The intersection of geopolitical instability and environmental degradation presents substantial challenges for sustainable development. While existing literature primarily focuses on the direct effects of geopolitical instability on environmental degradation, it often overlooks the mitigating potential of technological advancements and structural changes. This study explores the crucial roles of artificial intelligence (AI) and energy transition (ET) in diminishing the environmental impacts exacerbated by geopolitical risk (GPR). Using advanced econometric models, this research analyzes data from 33 countries to elucidate the complex dynamics involved. The findings show that (1) There is always a facilitating relationship between GPR and environmental degradation, and when the environmental degradation quantile is high, the facilitating relationship decreases with the increase of the quantile. (2) Both AI and the ET have negative moderating effects on the relationship between GPR and environmental degradation. (3) There is a single threshold effect for both AI and ET, and the effect of the GPR index on per capita ecological footprint (EF) turns from positive to negative as AI increases. When ET is the threshold variable, GPR has an effect on the EF only at higher levels of the ET, and it has a dampening effect. Targeted policy recommendations will be provided in response to these findings.
AdediranIASwarayR. Carbon trading amidst global uncertainty: the role of policy and geopolitical uncertainty. Econ Model2023; 123: 106279.
2.
CamposRGEstefania-FloresJFurceriD, et al.Geopolitical fragmentation and trade. J Comp Econ2023; 51: 1289–1315.
3.
AizenmanJLindahlRStenvallD, et al.Geopolitical shocks and commodity market dynamics: new evidence from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Eur J Polit Econ2024; 85: 102574.
4.
JawadiFRozinPGnegneY, et al.Geopolitical risks and business fluctuations in Europe: a sectorial analysis. Eur J Polit Econ2024; 85: 102585.
5.
LiuJShenW. Financial instability in Europe: does geopolitical risk from proximate countries and trading partners matter?Fin Res Lett2024; 66: 105657.
6.
ChenLGozgorGMahalikMK, et al.How does geopolitical risk affect CO2 emissions? The role of natural resource rents. Res Pol2023; 87: 104321.
7.
FengYSabirSAQuddusA, et al.Do the grey clouds of geopolitical risk and political globalization exacerbate environmental degradation? Evidence from resource-rich countries. Res Pol2024; 89: 104533.
8.
HunjraAIHassanMKZaiedYB, et al.Nexus between green finance, environmental degradation, and sustainable development: evidence from developing countries. Res Pol2023; 81: 103371.
9.
StepanovaDYousifNBAKarlibaevaR, et al.Current analysis of cryptocurrency mining industry. J Infras Pol Devel2024; 8: 4803.
10.
GokmenogluKKTaspinarNRahmanMM. Military expenditure, financial development and environmental degradation in Turkey: a comparison of CO2 emissions and ecological footprint. Int J Fin Econom2020; 26: 986–997.
11.
VillanthenkodathMAPalS. Environmental degradation in geopolitical risk and uncertainty contexts for India: a comparison of ecological footprint, CO2 emissions, and load capacity factor. Energy Clim Chang2024: 100122. 10.1016/j.egycc.2023.100122.
12.
MaXYuTJiangQ. Does geopolitical risk matter in carbon and crude oil markets from a multi-timescale perspective?J Environ Manag2023; 346: 119021.
13.
LiRWangQGuoJ. Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis of carbon emissions: exploring the impact of geopolitical risks, natural resource rents, corrupt governance, and energy intensity. J Environ Manag2024; 351: 119663.
14.
CouldryNMejiasUA. Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Telev New Media2018; 20: 336–349.
15.
BurtonJ. Algorithmic extremism? The securitization of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on radicalism, polarization and political violence. Technol Soc2023; 75: 102262.
16.
ZhouYZhengSZhangG. Machine-learning based study on the on-site renewable electrical performance of an optimal hybrid PCMs integrated renewable system with high-level parameters’ uncertainties. Ren Energy2020; 151: 403–418.
17.
ZhouY. Energy sharing and trading on a novel spatiotemporal energy network in Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay area. Appl Energy2022; 318: 119131.
18.
ZhouY. Transition towards carbon-neutral districts based on storage techniques and spatiotemporal energy sharing with electrification and hydrogenation. Ren Sust Energy Rev2022; 162: 112444.
