Energy2021; 171: 360–370.
22.
SilitongaASMahliaTMIOngHC, et al. A comparative study of biodiesel production methods for Reutealis trisperma biodiesel. Energy Sources Part A2017; 39: 2006–2014.
23.
MarquardtJ. How power shapes energy transitions in Southeast Asia: A complex governance challenge. London: Routledge, 2016.
24.
IsmailMSMoghavvemiMMahliaTMI. Techno-economic analysis of an optimized photovoltaic and diesel generator hybrid power system for remote houses in a tropical climate. Energy Convers Manage2013; 69: 163–173.
25.
SmitsM. Southeast Asian energy transitions: Between modernity and sustainability. London: Routledge, 2016.
26.
MofijurMMahliaTMISilitongaAS, et al. Phase change materials (PCM) for solar energy usages and storage: an overview. Energies2019; 12: 3167.
27.
IEA. Southeast Asia Energy Outlook; International Energy Agency: Paris, France. 2017.
28.
EDGAR. EDGAR - Fossil CO2 Emissions of All World Countries, 2020 Report - European Commission. 2020.
29.
AhmedJRehmanSZuhairaZ, et al. The nexus between financial development and energy consumption: Estimating the role of foreign direct investment, economic growth and urbanization. Energy & Environment2021: 0958305X211045375.
30.
KirikkaleliDAdebayoTS. Do renewable energy consumption and financial development matter for environmental sustainability? New global evidence. Sustainable Development2021; 29: 583–594.
31.
MehmoodUTariqS. Globalization and CO2 emissions nexus: evidence from the EKC hypothesis in south Asian countries. Environmental Science And Pollution Research2020; 27: 37044–37056.
32.
PolzinFMigendtMTäubeFA, et al. Public policy influence on renewable energy investments—A panel data study across OECD countries. Energy Policy2015; 80: 98–111.
33.
AminNSongH. The role of renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, trade, economic growth, and urbanization in achieving carbon neutrality: a comparative study for south and east Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2022; 29: 1–15.
34.
AnwarASinhaASharifA, et al. The nexus between urbanization, renewable energy consumption, financial development, and CO2 emissions: evidence from selected Asian countries. Environment, Development and Sustainability2022; 24: 6556–6576.
35.
Ben JebliM. On the causal links between health indicator, output, combustible renewables and waste consumption, rail transport, and CO2 emissions: the case of Tunisia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2016; 23: 16699–16715.
36.
ShafieiSSalimRA. Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy2014; 66: 547–556.
37.
ZhuHDuanLGuoY, et al. The effects of FDI, economic growth and energy consumption on carbon emissions in ASEAN-5: evidence from panel quantile regression. Econ Model2016; 58: 237–248.
38.
LeeJW. The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy2013; 55: 483–489.
39.
PaoH-TTsaiC-M. Multivariate granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI (foreign direct investment) and GDP (gross domestic product): evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian federation, India, and China) countries. Energy2011; 36: 685–693.
40.
BeheraSRDashDP. The effect of urbanization, energy consumption, and foreign direct investment on the carbon dioxide emission in the SSEA (south and Southeast Asian) region. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 70: 96–106.
41.
ShahbazMMahalikMKShahzadSJH, et al. Testing the globalization-driven carbon emissions hypothesis: international evidence. International Economics2019; 158: 25–38.
42.
HabibaUXinbangCAnwarA. Do green technology innovations, financial development, and renewable energy use help to curb carbon emissions?Renewable Energy2022; 193: 1082–1093.
43.
LiuLAnwarAIrmakE, et al. Asymmetric linkages between public-private partnership, environmental innovation, and transport emissions. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja2022; 35: 1–22.
44.
AnwarAChaudharyARMalikS. Modeling the macroeconomic determinants of environmental degradation in E-7 countries: the role of technological innovation and institutional quality. Journal of Public Affairs2022: e2834.
45.
AnwarASharifAFatimaS, et al. The asymmetric effect of public private partnership investment on transport CO2 emission in China: evidence from quantile ARDL approach. J Cleaner Prod2021; 288: 125282.
46.
HussainMNLiZSattarA, et al. Evaluating the impact of energy and environment on economic growth in BRI countries. Energy & Environment2022; 1: 1–16.
47.
SaidiKMbarekMB. The impact of income, trade, urbanization, and financial development on CO2 emissions in 19 emerging economies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2017; 24: 12748–12757.
48.
SharmaSS. Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: empirical evidence from 69 countries. Appl Energy2011; 88: 376–382.
49.
Al-MulaliUSabooriBOzturkI. Investigating the environmental kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy2015; 76: 123–131.
50.
HanifI. Impact of economic growth, nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption, and urbanization on carbon emissions in sub-saharan Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2018; 25: 15057–15067.
51.
HungNT. Effect of economic indicators, biomass energy on human development in China. Energy & Environment2021; 33: 829–852.
52.
