Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 9219–9231 | Cite as

Drivers of carbon emissions in Turkey: considering asymmetric impacts

  • Alper KarasoyEmail author
Research Article


This study investigates the impacts of income, (renewable and non-renewable) energy consumption, trade, and financial development on carbon dioxide emissions in Turkey for the 1965–2015 period by employing the non-linear autoregressive distributed lag method. Results show that non-renewable and renewable energy consumption, and trade openness have asymmetric impacts on pollution in long-run, while only renewable energy consumption has asymmetric impact on emissions in short-run. Results further reveal that the Environmental Kuznets Curve hypothesis is not valid in Turkey. Moreover, both financial development and trade positively affect emissions. Additionally, in long-run, positive shocks in renewable and non-renewable energy consumption increase emissions, but the impact of renewable energy consumption is infinitesimally small compared to the impact of non-renewable energy consumption. However, negative shocks in renewable energy consumption increase emissions, whereas negative developments in non-renewable energy consumption decrease emissions. Further, in short-run, positive developments in renewable energy consumption decrease emissions, and negative developments in non-renewable energy consumption have the same influence on emissions. In accordance with the findings, some policy suggestions are proposed.


Renewable energy CO2 emissions Non-linear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) Trade Financial development The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis Turkey 



  1. Acar S, Kitson L, Bridle R (2015) Subsidies to Coal and Renewable Energy in Turkey. Retrieved from
  2. Al-Mulali U, Saboori B, Ozturk I (2015) Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Vietnam. Energy Policy 76:123–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Mulali U, Solarin SA, Ozturk I (2016) Investigating the presence of the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis in Kenya: an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach. Nat Hazards 80(3):1729–1747. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apergis N, Payne JE, Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y (2010) On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecol Econ 69(11):2255–2260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee A, Dolado J, Mestre R (1998) Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-equation framework. J Time Ser Anal 19(3):267–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben Jebli M, Ben Youssef S (2015) The environmental Kuznets curve, economic growth, renewable and non-renewable energy, and trade in Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 47:173–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bildirici ME, Gökmenoğlu SM (2017) Environmental pollution, hydropower energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from G7 countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 75(October 2016):68–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bilgili F, Koçak E, Bulut Ü (2016) The dynamic impact of renewable energy consumption on CO2 emissions: a revisited environmental Kuznets curve approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 54:838–845. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bölük G, Mert M (2014) Fossil & renewable energy consumption, GHGs (greenhouse gases) and economic growth: evidence from a panel of EU (European Union) countries. Energy 74(C):439–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2017) Data. Retrieved October 10, 2017, From
  11. Broock WA, Scheinkman JA, Dechert WD, LeBaron B (1996) A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econ Rev 15(3):197–235. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bulut U (2017) The impacts of non-renewable and renewable energy on CO2 emissions in Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(18):15416–15426. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burck J, Bals C, Parker L (2010) The climate change performance index—results 2011, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Burck J, Bals C, Bohnenberger K (2011) The climate change performance index—results 2012, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Burck J, Hermwille L, Krings L (2012) The climate change performance index—results 2013. Berlin. Retrieved from
  16. Burck J, Marten F, Bals C (2013) The climate change performance index—results 2014. Berlin. Retrieved from
  17. Burck J, Marten F, Bals C (2014) The climate change performance index —results 2015. Berlin. Retrieved from
  18. Burck J, Marten F, Bals C, Rink E, Heinze I, Kolboske B, … Krings L (2015) The climate change performance index—results 2016. Berlin. Retrieved from,
  19. Burck J, Bals C, Marten F (2016) The climate change performance index—results 2017, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Burck J, Marten F, Bals C, Höhne N, Frisch C (2017) The climate change performance index—results 2018. Berlin. Retrieved from
  21. Cerdeira Bento JP, Moutinho V (2016) CO2 emissions, non-renewable and renewable electricity production, economic growth, and international trade in Italy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55:142–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Climate Action Tracker (CAT) (2018) The Climate Action Tracker (CAT): Turkey 2017. Retrieved August 9, 2018, from