19.
LiuFSuCWQinM, et al.Winner or loser? The bidirectional impact between geopolitical risk and energy transition from the renewable energy perspective. Energy2023; 283: 129174.
20.
WangM-CChangTMikhaylovA, et al.A measure of quantile-on-quantile connectedness for the US treasury yield curve spread, the US dollar, and gold price. North Am J Econ Fin2024; 74: 102232.
21.
QayyumUAnjumSSaminaS. Armed conflict, militarization and ecological footprint: empirical evidence from South Asia. J Cleaner Prod2021; 281: 125299.
22.
BildiriciMGokmenogluSM. The impact of terrorism and FDI on environmental pollution: evidence from Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Syria, Somalia, Thailand and Yemen. Environ Impact Assess Rev2020; 81: 106340.
23.
KılıçCSoyyiğitSBayarY, et al.Exploration on terrorism, ecological footprint and environmental sustainability in countries with the most terrorism antecedent: accessing evidence from panel Fourier analysis. Heliyon2024; 10: e22849.
24.
WangZYCZhangB, et al.Environmental degradation, renewable energy, and economic growth nexus: assessing the role of financial and political risks?J Environ Manag2023; 325: 116678.
25.
Korkut PataUYilanciVHussainB, et al.Analyzing the role of income inequality and political stability in environmental degradation: evidence from South Asia. Gondwana Res2022; 107: 13–29.
26.
BildiriciME. The effects of militarization on biofuel consumption and CO2 emission. J Cleaner Prod2017; 152: 420–428.
27.
SafiAChenYZhengL. The impact of energy productivity and eco-innovation on sustainable environment in emerging seven (E-7) countries: Does institutional quality matter?Front Public Health2022; 10: 878243.
28.
GongXXuJ. Geopolitical risk and dynamic connectedness between commodity markets. Energy Economics2022; 110: 106028.
29.
WangFWangRHeZ. The impact of environmental pollution and green finance on the high-quality development of energy based on spatial Dubin model. Res Policy2021; 74: 102451.
30.
AnserMKSyedQRLeanHH, et al.Do economic policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk lead to environmental degradation?Evi Emerg Econ2021; 13: 5866.
31.
WhyteJ. Cybersecurity, race, and the politics of truth. Sec Dial2022; 53: 342–362.
32.
LiYZhangYPanA, et al.Carbon emission reduction effects of industrial robot applications: heterogeneity characteristics and influencing mechanisms. Technol Soc2022; 70: 102034.
33.
ZhongM-RCaoM-YZouH. The carbon reduction effect of ICT: a perspective of factor substitution. Technol Forecast Soc Change2022; 181: 121754.
34.
SorrellSDimitropoulosJ. The rebound effect: microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions. Ecol Econ2008; 65: 636–649.
35.
ZhangXZhuH. The impact of industrial intelligence on carbon emissions: evidence from the three largest economies. Sustainability2023; 15: 6316.
36.
AhmadMJiangPMajeedA, et al.The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: an advanced panel data estimation. Res Pol2020; 69: 101817.
37.
KangHLiLFengJ. Are natural resources a hindrance to ecological footprint? Mineral rents, energy production, and consumption positions. Res Pol2023; 86: 104048.
38.
QingLUsmanMRadulescuM, et al.Towards the vision of going green in South Asian region: the role of technological innovations, renewable energy and natural resources in ecological footprint during globalization mode. Res Pol2024; 88: 104506.
39.
HussainMWangWWangY. Natural resources, consumer prices and financial development in China: measures to control carbon emissions and ecological footprints. Res Pol2022; 78: 102880.
40.
ZhouYAdebayoTSYinW, et al.The co-movements among renewable energy, total environmental tax, and ecological footprint in the United Kingdom: evidence from wavelet local multiple correlation analysis. Energy Econ2023; 126: 106900.
41.
LiRWangQLiL. Does renewable energy reduce per capita carbon emissions and per capita ecological footprint? New evidence from 130 countries. Ener Strat Rev2023; 49: 101121.
42.
WangSWangJWangW. Do geopolitical risks facilitate the global energy transition? Evidence from 39 countries in the world. Res Pol2023; 85: 103952.
