Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-3
Effect of income,energy consumption,energy prices,political stability,and geopolitical risk on the environment: Evidence from GCC countries by novel quantile-based methods
This research investigates the effects of income, total energy consumption (TEC), energy price index (EPI), crude oil price (COP), political risk index (PRI), and geopolitical risk (GPR) on environmental degradation. In this context, the study includes five Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, which are mainly oil-rich and have high fossil fuel energy consumption with increasing environmental degradation; considers monthly data from 2000/1 to 2021/12, and deploys novel quantile-based methods. The outcomes demonstrate that (i) an increase in income, TEC, and EPI stimulates environmental degradation in all GCC countries; (ii) PRI, COP, and GPR have mixed effects on environmental degradation; (iii) a causal effect from the regressors to CO2 emissions exists in all quantiles except for some middle (0.45–0.55) and higher quantiles (0.95); (iv) the power of effect and causal effect vary according to quantiles and countries; (v) the consistency of the results is validated based on robust model. The findings reveal that an increase in income, TEC, and EPI is generally harmful to the environment in the GCC countries; but, PRI, COP, and GPR have mixed effects. The results of novel quantile-based methods underline the significance of political stability and geopolitical risk effect as non-economic and non-energy factors on environment degradation by demonstrating quantile-based varying effects of the regressors on the environment in GCC countries. Accordingly, various policies, such as focusing on increasing political stability, benefitting from geopolitical risk as leverage, and enabling the transition to clean energy, are discussed.
PataUKÇağlarAEKartalMT,et al.Evaluation of the role of clean energy technologies, human capital, urbanization, and income on the environmental quality in the United States. J Cleaner Prod2023a; 402: 136802.
2.
NaderipourAAbdul-MalekZArshadRN, et al.Assessment of carbon footprint from transportation, electricity, water, and waste generation: towards utilisation of renewable energy sources. Clean Technol Environ Policy2021; 23: 183–201.
3.
DeprenÖKartalMTAyhanF,et al.Heterogeneous impact of environmental taxes on environmental quality: tax domain based evidence from the Nordic countries by nonparametric quantile approaches. J Environ Manag2023; 329: 117031.
4.
KartalMT. Production-based disaggregated analysis of energy consumption and CO2 emission nexus: evidence from the USA by novel dynamic ARDL simulation approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 6864–6874.
5.
HashimHZubirMAKamyabH,et al.Decarbonisation of the industrial sector through greenhouse gas mitigation, offset, and emission trading schemes. Chem Eng Trans2022; 97: 511–516.
6.
AdebayoTSUllahSKartalMT, et al.Endorsing sustainable development in BRICS: the role of technological innovation, renewable energy consumption, and natural resources in limiting carbon emission. Sci Total Environ2023a; 859: 160181.
7.
KartalMTPataUKDeprenSK,et al.Effects of possible changes in natural gas, nuclear, and coal energy consumption on CO2 emissions: evidence from France under Russia’s gas supply cuts by dynamic ARDL simulations approach. Appl Energy2023a; 339: 120983.
8.
SharifAKartalMTBekunFV, et al.Role of green technology, environmental taxes, and green energy towards sustainable environment: insights from sovereign Nordic countries by CS-ARDL approach. Gondwana Res2023; 117: 194–206.
9.
BelloMOErdoganSCh’NgKS. On the convergence of ecological footprint in African countries: new evidences from panel stationarity tests with factors and gradual shifts. J Environ Manag2022; 322: 116061.
10.
AdebayoTSKartalMTAğaM,et al.Role of country risks and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: evidence from MINT countries. J Environ Manag2023b; 327: 116884.
11.
PataUKKartalMTErdoganS,et al.The role of renewable and nuclear energy R&D expenditures and income on environmental quality in Germany: scrutinizing the EKC and LCC hypotheses with smooth structural changes. Appl Energy2023b; 342: 121138.
12.
