Exploring the interplay of financial development,renewable energy,and global climate agreements in carbon emission dynamics: Insights from BRICS economies
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Exploring the interplay of financial development,renewable energy,and global climate agreements in carbon emission dynamics: Insights from BRICS economies
This study addresses the critical gap in understanding why uniform climate policies falter in BRICS economies, where institutional and structural heterogeneities create nonlinear, context-dependent decarbonization pathways. We investigate how financial development (FDEV), renewable energy consumption (REC), and global climate agreements interact with political-economic dynamics to shape emissions trajectories. Employing a multi-country ARDL model (1990–2022) selected for its robustness in analyzing cointegration and dynamic policy impacts across diverse economies, we uncover divergent outcomes: FDEV reduces emissions in Russia (−0.28t) through state-aligned green financing but exacerbates them in China (+0.12t) due to provincial carbon-intensive investments, underscoring regulatory fragmentation. India's REC adoption inadvertently reinforces coal dependency (+0.14tCO₂E), revealing systemic bottlenecks like fossil subsidies and grid inefficiencies. The Paris Agreement drives incremental progress where climate goals align with development priorities (e.g., India's solar expansion), while Kyoto succeeded only in institutionally congruent contexts (e.g., Russia's Soviet-era reforms). These findings challenge one-size-fits-all climate governance, demonstrating that institutional coherence and adaptive frameworks, not rigidity, determine policy efficacy. Globally, it advocates asynchronous compliance mechanisms aligned with regional capacities, offering a replicable framework for emerging economies navigating growth-climate trade-offs. By centering institutional readiness and crisis-responsive design, this work redefines equitable decarbonization, transforming structural heterogeneities from barriers into catalysts for transition.
IqbalATangXRasoolSF. Investigating the nexus between CO2 emissions, renewable energy consumption, FDI, exports and economic growth: evidence from BRICS countries. Environ Dev Sustain2023; 25: 2234–2263.
2.
López-MenéndezAJPérezRMorenoB. Environmental costs and renewable energy: re-visiting the environmental Kuznets curve. J Environ Manag2014; 145: 368–373.
3.
CulasRJ. Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: an institutional perspective. Ecol Econ2007; 2: 429–437.
4.
DindaSCoondooDPalM. Air quality and economic growth: an empirical study. Ecol. Econ2000; 34: 409–e423.
5.
HarbaughWTLevinsonAWilsonDM. Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental Kuznets curve. Rev. Econ. Stat2002; 84: 541–e551.
6.
HusainSSohagKWuY. The responsiveness of renewable energy production to geopolitical risks, oil market instability and economic policy uncertainty: evidence from United States. J Environ Manag2024; 350: 119647.
7.
RasheedMQYuhuanZAhmedZ, et al.Information communication technology, economic growth, natural resources, and renewable energy production: evaluating the asymmetric and symmetric impacts of artificial intelligence in robotics and innovative economies. J Cleaner Prod2024; 447: 141466.
8.
Kilinc-AtaNLikhachevVL. Validation of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis and role of carbon emission policies in the case of Russian Federation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research2022; 29: 63407–63422.
9.
LiFWuYCWangMC, et al.Empirical study on CO2 emissions, financial development and economic growth of the BRICS countries. Energies2021; 14: 7341.
10.
NathanielSPIheonuCO. Carbon dioxide abatement in Africa: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. Sci Total Environ2019; 679: 337–345.
11.
LuthraSKumarSGargD, et al.Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2015; 41: 762–776.
12.
HerasAGuptaJ. Fossil fuels, stranded assets, and the energy transition in the global south: a systematic literature review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change2024; 15: e866.
13.
RauferRCoussyPFreemanC. Emissions trading. In: Handbook of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp.3237–3294. 10.1007/978-3-030-72579-2_8
14.
HoffmanJDaviesMBauwensT, et al.Working to align energy transitions and social equity: an integrative framework linking institutional work, imaginaries and energy justice.Energy Res Soc Sci2021; 82: 102317.
15.
LeTH. Connectedness between nonrenewable and renewable energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emission in Vietnam: new evidence from a wavelet analysis. Renew Energy2022; 195: 442–454.
