Amid the world's pursuit of environmental responsibility, strategic investments in wind energy technology reveal a powerful synergy, illuminating the path toward a greener and more sustainable future. This research explores the asymmetric association between wind energy technology budgets and ecological footprint in ten leading nations that invest the most in wind energy R&D (USA, China, Italy, UK, Brazil, France, India, Spain, Canada, and Germany). Prior investigations utilized panel data approaches to probe the wind energy technology-environment nexus without accounting for the specific qualities of various economies. Contrarily, the current research adopts the Quantile-on-Quantile methodology to appraise this relationship individually for every nation. This unique approach improves the exactness of our estimation, delivering a holistic global viewpoint while delivering customized perceptions for every particular economy. The annual data for the economies extends between 2000 and 2023. The findings indicate that dedicating resources to wind energy technology improves environmental quality by reducing the ecological footprint across several quantiles in selected counties. Furthermore, the findings highlight the diverse behaviors of these linkages in sample economies. These results underline the significance of policymakers performing exhaustive appraisals and executing efficient measures to allocate wind energy technology budgets for ecological sustainability.
Highlights
The study analyzes wind energy technology-ecological footprint nexus.
A unique methodology, “Quantile-on-Quantile (QQ),” is used.
Wind energy technology reduces ecological footprint.
AhmadMAhmedZGavurovaB, et al.Financial risk, renewable energy technology budgets, and environmental sustainability: is going green possible?Front Environ Sci2022; 10: 909190.
2.
UsmanMMakhdumMSA. What abates ecological footprint in BRICS-T region? Exploring the influence of renewable energy, non-renewable energy, agriculture, forest area and financial development. Renew. Energy2021; 179: 12–28.
3.
UsmanMRadulescuM. Examining the role of nuclear and renewable energy in reducing carbon footprint: does the role of technological innovation really create some difference?Sci Total Environ2022; 841: 156662.
4.
YangXLiNMuH, et al.Population aging, renewable energy budgets and environmental sustainability: does health expenditures matter?Gondwana Res2022; 106: 303–314.
5.
BekhetHAOthmanNS. The role of renewable energy to validate dynamic interaction between CO2 emissions and GDP toward sustainable development in Malaysia. Energy Econ2018; 72: 47–61.
6.
LuWC. Renewable energy, carbon emissions, and economic growth in 24 Asian countries: evidence from panel cointegration analysis. Environ Sci Poll Res2017; 24: 26006–26015.
7.
ZhangMAdebayoTSAwosusiAA, et al.Toward sustainable environment in Italy: the role of trade globalization, human capital, and renewable energy consumption. Energy Environ2024; 35: 2058–2086.
8.
SharmaRSinhaAKautishP. Does renewable energy consumption reduce ecological footprint? Evidence from eight developing countries of Asia. J Cleaner Prod2021; 285: 124867.
9.
SaqibN. Asymmetric linkages between renewable energy, technological innovation, and carbon-dioxide emission in developed economies: non-linear ARDL analysis. Environ Sci Poll Res2022; 29: 60744–60758.
10.
YuJTangYMChauKY, et al.Role of solar-based renewable energy in mitigating CO2 emissions: evidence from quantile-on-quantile estimation. Renew. Energy2022; 182: 216–226.
11.
AlolaAAAdebayoTSOnifadeST. Examining the dynamics of ecological footprint in China with spectral granger causality and quantile-on-quantile approaches. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol2022; 29: 263–276.
12.
BélaïdFYoussefM. Environmental degradation, renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption, and economic growth: assessing the evidence from Algeria. Energy Policy2017; 102: 277–287.
13.
SahuBKHiloidhariMBaruahDC. Global trend in wind power with special focus on the top five wind power producing countries. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2013; 19: 348–359.
14.
KoçakEUlucakZŞ. The effect of energy R&D expenditures on CO 2 emission reduction: estimation of the STIRPAT model for OECD countries. Environ Sci Poll Res2019; 26: 14328–14338.
15.
ChenMHuangWAliS. Asymmetric linkages between wind energy and ecological sustainability: evidence from quantile estimation. Environ Dev2023; 45: 100798.
16.
PaoHTTsaiCM. Modeling and forecasting the CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in Brazil. Energy2011; 36: 2450–2458.
17.
ZakariAKhanITawiahV, et al.Reviewing the ecological footprints of Africa top carbon consumer: a quantile on quantile analysis. Int J Environ Sci Technol2022; 19: 11475–11486.
18.
Al-MulaliUSabooriBOzturkI. Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy2015; 76: 123–131.
19.
LeeWHHusainiDHLeanHH. Beyond the threshold: understanding the asymmetric effects of renewable energy on CO2 emissions. Energy Environ2024; 19: 0958305X241293729.
20.
GrossmanGMKruegerAB. Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ1995; 110: 353–377.
21.