UllahSLuoRAdebayoTS,et al.Paving the ways toward sustainable development: the asymmetric effect of economic complexity, renewable electricity, and foreign direct investment on the environmental sustainability in BRICS-T. Environ Dev Sustain2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03085-4
13.
KartalMTSamourAAdebayoTS,et al.Do nuclear energy and renewable energy surge environmental quality in the United States? New insights from novel bootstrap Fourier Granger causality in quantiles approach. Prog Nucl Energy2023b; 155: 104509.
BekhetHAMatarAYasminT. CO2 Emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, and financial development in GCC countries: dynamic simultaneous equation models. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 70: 117–132.
16.
MahmoodH. The effects of natural gas and oil consumption on CO2 emissions in GCC countries: asymmetry analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 57980–57996.
17.
MahmoodHAsadovATanveerM, et al.Impact of oil price, economic growth and urbanization on CO2 emissions in GCC countries: asymmetry analysis. Sustainability2022; 14: 4562.
18.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. National Bureau of Economic Research, No. 3914, 1991.
19.
NurgazinaZGuoQAliU, et al.Retesting the influences on CO2 emissions in China: evidence from dynamic ARDL approach. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 868740.
20.
AyhanFKartalMTKılıç DeprenS,et al.Asymmetric effect of economic policy uncertainty, political stability, energy consumption, and economic growth on CO2 emissions: evidence from G-7 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 47422–47437.
21.
PataUKKartalMTDamMM,et al.Navigating the impact of renewable energy, trade openness, income, and globalization on load capacity factor: the case of Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries. Int J Energy Res2023c: 6828781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6828781
22.
WangQZhangFLiR. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in 208 counties: the roles of trade openness, human capital, renewable energy and natural resource rent. Environ Res2023; 216: 114637.
KartalMT. The role of consumption of energy, fossil sources, nuclear energy, and renewable energy on environmental degradation in top-five carbon producing countries. Renew Energy2022; 184: 871–880.
25.
LiRWangXWangQ. Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. J Cleaner Prod2022; 346: 131207.
26.
PataUKKartalMTAdebayoTS,et al.Enhancing environmental quality in the United States by linking biomass energy consumption and load capacity factor. Geosci Front2023d; 14: 101531.
27.
KartalMT. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on oil prices: evidence from Turkey. Energy Res Lett2020; 1: 1–4.
28.
SreenuN. Impact of FDI, crude oil price and economic growth on CO2 emission in India:-symmetric and asymmetric analysis through ARDL and non-linear ARDL approach. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 42452–42465.
29.
JoofFSamourAAliM, et al.Symmetric and asymmetric effects of gold, and oil price on environment: the role of clean energy in China. Resour Policy2023; 81: 103443.
30.
AdebayoTSKartalMT. Effect of green bonds, oil prices, and COVID-19 on industrial CO2 emissions in the USA: evidence from novel wavelet local multiple correlation approach. Energy Environ2023: 0958305X231167463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231167463
31.
XiePGongNSunF, et al.What factors contribute to the extent of decoupling economic growth and energy carbon emissions in China?Energy Policy2023; 173: 113416.
32.
RitiJSShuYRitiMKJ. Geopolitical risk and environmental degradation in BRICS: aggregation bias and policy inference. Energy Policy2022; 166: 113010.
33.
MaWNasriddinovFHaseebM, et al.Revisiting the impact of energy consumption, foreign direct investment, and geopolitical risk on CO2 emissions: comparing developed and developing countries. Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 1615.
34.
WangKHKanJMJiangCF,et al.Is geopolitical risk powerful enough to affect carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence from China. Sustainability2022; 14: 7867.
35.
DuYWangW. The role of green financing, agriculture development, geopolitical risk, and natural resource on environmental pollution in China. Resour Policy2023; 82: 103440.
36.
LiZ. Do geopolitical risk, green finance, and the rule of law affect the sustainable environment in China? Findings from the BARDL approach. Resour Policy2023; 81: 103403.