16.
LiuPUr RahmanZJóźwikB, et al.Determining the environmental effect of Chinese FDI on the belt and road countries CO2 emissions: an EKC-based assessment in the context of pollution haven and halo hypotheses. Environ Sci Europe2024; 36: 1–48.
17.
RafindadiAAUsmanO. Globalization, energy use, and environmental degradation in South Africa: startling empirical evidence from the Maki-cointegration test. J Environ Manag2019; 244: 265–275.
18.
RafindadiAA. Does the need for economic growth influence energy consumption and CO2 emissions in Nigeria? Evidence from the innovation accounting test. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 62: 1209–1225.
19.
AlamMJBegumIABuysseJ, et al.Dynamic modeling of causal relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in India. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2011; 15: 3243–3251.
20.
ShaoSYangLYuM, et al.Estimation, characteristics, and determinants of energy-related industrial CO2 emissions in Shanghai (China), 1994–2009. Energy Policy2011; 39: 6476–6494.
21.
AwosusiAAAdebayoTSRjoubH, et al.How do financial development and renewable energy affect consumption-based carbon emissions?Math Comput Appl2022; 27: 73.
22.
KirikkaleliDGüngörHAdebayoTS. Consumption-based carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption, financial development and economic growth in Chile. Bus Strategy Environ2022; 31: 1123–1137.
23.
WangJChenW. Energy-consuming right transaction and low-carbon technology innovation: evidence from Chinese listed enterprises. Heliyon2024; 10: 17.
24.
RafindadiAAMika'IluAS. Sustainable energy consumption and capital formation: empirical evidence from the developed financial market of the United Kingdom. Sustainable Energy TechnolAssess2019; 35: 265–277.
25.
KashyapAKSharmaV. Regulatory reforms for structured green finance: exploring the case of international finance service centre, India. Int J Ecosyst Ecology Sci2022; 12: 4.
26.
SamourAAdebayoTSAgyekumEB, et al.Insights from BRICS-T economies on the impact of human capital and renewable electricity consumption on environmental quality. Sci Rep2023; 13: 5245.
27.
ViktorovIAbramovA. The rise of collateral-based finance under state capitalism in Russia. Post-Commun Econ2022; 34: 15–51.
28.
RafindadiAA. Econometric prediction on the effects of financial development and trade openness on the German energy consumption: a startling revelation from the data set. Int J Energy Econ Policy2015; 5: 182–196.
29.
RafindadiAAOzturkI. Impacts of renewable energy consumption on the German economic growth: evidence from combined cointegration test. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2017; 75: 1130–1141.
30.
KabeyiMJOlanrewajuOA. Sustainable energy transition for renewable and low carbon grid electricity generation and supply. Front Energy Res2022; 9: 743114.
31.
SinghMKMalekJSharmaHK, et al.Converting the threats of fossil fuel-based energy generation into opportunities for renewable energy development in India. Renewable Energy2024; 224: 120153.
SebeleT. From coal to renewable energy: perspectives on South Africa's energy transition for a sustainable future. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2024, pp.1–196
35.
RafindadiAA. Revisiting the concept of environmental kuznets curve in period of energy disaster and deteriorating income: empirical evidence from Japan. Energy Policy2016; 94: 274–284.
36.
ColeDH. Pollution and property: comparing ownership institutions for environmental protection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp.1–36.
37.
GreenJF. Beyond carbon pricing: tax reform is climate policy. Global Policy2021; 12: 372–379.
38.
WangCWangLWangW, et al.Does carbon emission trading policy promote the corporate technological innovation? Empirical evidence from China's high-carbon industries. J Cleaner Prod2023; 411: 137286.
39.
ChandraRPaiSNayakS, et al.India's coal conundrum: decarbonization amidst A developmental legacy. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change2025; 16: e928.
40.
TompsonW. Restructuring Russia's electricity sector: towards effective competition or faux liberalisation?OECD Econ Department Working Papers2004; 403: 1–34. https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/92
41.
RafindadiAAUsmanO. Toward sustainable electricity consumption in Brazil: the role of economic growth, globalization and ecological footprint using a nonlinear ARDL approach. J Environ Planning Manage2021; 64: 905–929.
