Consistent with the increasing awareness of environmental problems, countries have applied various measures to combat climate change by preventing environmental degradation of the environment. In this context, a set of measures in different areas and sectors have been taken. Although it is possible to consider each of them, instead, using a more comprehensive index, such as the Environmental Policy Stringency Index, can be appropriate in examining the effects of environmental measures in curbing emissions. Accordingly, this research examines the effect of Environmental Policy Stringency Index on sectoral carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the European Union Five countries (namely, Germany, Spain, France, United Kingdom, and Italy) by using data for the period 1990/Q2-2020/Q4, performing novel quantile-based approaches. The outcomes show that at higher quantiles, Environmental Policy Stringency Index provides (a) a decrease in building sector CO2 emissions in France, the United Kingdom, and Italy; (b) a decline in industrial combustion sector CO2 emissions in France and Italy; (c) a curb power sector CO2 emissions in Germany, Spain, and France; (d) a decrease in transport sector CO2 emission in Germany and France; (e) there are causalities from Environmental Policy Stringency Index to sectoral CO2 emissions across quantiles except for some ones; (f) the outcomes are verified as robust. The outcomes prove the differentiating effects of Environmental Policy Stringency Index across sectors under the empirical examinations, quantiles, and countries. Thus, the study discusses various policy endeavors, such as consideration of the varying structure of environmental measures, application of nonlinear approaches, and focusing on some sectors to go fast in curbing sectoral CO2 emissions.
KartalMT. Quantile-Based Impact of Environmental Tax in Ensuring Environmental Quality: Comprehensive Evidence from G7 Countries by Novel Load Capacity Factor Indicator. J Cleaner Prod2024a; 140874.
2.
KraftJKraftA. On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energy Dev1978: 401–403.
3.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper, No. 3914. 1991.
4.
WangQRenFLiR. Exploring the impact of geopolitics on the environmental Kuznets curve research. Sustain Dev2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2743
5.
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 Res2023; 6828781.
6.
UlusseverTKartalMTKılıç DeprenS. Effect of income, energy consumption, energy prices, political stability, and geopolitical risk on the environment: Evidence from GCC countries by novel quantile-based methods. Energy Environ2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X231190351
7.
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 Res2023a; 30: 33886–33897.
8.
LiRWangQLiL,et al.Do natural resource rent and corruption governance reshape the environmental Kuznets curve for ecological footprint? Evidence from 158 countries. Resour Policy2023a; 85: 103890.
9.
WangQWangLLiR. Trade openness helps move towards carbon neutrality-insight from 114 countries. Sustain Dev2024a; 32: 1081–1095.
10.
WangQWangXLiR. The impact of globalization on the decoupling of water consumption and economic growth in BRICS and N11 countries—Linear and nonlinear approaches. Sustain Dev2024b; 32: 755–776.
11.
WangQZhangFLiR. Free trade and carbon emissions revisited: the asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness. Sustain Dev2024c; 32: 876–901.
12.
ChangYCWangN. Environmental regulations and emissions trading in China. Energy Policy2010; 38: 3356–3364.
13.
NevesSAMarquesACPatrícioM. Determinants of CO2 emissions in European union countries: does environmental regulation reduce environmental pollution?Econ Anal Policy2020; 68: 114–125.
14.
AlbulescuCTBoatca-BarabasMEDiaconescuA. The asymmetric effect of environmental policy stringency on CO2 emissions in OECD countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 27311–27327.
15.
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.
16.
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.
17.
KartalMT. Quantile-based effect of energy, transport, and total environmental tax on ecological footprint in EU5 countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res2024b. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-32214-3
18.
BottaEKoźlukT. Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: A composite index approach. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No: 1177. 2014.
19.
KruseTDechezleprêtreASaffarR,et al.Measuring environmental policy stringency in OECD countries: An update of the OECD composite EPS indicator. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No: 1703. 2022.
20.
WangKYanMWangY,et al.The impact of environmental policy stringency on air quality. Atmos Environ2020; 231: 117522.
21.
ChuLKTranTH. The nexus between environmental regulation and ecological footprint in OECD countries: empirical evidence using panel quantile regression. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 29: 49700–49723.
22.
FrohmED'ArcangeloFMKruseT, et al.Environmental policy stringency and CO2 emissions: Evidence from cross country sector-level data. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1773. 2023.
23.
SezginFHBayarYHertaL,et al.Do environmental stringency policies and human development reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from G7 and BRICS economies. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 6727.
24.
UdeaghaMCMuchapondwaE. Achieving green environment in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa economies: do composite risk index, green innovation, and environmental policy stringency matter?Sustain Dev2023; 31: 3468–3489.
25.
UdeaghaMCNgepahN. Achieving decarbonization goals in BRICS economies: revisiting the joint role of composite risk index, green innovation, and environmental policy stringency. Cogent Socl Sci2023; 9: 2234230.
26.
AhmedKAhmedS. A predictive analysis of CO2 emissions, environmental policy stringency, and economic growth in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2018; 25: 16091–16100.
27.
YirongQ. Does environmental policy stringency reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from high-polluted economies. J Cleaner Prod2022; 341: 130648.
28.
Wolde-RufaelYMulat-WeldemeskelE. Environmental policy stringency, renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions: panel cointegration analysis for BRIICTS countries. Int J Green Energy2020; 17: 568–582.
29.
SarkodieSA. Failure to control economic sectoral inefficiencies through policy stringency disrupts environmental performance. Sci Total Environ2021; 772: 145603.
30.
Wolde-RufaelYMulat-WeldemeskelE. Do environmental taxes and environmental stringency policies reduce CO2 emissions? Evidence from 7 emerging economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 22392–22408.
31.
LiMZaidanAMAgeliMM, et al.Natural resources, environmental policies and renewable energy resources for production-based emissions: OECD economies evidence. Resources Policy2023b; 86: 104096.
KartalMTPataUKKılıç DeprenS,et al.Time, frequency, and quantile-based impacts of disaggregated electricity generation on carbon neutrality: evidence from leading European union countries. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2024a; 31: 89–107.
36.
KartalMTPataUKAlolaAA. Renewable electricity generation and carbon emissions in leading European countries: daily-based disaggregate evidence by nonlinear approaches. Energy Strat Rev2024b; 51: 101300.
37.
BroockWAScheinkmanJADechertWD,et al.A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econom Rev1996; 15: 197–235.
38.
SimNZhouH. Oil prices, US stock return, and the dependence between their quantiles. J Bank Financ2015; 55: 1–8.
39.
TrosterV. Testing for Granger-causality in quantiles. Econom Rev2018; 37: 850–866.
PataUKKartalMTErdoganS. Ecological effects of distinct patents on reducing waste-related greenhouse gas emissions in BRIC countries: evidence from novel quantile methods. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2301375
42.
KartalMTPataUKDeprenÖ,et al.Effectiveness of nuclear and renewable electricity generation on CO2 emissions: Daily-based analysis for the major nuclear power generating countries. J Cleaner Prod2023b; 139121.
43.
UllahSLuoRAdebayoTS,et al.Dynamics between environmental taxes and ecological sustainability: evidence from top-seven green economies by novel quantile approaches. Sustain Dev2023; 31: 825–839.
