Since the discharge of carbon is one of the main causes for ongoing global warming issue and change in climate, most nations have committed to decarbonizing their economies at the COP26 summit. Thus, this investigation aims to explore the consequences of innovations in sustainable energy technologies on decarbonization in the 20 most innovative nations across the globe. In assessing the cause-and-effect relationship, we have used “Panel Non-linear Autoregressive Distributed Lag (P-NARDL)” technique. The findings demonstrated that the variables have a lasting relationship. The positive asymmetric shock in the innovations in sustainable energy technologies has a positive influence on the decarbonization of these nations, while the negative asymmetric effect is insignificant. According to the findings, clean energy negatively consequence on carbonization whereas growth in economy is favorably and considerably connected with it. The findings demonstrate that there is bidirectional causation between all variables under investigation, with the exception of the unidirectional causality flows from the usage of sustainable energy technology and emissions of CO2. In a global context, this research suggests that government should identify the roles of new sustainable energy technologies by reforming patenting regulations to rectify the environmental damages.
LanouarCAl-MalkAYAl KarbiK. Air pollution in Qatar: causes and challenges. Coll Bus Econ Qatar Univ2016; 1: 1–7.
2.
HossainMIslamMSujanM, et al.Towards a clean production by exploring the nexus between agricultural ecosystem and environmental degradation using novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 53768–53784.
3.
AdedoyinFFBekunFVHossainME, et al.Glasgow climate change conference (COP26) and its implications in sub-Sahara Africa economies. Renew Energy2023; 206: 214–222.
4.
JalalMJEKhanMAHossainME, et al.Does climate change stimulate household vulnerability and income diversity? Evidence from southern coastal region of Bangladesh. Heliyon2021; 7: e07990.
5.
SathayeJShuklaPRRavindranathNH. Climate change, sustainable development and India: global and national concerns. Curr Sci2006; 48: 314–325.
6.
CardenasLMFrancoCJDynerI. Assessing emissions–mitigation energy policy under integrated supply and demand analysis: the Colombian case. J Cleaner Prod2016; 112: 3759–3773.
7.
DestekMAAslanA. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and economic growth in emerging economies: evidence from bootstrap panel causality. Renew Energy2017; 111: 757–763.
8.
ShahbazMRaghutlaCChittediKR, et al.The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: evidence from the renewable energy country attractive index. Energy2020; 207: 118–130.
9.
LiRLiLWangQ. The impact of energy efficiency on carbon emissions: evidence from the transportation sector in Chinese 30 provinces. Sustain Cities Soc2022; 82: 103880.
10.
RejSBandyopadhyayADasN, et al.The asymmetric influence of environmental-related technological innovation on climate change mitigation: what role do FDI and renewable energy play?Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 14916–14931.
11.
LinJYWangY. Endowment structures, industrial dynamics, and economic growth. J Monet Econ2015; 76: 244–263.
12.
FernándezYFLópezMFBlancoBO. Innovation for sustainability: the impact of R&D spending on CO2 emissions. J Cleaner Prod2018; 172: 3459–3467.
13.
ChoJHSohnSY. A novel decomposition analysis of green patent applications for the evaluation of R&D efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuel energy consumption. J Cleaner Prod2018; 193: 290–299.
14.
DasNMurshedMRejS, et al.Can clean energy adoption and international trade contribute to the achievement of India’s 2070 carbon neutrality agenda? Evidence using quantile ARDL measures. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2022: 1–16.
15.
LiRWangXWangQ. Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. J Cleaner Prod2022; 346: 131207.
16.
KahiaMAïssaMSBLanouarC. Renewable and non-renewable energy use-economic growth nexus: the case of MENA net oil importing countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017a; 71: 127–140.
17.
TiwariAK. A structural VAR analysis of renewable energy consumption, real GDP and CO2 emissions: evidence from India. Economics Bulletin2011; 31: 1793–1806.
18.
Cifuentes-FauraJ. European Union policies and their role in combating climate change over the years. Air Qual Atmos Health2022; 15: 1333–1340.
19.
UcheEDasNBeraP,et al.Understanding the imperativeness of environmental-related technological innovations in the FDI–Environmental performance nexus. Renew Energy2023; 206: 285–294.
20.
Al-MulaliUTangCFOzturkI. Estimating the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis: evidence from Latin America and the Caribbean countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2015; 50: 918–924.
21.
DoganBDrihaOMBalsalobre LorenteD,et al.The mitigating effects of economic complexity and renewable energy on carbon emissions in developed countries. Sustain Dev2020; 4: 45–61.
22.
FotisPPolemisM. Sustainable development, environmental policy and renewable energy use: a dynamic panel data approach. Sustain Dev2018; 26: 726–740.