37.
PataUKKartalMTZafarMW. Environmental reverberations of geopolitical risk and economic policy uncertainty resulting from the Russia-Ukraine conflict: a wavelet based approach for sectoral CO2 emissions. Environ Res2023e; 231P1: 116034.
38.
PataUKErtuğrulHM. Do the Kyoto Protocol, geopolitical risks, human capital and natural resources affect the sustainability limit? A new environmental approach based on the LCC hypothesis. Resour Policy2023; 81: 103352.
39.
PRSG. Data of country risk. Obtained from the PRS Group via e-mail on 12 May, 2023, 2023.
40.
VuTVHuangDC. Economic development, globalization, political risk and CO2 emission: the case of Vietnam. J Asian Finance Econ Bus2020; 7: 21–31.
41.
ZhangWChiuYB. Do country risks influence carbon dioxide emissions? A nonlinear perspective. Energy2020; 206: 118048.
42.
AdebayoTS. Renewable energy consumption and environmental sustainability in Canada: does political stability make a difference?Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 61307–61322.
43.
AwosusiAAAdebayoTSKirikkaleliD,et al.Role of technological innovation and globalization in BRICS economies: policy towards environmental sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2022; 29: 593–610.
44.
KartalMTKılıç DeprenSKirikkaleliD, et al.Asymmetric and long-run impact of political stability on consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions in Finland: evidence from nonlinear and Fourier-based approaches. J Environ Manag2022; 321: 116043.
45.
SohailMTMajeedMTShaikhPA,et al.Environmental costs of political instability in Pakistan: policy options for clean energy consumption and environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 25184–25193.
46.
KartalMTKılıç DeprenSKirikkaleliD. Asymmetric effect of political stability on production-based CO2 emissions in the UK: long-run evidence from nonlinear ARDL and frequency domain causality. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023c; 30: 33886–33897.
47.
Kılıç DeprenSKartalMTKirikkaleliD,et al.Effect of political stability on environmental quality: long-run and asymmetric evidence from Iceland by non-linear approaches. Air Qual Atmos Health2023; 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-023-01351-y
48.
BalcılarMGuptaRPierdziochC. Does uncertainty move the gold price? New evidence from a nonparametric causality-in-quantiles test. Resour Policy2016; 49: 74–80.
49.
ShahbazMBalcılarMMahalikMK,et al.Is causality between globalization and energy consumption bidirectional or unidirectional in top and bottom globalized economies?Int J Finance Econ2023; 28: 939–1964.
50.
AliUGuoQNurgazinaZ, et al.Heterogeneous impact of industrialization, foreign direct investments, and technological innovation on carbon emissions intensity: evidence from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Appl Energy2023; 336: 120804.
51.
BhattacharyaMParamatiSRÖztürkİ,et al.The effect of renewable energy consumption on economic growth: evidence from top 38 countries. Appl Energy2016; 162: 733–741.
52.
KartalMTDeprenÖ. Asymmetric relationship between global and national factors and domestic food prices: evidence from Turkey with novel nonlinear approaches. Financ Innov2023; 9: 11.
53.
KartalMTErtuğrulHMTaşkınD,et al.Asymmetric nexus of coal consumption with environmental quality and economic growth: evidence from BRICS, E7, and Fragile Five countries by novel quantile approaches. Energy Environ2023d: 0958305X231151675. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231151675
54.
SharifABhattacharyaMAfshanS,et al.Disaggregated renewable energy sources in mitigating CO2 emissions: new evidence from the USA using quantile regressions. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 57582–57601.
BroockWAScheinkmanJADechertWD,et al.A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econom Rev1996; 15: 197–235.
59.
SimNZhouH. Oil prices, US stock return, and the dependence between their quantiles. J Bank Financ2015; 55: –8.
60.
TrosterV. Testing for Granger-causality in quantiles. Econom Rev2018; 37: 850–866.
61.
KoenkerR. Quantile regression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