FaizeFAAkhtarM. Addressing environmental knowledge and environmental attitude in undergraduate students through scientific argumentation. J Cleaner Prod2020; 252: 119928.
53.
Sánchez-LlorensSAgulló-TorresADel Campo-GomisFJ, et al. Environmental consciousness differences between primary and secondary school students. J Cleaner Prod2019; 227: 712–723.
54.
RamírezFSantanaJ. Environmental education and biodiversity conservation. Environmental education and ecotourism. Cham: Springer, 2019, 7–11.
55.
CrippaMGuizzardiDMunteanM, et al. Fossil CO2 emissions of all world countries. Luxembourg: European Commission2020, 1–244.
56.
KetlhoilweMJ. Building community resilience through environmental education: a local response to climate change. In: Building Sustainability Through Environmental Education. IGI Global, 2019, 1–21.
57.
AlmeidaPSLopesASOliveiraBD. Sustainability in university campuses and environmental education policy: complementary governances toward consciousness structure in carbon emissions reductions. Towards green campus operations. Cham: Springer, 2018, 197–204.
58.
ApergisNJebliMBYoussefSB. Does renewable energy consumption and health expenditures decrease carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence for sub-saharan Africa countries. Renewable Energy2018; 127: 1011–1016.
59.
HakimiAHamdiH. Trade liberalization, FDI inflows, environmental quality and economic growth: a comparative analysis between Tunisia and Morocco. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 58: 1445–1456.
PhillipsPCBSulD. Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence. Econom J2003; 6: 217–259.
62.
PesaranMH. General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240). Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)2004.
63.
BreuschTSPaganAR. The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Rev Econ Stud1980; 47: 239–253.
64.
LeHPOzturkI. The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO2 emissions in the presence of environmental kuznets curve. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2020; 27: 22680–22697.
65.
LevinALinC-FChuC-SJ. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J Econom2002; 108: 1–24.
66.
PesaranMH. General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empir Econ2021; 60: 13–50.
67.
JohansenSJuseliusK. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with appucations to the demand for money. Oxf Bull Econ Stat1990; 52: 169–210.
68.
PedroniP. Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxf Bull Econ Stat1999; 61: 653–670.
69.
WesterlundJEdgertonDL. A panel bootstrap cointegration testEcon Lett2007; 97: 185–190.
70.
PuukkaJ. Mobilising higher education for sustainable development–lessons learnt from the OECD study. 2008.
71.
BanoSZhaoYAhmadA, et al. Identifying the impacts of human capital on carbon emissions in Pakistan. J Cleaner Prod2018; 183: 1082–1092.
72.
ZhangBWangBWangZ. Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: evidence from Pakistan. J Cleaner Prod2017; 156: 855–864.
73.
SinhaAShahbazMSenguptaT. Renewable energy policies and contradictions in causality: a case of next 11 countries. J Cleaner Prod2018; 197: 73–84.
74.
JebliMBYoussefSBOzturkI. Testing environmental kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol Indic2016; 60: 824–831.
75.
SapkotaPBastolaU. Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: panel data analysis of Latin America. Energy Economics2017; 64: 206–212.
76.
SolarinSAAl-MulaliUMusahI, et al. Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation. Energy2017; 124: 706–719.
77.
BalaguerJCantavellaM. The role of education in the environmental kuznets curve. Evidence from Australian data. Energy Economics2018; 70: 289–296.
78.
JiangY. Foreign direct investment, pollution, and the environmental quality: a model with empirical evidence from the Chinese regions. The International Trade Journal2015; 29: 212–227.
79.
PataUK. The effect of urbanization and industrialization on carbon emissions in Turkey: evidence from ARDL bounds testing procedure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2018; 25: 7740–7747.
80.
ShahbazMKhraiefNUddinGS, et al. Environmental kuznets curve in an open economy: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Tunisia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2014; 34: 325–336.
81.
SinhaAShahbazM. Estimation of environmental kuznets curve for CO2 emission: role of renewable energy generation in India. Renewable Energy2018; 119: 703–711.
82.
FarhaniSShahbazM. What role of renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption and output is needed to initially mitigate CO2 emissions in MENA region?Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2014; 40: 80–90.
83.
LuWChauKWWangH, et al. A decade’s debate on the nexus between corporate social and corporate financial performance: a critical review of empirical studies 2002–2011. J Cleaner Prod2014; 79: 195–206.
84.
DumitrescuE-IHurlinC. Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model2012; 29: 1450–1460.
85.
SekerFErtugrulHMCetinM. The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2015; 52: 347–356.
86.
SalahuddinMAlamKOzturkI, et al. The effects of electricity consumption, economic growth, financial development and foreign direct investment on CO2 emissions in Kuwait. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2018; 81: 2002–2010.
87.
SharifAMishraSSinhaA, et al. The renewable energy consumption-environmental degradation nexus in top-10 polluted countries: fresh insights from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Renewable Energy2020; 150: 670–690.