43.
HilleE. Europe's energy crisis: are geopolitical risks in source countries of fossil fuels accelerating the transition to renewable energy?Energy Econ2023; 127: 107061.
44.
WangQZhangCLiR. Impact of different geopolitical factors on the energy transition: the role of geopolitical threats, geopolitical acts, and geopolitical risks. J Environ Manag2024; 352: 119962.
45.
ChishtiMZSinhaAZamanU, et al.Exploring the dynamic connectedness among energy transition and its drivers: understanding the moderating role of global geopolitical risk. Energy Econom2023; 119: 106570.
46.
SolokhaMPereiraPSymochkoL, et al.Russian-Ukrainian war impacts on the environment. Evidence from the field on soil properties and remote sensing. Sci Total Environ2023; 902: 166122.
47.
FilhoWLFedorukMPaulino Pires EustachioJH, et al.The environment as the first victim: the impacts of the war on the preservation areas in Ukraine. J Environ Manag2024; 364: 121399.
48.
BashirMFShahbazMMalikMN, et al.Energy transition, natural resource consumption and environmental degradation: the role of geopolitical risk in sustainable development. Res Pol2023; 85: 103985.
49.
ZhaoWZhongRSohailS, et al.Geopolitical risks, energy consumption, and CO2 emissions in BRICS: an asymmetric analysis. Env Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 39668–39679.
50.
LiuFChenHZhangS. Nexus among corruption, political instability and natural resources on economic recovery in Vietnam. Res Pol2023; 85: 103743.
51.
ApergisNFahmyH. Geopolitical risk and energy price crash risk. Energy Econ2024; 140: 107975.
52.
KreuzerTPapapetrouPZdravkovicJ. Artificial intelligence in digital twins—A systematic literature review. Data Knowl Eng2024; 151: 102304.
53.
WangQZhangFLiR. Artificial intelligence and sustainable development during urbanization: perspectives on AI R&D innovation, AI infrastructure, and AI market advantage. Sust Develop2025; 33(1): 1136–1156.
54.
ZhouPGaoSLvY, et al.Energy transition management towards a low-carbon world. Front Eng Manag2022; 9: 499–503.
55.
FuYShenYSongM, et al.Does artificial intelligence reduce corporate energy consumption? New evidence from China. Econ Anal Policy2024; 83: 548–561.
56.
ZhouWZhuangYChenY. How does artificial intelligence affect pollutant emissions by improving energy efficiency and developing green technology. Energy Econ2024; 131: 107355.
57.
ZhaoCWangJDongK, et al.Is renewable energy technology innovation an excellent strategy for reducing climate risk? The case of China. Renew Energ2024; 223: 120042.
58.
ZhuSWasif ZafarMUsmanM, et al.Internalizing negative environmental externalities through environmental technologies: the contribution of renewable energy in OECD countries. Sust Energy Technol Assessm2024; 64: 103726.
59.
CorriganCCIkonnikovaSA. A review of the use of AI in the mining industry: insights and ethical considerations for multi-objective optimization. ExtractIndust Societ2024; 17: 101440.
60.
GhaffarianSTaghikhahFRMaierHR. Explainable artificial intelligence in disaster risk management: achievements and prospective futures. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct2023; 98: 104123.
61.
NishantRKennedyMCorbettJ. Artificial intelligence for sustainability: challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda. Int J Inf Manage2020; 53: 102104.
62.
UllahSLinB. Natural resources, renewable energy-environment nexus for Pakistan: a policy perspective. Res Pol2024; 90: 104788.
63.
AnsariMAASajidMKhanSN, et al.Unveiling the effect of renewable energy and financial inclusion towards sustainable environment: does interaction of digital finance and institutional quality matter?Sust Futures2024; 7: 100196.
64.
HakeJ-FFischerWVenghausS, et al.The German Energiewende – history and status quo. Energy2015; 92: 532–546.
65.
Keramati Feyz AbadiMMLiuCZhangM, et al.Leveraging AI for energy-efficient manufacturing systems: review and future prospectives. J Manuf Syst2025; 78: 153–177.
66.