42.
AmentaERamseyKM. Institutional theory. In: Handbook of politics: state and society in global perspective. New York, NY: Springer, 2010, pp.15–39. 10.1007/978-0-387-68930-2_2
43.
ZhangSZhangCCaiW, et al.The 2023 China report of the Lancet countdown on health and climate change: taking stock for a thriving future. The Lancet Public Health2023; 8: e978–e995.
44.
DuarteRGFerreira-QuiliceTde AssisNR, et al.Transition to sustainability: assessing the challenges of the Brazilian environmental agenda and policy. Forest Policy Econ2023; 157: 103094.
45.
HourcadeJCShuklaP. Triggering the low-carbon transition in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Climate Policy2013; 13: 22–35.
46.
RafindadiAAAliyuIBUsmanO. Revisiting the electricity consumption-led growth hypothesis: is the rule defied in France?J Econ Struct2022; 11: 27.
47.
UlusseverTKılıçDSKartalMT, et al.Estimation performance comparison of machine learning approaches and time series econometric models: evidence from the effect of sector-based energy consumption on CO2 emissions in the USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 52576–52592.
48.
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.
49.
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: 0958305X231190351. 10.1177/0958305X231190351
50.
Wolde-RufaelYWeldemeskelEM. Environmental policy stringency, renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions: panel cointegration analysis for BRIICTS countries. Int J Green Energy2020; 17: 568–582.
51.
TynkkynenVP. Energy governance in Russia: from a fossil to a green giant? In: Handbook of energy governance in Europe. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp.1019–1036. 10.1007/978-3-030-43250-8_25
52.
NkoroEUkoAK. Financial sector development-economic growth nexus: empirical evidence from Nigeria. Am Int J Contemp Res2013; 3: 55–78.
53.
BilgiliFKoçakEBulutÜ. The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 54: 838–845.
54.
OrubuCOOmotorDG. Environmental quality and economic growth: searching for environmental Kuznets curves for air and water pollutants in Africa. Energy Policy2011; 39: 4178–4188.
55.
LvZTXuT. Is economic globalization good or bad for the environmental quality? New evidence from dynamic heterogeneous panel models. Technol Forecast Soc Change2018; 137: 340–343.
56.
RafindadiAAOzturkI. Natural gas consumption and economic growth nexus: is the 10th Malaysian plan attainable within the limits of its resource?Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2015; 49: 1221–1232.
57.
NwokoloSCSinghRKhanS, et al.Technological pathways to net-zero goals in Africa. In: Africa's path to net-zero: exploring scenarios for a sustainable energy transition. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp.93–210. 10.1007/978-3-031-44514-9_5
58.
BradleyAFortunaS. Collective tenure rights for REDD+ implementation and sustainable development. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2021, pp.1–47.
59.
YounasHUsmaniZ. Feasibility of early retirement of coal power plants under CPEC. Islamabad: Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), 2024, pp.1–19.
60.
RafindadiAAMuyeIMKaitaRA. The effects of FDI and energy consumption on environmental pollution in predominantly resource-based economies of the GCC. Sustain Energy Technol Assess2018; 25: 126–137.
61.
EllermanADConveryFJDe PerthuisC. Pricing carbon: the European union emissions trading scheme. Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp.1–368.
62.
RafindadiAAOzturkI. Effects of financial development, economic growth and trade on electricity consumption: evidence from post-Fukushima Japan. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev2016; 54: 1073–1084.
63.
RafindadiAAOzturkI. Dynamic effects of financial development, trade openness and economic growth on energy consumption: evidence from South Africa. Int J Energy Econ Policy2017; 7: 74–85.
64.
RoemerKFHaggertyJH. Coal communities and the US energy transition: a policy corridors assessment. Energy Policy2021; 151: 112112.
65.
UsmanMKousarRMakhdumMSA, et al.Do financial development, economic growth, energy consumption, and trade openness contribute to increase carbon emission in Pakistan? An insight based on ARDL bound testing approach. Environ Dev Sustain2022: 1–30. 10.1007/s10668-021-02062-z.