23.
JamilKLiuDGulRF, et al.Do remittance and renewable energy affect CO2 emissions? An empirical evidence from selected G-20 countries. Energy Environ2022; 33: 916–932.
24.
KahiaMKadriaMAissaMSB,et al.Modelling the treatment effect of renewable energy policies on economic growth: evaluation from MENA countries. J Cleaner Prod2017b; 149: 845–855.
25.
ShahbazMShahzadSJHMahalikMK. Is globalization detrimental to CO2 emissions in Japan? New threshold analysis. Environ Model Assess2018; 23: 557–568.
26.
AdebayoTSBeton KalmazD. Ongoing debate between foreign aid and economic growth in Nigeria: a wavelet analysis. Soc Sci Q2020; 101: 2032–2051.
27.
ApergisNPayneJEMenyahK,et al.On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecol Econ2010; 69: 2255–2260.
28.
SebriMBen-SalhaO. On the causal dynamics between economic growth, renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and trade openness: fresh evidence from BRICS countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2014; 39: 14–23.
29.
AttiaouiIToumiHAmmouriB,et al.Causality links among renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth in Africa: evidence from a panel ARDL-PMG approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2017; 24: 13036–13048.
30.
BoontomePTherdyothinAChontanawatJ. Investigating the causal relationship between non-renewable and renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Thailand. Energy Proc2017; 138: 925–930.
31.
ZoundiZ. CO2 Emissions, renewable energy and the environmental Kuznets curve, a panel cointegration approach. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 72: 1067–1075.
32.
JebliMBFarhaniSGuesmiK. Renewable energy, CO2 emissions and value added: empirical evidence from countries with different income levels. Struct Change Econ Dyn2020; 53: 402–410.
33.
SaidiKOmriA. Reducing CO2 emissions in OECD countries: do renewable and nuclear energy matter?Prog Nucl Energy2020; 126: 103425.
34.
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.
35.
IkeGNUsmanOAlolaAA,et al.Environmental quality effects of income, energy prices and trade: the role of renewable energy consumption in G-7 countries. Sci Total Environ2020; 721: 137813.
36.
AppiahMO. Investigating the multivariate Granger causality between energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Ghana. Energy Pol2018; 112: 198–208.
37.
AdebayoTS. Revisiting the EKC hypothesis in an emerging market: an application of ARDL-based bounds and wavelet coherence approaches. SN Appl Sci2020; 2: 1–15.
38.
GorusMSAydinM. The relationship between energy consumption, economic growth, and CO2 emission in MENA countries: causality analysis in the frequency domain. Energy2019; 168: 815–822.
39.
KirikkaleliDKalmazDB. Testing the moderating role of urbanization on the environmental Kuznets curve: empirical evidence from an emerging market. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 38169–38180.
40.
OdugbesanJAAdebayoTS. Modeling CO2 emissions in South Africa: empirical evidence from ARDL based bounds and wavelet coherence techniques. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020b; 2: 1–13.
41.
ChontanawatJ. Relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emission and economic growth in ASEAN: cointegration and causality model. Energy Rep2020; 6: 660–665.
42.
LiRWangQLiuY,et al.Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: the effect of economic, energy, social, and trade structural changes. Sustain Prod Consum2021; 27: 1149–1164.
43.
StamatiouPDritsakiCNiklisD. CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade, and urbanization in Greece. In Advances in Longitudinal Data Methods in Applied Economic Research, 2020 International Conference on Applied Economics (ICOAE). Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp.379–389.
44.
OrhanAAdebayoTGençS,et al.Investigating the linkage between economic growth and environmental sustainability in India: do agriculture and trade openness matter?Sustainability2021; 13: 4753.
45.
NguyenTTPhamTATTramHTX. Role of information and communication technologies and innovation in driving carbon emissions and economic growth in selected G-20 countries. J Environ Manag2020; 261: 110162.
46.
KuruczVKrügerTAntalK, et al.Additional oxidative stress reroutes the global response of Aspergillus fumigatus to iron depletion. BMC Genom2018; 19: 1–19.
47.
HasanovFJLiddleBMikayilovJI. The impact of international trade on CO2 emissions in oil exporting countries: territory vs consumption emissions accounting. Energy Econ2018; 74: 343–350.
48.
ManagiSHibikiATsurumiT. Does trade openness improve environmental quality?J Environ Econ Manage2009; 58: 346–363.
49.
CialaniC. CO2 emissions, GDP and trade: a panel cointegration approach. Int J Sustainable Dev World Ecol2017; 24: 193–204.
50.
WangQZhangF. The effects of trade openness on decoupling carbon emissions from economic growth–evidence from 182 countries. J Cleaner Prod2021; 279: 123838.