HouWPanXPuY, et al.Harnessing artificial intelligence for energy strategies: advancing global economic policies and hydrogen production in the transition to a low-carbon economy. Energy Strat Rev2024; 56: 101568.
67.
LiRWangQLiuY, et al.Per-capita carbon emissions in 147 countries: the effect of economic, energy, social, and trade structural changes. Sust Prod Consum2021; 27: 1149–1164.
68.
PedroniP. Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2001.
69.
Hamit-HaggarM. Greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: a panel cointegration analysis from Canadian industrial sector perspective. Energy Econ2012; 34: 358–364.
70.
HansenBE. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: estimation, testing, and inference. J Econom1999; 93: 345–368.
71.
LiRWangXWangQ. Does renewable energy reduce ecological footprint at the expense of economic growth? An empirical analysis of 120 countries. J Cleaner Prod2022; 346: 131207.
72.
CaldaraDIacovielloM. Measuring geopolitical risk. Am Econ Rev2022; 112: 1194–1225.
73.
DongZTanCMaB, et al.The impact of artificial intelligence on the energy transition: the role of regulatory quality as a guardrail, not a wall. Energy Econom2024; 140: 107988.
74.
WangQLiYLiR. Ecological footprints, carbon emissions, and energy transitions: the impact of artificial intelligence (AI). Human Soc Sci Comm2024; 11: 1043.
75.
MengjunWANGJCDaHUYuqingHU, et al.AI-based robots in industrialized building manufacturing. Front Eng2025; 12: 59–85. 10.1007/s42524-025-4099-x
76.
AhmadMAhmedZAlvaradoR, et al.Financial development, resource richness, eco-innovation, and sustainable development: does geopolitical risk matter?J Environ Manag2024; 351: 119824.
77.
NguyenDTLeTHDoDD, et al.Does geopolitical risk hinder sustainable development goals? Evidence from a panel analysis. J Environ Manag2023; 347: 119204.
78.
ChuLKTruongHHDHoangDP. The varying impact of financial development on the environmental footprint due to geopolitical risk: the difference between high- and middle-income countries. Borsa Istanbul Rev2023; 23: 1333–1355.
79.
ChuLK. The role of energy security and economic complexity in renewable energy development: evidence from G7 countries. Env Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 56073–56093.
80.
JiaoYXiaoXBaoX. Economic policy uncertainty, geopolitical risks, energy output and ecological footprint—empirical evidence from China. Energy Rep2022; 8: 324–334.
81.
WangQZhangFLiR, et al.Does artificial intelligence promote energy transition and curb carbon emissions? The role of trade openness. J Cleaner Prod2024; 447: 141298.
82.
LeeC-CYanJ. Will artificial intelligence make energy cleaner? Evidence of nonlinearity. Appl Energy2024; 363: 123081.
83.
LiSRHuKWKangXQ. Impact of financial technologies, digitalization, and natural resources on environmental degradation in G-20 countries: does human resources matter?Res Pol2024; 93: 105041.
84.
BashirMFShahbazMMalikMN, et al.Energy transition, natural resource consumption and environmental degradation: the role of geopolitical risk in sustainable development. Res Pol2023; 85: 103985.
85.
SalmanMWangGQinL, et al.G20 roadmap for carbon neutrality: the role of Paris agreement, artificial intelligence, and energy transition in changing geopolitical landscape. J Environ Manag2024; 367: 122080.
86.
SuC-WKhanKUmarM, et al.Does renewable energy redefine geopolitical risks?Energy Policy2021; 158: 112566.
87.
JinXYuW. Information and communication technology and carbon emissions in China: the rebound effect of energy intensive industry. Sust Prod Consumpt2022; 32: 731–742.
88.
YangCChanDY-T. Geopolitical risks of strategic decoupling and recoupling in the mobile phone production shift from China to Vietnam: evidence from the Sino-US trade war and COVID-19 pandemic. Appl Geog2023; 158: 103028.
89.
ChenYChengLLeeC-C. How does the use of industrial robots affect the ecological footprint? International evidence. Ecol Econ2022; 198: 107483.
90.
FengCYeXLiJ, et al.How does artificial intelligence affect the transformation of China's green economic growth? An analysis from internal-structure perspective. J Environ Manag2024; 351: 119923.