GhazalRKarimiMSKhezriM, et al.Unraveling the environmental Kuznets curve: the influence of economic diversity, energy efficiency, and industrial dynamics on carbon emissions in developing economies. Energy Environ2024; 10: 0958305X241279948.
22.
BergekAJacobssonSCarlssonB, et al.Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res Policy2008; 37: 407–429.
23.
BentoNFontesM. Emergence of floating offshore wind energy: technology and industry. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2019; 99: 66–82.
24.
MolAPSpaargarenG. Ecological modernization theory in debate: a review. Env Polit2000; 9: 17–49.
RazzaqASharifAOzturkI, et al.Asymmetric influence of digital finance, and renewable energy technology innovation on green growth in China. Renew. Energy2023; 202: 310–319.
27.
ZhangYGallagherKS. Innovation and cost reduction for wind and solar energy in the global energy transition: a strategic resource perspective. Nat Energy2022; 7: 82–92.
28.
KhanraSKaurPJosephRP, et al.A resource-based view of green innovation as a strategic firm resource: present status and future directions. Business Strat Environ2022; 31: 1395–1413.
29.
CaglarAE. Can nuclear energy technology budgets pave the way for a transition toward low-carbon economy: insights from the United Kingdom. Sustain Dev2023; 31: 198–210.
30.
MagazzinoCMeleMSchneiderN. A machine learning approach on the relationship among solar and wind energy production, coal consumption, GDP, and CO2 emissions. Renew. Energy2021; 167: 99–115.
31.
SarkodieSAAdamsS. Renewable energy, nuclear energy, and environmental pollution: accounting for political institutional quality in South Africa. Sci Total Environ2018; 643: 1590–1601.
32.
PataUKKartalMTMukhtarovS, et al.Do energy and geopolitical risks influence environmental quality? A quantile-based load capacity factor assessment for fragile countries. Energy Strat Rev2024; 53: 101430.
33.
MeleMMagazzinoCSchneiderN, et al.Revisiting the dynamic interactions between economic growth and environmental pollution in Italy: evidence from a gradient descent algorithm. Environ Sci Poll Res2021; 28: 52188–52201.
34.
KuşkayaSBilgiliF. The wind energy-greenhouse gas nexus: the wavelet-partial wavelet coherence model approach. J Cleaner Prod2020; 245: 118872.
35.
WackernagelMReesWE. Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: economics from an ecological footprint perspective. Ecol Econ1997; 20: 3–24.
36.
ZhangXXuLChenY, et al.Emergy-based ecological footprint analysis of a wind farm in China. Ecol Indic2020; 111: 106018.
37.
TrinhHH. Energy technology RD&D budgets, environmental sustainability, and energy transition: a review of emerging trends, policies, and pathways. Handbook of Smart Energy Systems2023; 15: 1–23.
SimNZhouH. Oil prices, US stock return, and the dependence between their quantiles. J Bank Financ2015; 55: –8.
41.
SharifAMishraSSinhaA, et al.The renewable energy consumption-environmental degradation nexus in top-10 polluted countries: fresh insights from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Renew. Energy2020; 150: 670–690.
42.
ClevelandWS. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc1979; 74: 829–836.
43.
ChuCKMarronJS. Choosing a kernel regression estimator. Stat Sci1991; 19: 404–419.
44.
HassanMSIqbalMArshedN. Distribution-based effects of disaggregated GDP and environmental quality—a case of quantile on quantile estimates. Environ Sci Poll Res2021; 28: 28081–28095.
45.
KimCJPerronP. Unit root tests with multiple structural changes. J Econom2009; 148: 599–621.
46.
BrockWADe LimaPJ. 11 Nonlinear time series, complexity theory, and finance. Handb Stat1996; 14: 317–361.
47.
DurbinJ.WatsonG. S. (1992). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. II. In: Breakthroughs in statistics: methodology and distribution. New York, NY: Springer New York, pp. 260–266.
48.
BreuschTS. Testing for autocorrelation in dynamic linear models. Aust Econ Pap1978; 17: 334–355.
49.
GodfreyLG. Testing for higher order serial correlation in regression equations when the regressors include lagged dependent variables. Econometrica1978; 46: 1303–1310.
50.
VinuthaH. P.PoornimaB.SagarB. M. (2018). Detection of outliers using interquartile range technique from intrusion dataset. In: Information and decision sciences: proceedings of the 6th international conference on ficta. Springer Singapore, pp. 511–518.
51.
WuKFuYKongD. Does the digital transformation of enterprises affect stock price crash risk?Finan Res Lett2022; 48: 102888.
52.
AbdallahMMohammadiBZarougMA, et al.Reference evapotranspiration estimation in hyper-arid regions via D-vine copula based-quantile regression and comparison with empirical approaches and machine learning models. J Hydrol: Reg Stud2022; 44: 101259.