51.
SunSSmithTSAnwarS. Financial development, foreign investment and economic growth in Malaysia. J Asian Econ2008; 22: 335–342.
52.
KumarSManagiS. Energy price-induced and exogenous technological change: assessing the economic and environmental outcomes. Resour Energy Econ2009; 31: 334–353.
53.
WangCChenJZouJ. Decomposition of energy-related CO2 emission in China: 1957–2000. Energy2005; 30: 73–83.
54.
HammondGPNormanJB. Decomposition analysis of energy-related carbon emissions from UK manufacturing. Energy2012; 41: 220–227.
55.
ZhaoXMaQYangR. Factors influencing CO2 emissions in China’s power industry: CO-integration analysis. Energy Policy2013; 57: 89–98.
56.
IslamMHossainMKhanM, et al.Heading towards sustainable environment: exploring the dynamic linkage among selected macroeconomic variables and ecological footprint using a novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 22260–22279.
57.
ShahbazMShafiullahMPapavassiliouVG,et al.The CO2–growth nexus revisited: a nonparametric analysis for the G7 economies over nearly two centuries. Energy Econ2017; 65: 183–193.
58.
DahirMMahiM. Does energy efficiency improve environmental quality in BRICS countries? Empirical evidence using dynamic panels with heterogeneous slopes. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 12027–12042.
59.
KirikkaleliDAdebayoTS. Do renewable energy consumption and financial development matter for environmental sustainability? New global evidence. Sustain Dev2020; 29: 583–594.
60.
OpualaCSOmokePCUcheE. Sustainable environment in West Africa: the roles of financial development, energy consumption, trade openness and urbanization. Int J Environ Sci Technol2022; 20: 423–436.
61.
UcheEEffiomL. Financial development and environmental sustainability in Nigeria: fresh insights from multiple threshold nonlinear ARDL model. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 39524–39539.
62.
LiXOzturkIMajeedMT, et al.Considering the asymmetric effect of financial deepening on environmental quality in BRICS economies: policy options for the green economy. J Cleaner Prod2022; 331: 129909.
63.
AlsagrNvan HemmenS. The impact of financial development and geopolitical risk on renewable energy consumption: evidence from emerging markets. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 25906–25919.
64.
StockJHWatsonMW. A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica: J Econom Soc1993; 5: 783–820.
65.
PhillipsPCHansenBE. Statistical inference in instrumental variables regression with I (1) processes. The Review of Economic Studies1990; 57: 99–125.
66.
DumitrescuEIHurlinC. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ Model2012; 29: 1450–1460.
67.
WesterlundJ. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics2007; 69: 709–748.
68.
WesterlundJ. A panel CUSUM test of the null of cointegration. Oxf Bull Econ Stat2005; 67: 231–262.
69.
PedroniP. Purchasing power parity tests in cointegrated panels. Rev Econ Statistics2001; 83: 727–731.
70.
KaoC. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. J Econom1999; 90: 1–44.
71.
ShahbazMBalsalobre-LorenteDSinhaA. Foreign direct investment–CO2 emissions nexus in Middle East and North African countries: importance of biomass energy consumption. J Cleaner Prod2019; 217: 603–614.
72.
ChenSSaudSBanoS,et al.The nexus between financial development, globalization, and environmental degradation: fresh evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2019; 26: 24733–24747.
73.
MusahMKongYMensahIA, et al.The link between carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: a heterogeneous panel evidence from West Africa. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 28867–28889.
74.
ParkYMengFBalochMA. The effect of ICT, financial development, growth, and trade openness on CO2 emissions: an empirical analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 30708–30719.
75.
AlbulescuCTArteneAELuminosuCT,et al.CO2 emissions, renewable energy, and environmental regulations in the EU countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 33615–33635.
76.
KhanHWeiliLKhanI. Examining the effect of information and communication technology, innovations, and renewable energy consumption on CO2 emission: evidence from BRICS countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 47696–47712.
77.
DestekMASinhaA. Renewable, non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and ecological footprint: Evidence from organisation for economic Co-operation and development countries. Journal of Cleaner Production2020; 242: 118537.
78.
AdedoyinFFAgboolaPOOzturkI, et al.Environmental consequences of economic complexities in the EU amidst a booming tourism industry: accounting for the role of brexit and other crisis events. J Cleaner Prod2021; 305: 127117.
79.
AdebayoTSCoelhoMFOnbaşıoğluDÇ, et al.Modeling the dynamic linkage between renewable energy consumption, globalization, and environmental degradation in South Korea: does technological innovation matter?Energies2021; 14: 4265.
80.
UsmanMHammarN. Dynamic relationship between technological innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and ecological footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 15519–15536.