  23. Danish, Zhang B, Wang B, Wang Z (2017) Role of renewable energy and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: evidence from Pakistan. J Clean Prod 156:855–864. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Souza ES, Freire F d S, Pires J (2018) Determinants of CO2 emissions in the MERCOSUR: the role of economic growth, and renewable and non-renewable energy. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(21):20769–20781. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dergiades T, Martinopoulos G, Tsoulfidis L (2013) Energy consumption and economic growth: parametric and non-parametric causality testing for the case of Greece. Energy Econ 36:686–697. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1981) Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica 49(4):1057–1072. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Enders W, Lee J (2012a) A unit root test using a Fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 74(4):574–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Enders W, Lee J (2012b) The flexible Fourier form and Dickey-Fuller type unit root tests. Econ Lett 117(1):196–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Farhani S, Shahbaz M (2014) What role of renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption and output is needed to initially mitigate CO2 emissions in MENA region? Renew Sust Energ Rev 40:80–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frey GW, Linke DM (2002) Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable energy resource meeting global energy challenges in a reasonable way. Energy Policy 30(14):1261–1265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Furuoka F (2014) Does hysteresis exist in unemployment? New findings from fourteen regions of the Czech Republic. Finance a Uver - Czech. J Econ Financ 64(1):59–78Google Scholar
  33. Granger CWJ, Yoon G (2002) Hidden cointegration. SSRN Electron J.
  34. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1991) Environmental impacts of a North American Free Trade Agreement (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 3914). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series.
  35. Grossman GM, Krueger AB (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110(2):353–377. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Halkos GE, Polemis ML (2017) Does financial development affect environmental degradation? Evidence from the OECD countries. Bus Strateg Environ 26(8):1162–1180. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. IEA (2016) Energy policies of IEA countries: Turkey 2016. OECD.
  38. Inglesi-Lotz R, Dogan E (2018) The role of renewable versus non-renewable energy to the level of CO2 emissions a panel analysis of sub-Saharan Africa’s Βig 10 electricity generators. Renew Energy 123:36–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Investment Support and Promotion Agency of Turkey, I. in T (2018) Energy and renewables. Retrieved August 7, 2018, From
  40. Ito K (2017) CO2 emissions, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, and economic growth: evidence from panel data for developing countries. Int Econ 151:1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jebli MB, Ben Youssef S, Ozturk I (2016) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol Indic 60(2016):824–831. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Karasoy A, Akçay S (2018) Effects of renewable energy consumption and trade on environmental pollution: the Turkish case. Manag Environ Qual Int J. MEQ-04-2018-0081.
  43. Katircioglu ST (2013) Interactions between energy and imports in Singapore: empirical evidence from conditional error correction models. Energy Policy 63:514–520. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Katrakilidis C, Trachanas E (2012) What drives housing price dynamics in Greece: new evidence from asymmetric ARDL cointegration. Econ Model 29(4):1064–1069. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khraief N, Omoju OE, Shahbaz M (2016) Are fluctuations in electricity consumption per capita in sub-Saharan Africa countries transitory or permanent? Energ Strat Rev 13–14:86–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee JW (2013) The contribution of foreign direct investment to clean energy use, carbon emissions and economic growth. Energy Policy 55:483–489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lee J, Strazicich MC (2003) Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. Rev Econ Stat 85(4):1082–1089 Retrieved from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lee J, Strazicich MC (2013) Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Econ Bull 33(4):2483–2492Google Scholar
  49. Lieb CM (2002) The Environmental Kuznets Curve—a survey of the empirical evidence and of possible causes (No. 391). University of Heidelberg Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  50. Long X, Naminse EY, Du J, Zhuang J (2015) Nonrenewable energy, renewable energy, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth in China from 1952 to 2012. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:680–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacKinnon, J. G. (1996). Numerical distribution functions for unit root and cointegration tests. J Appl Econ, 11(6), 601–618.<601::AID-JAE417>3.0.CO;2-T
  52. Marrero GA (2010) Greenhouse gases emissions, growth and the energy mix in Europe. Energy Econ 32(6):1356–1363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Menyah K, Wolde-Rufael Y (2010) CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in the US. Energy Policy 38(6):2911–2915. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mert M, Bölük G (2016) Do foreign direct investment and renewable energy consumption affect the CO2 emissions? New evidence from a panel ARDL approach to Kyoto Annex countries. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(21):21669–21681. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, R. of T (2015). 2015–2019 Strategic Plan. Ankara/Turkey. Retrieved from Plan%2FStrategicPlan2015–2019.pdf
  56. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, R. of T (2018) Energy efficiency. Retrieved September 8, 2018, from
  57. Narayan PK, Narayan S (2010) Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy 38(1):661–666. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ndoricimpa A (2017) Analysis of asymmetries in the nexus among energy use, pollution emissions and real output in South Africa. Energy 125:543–551. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. OECD (2018) OECD Environmental Policy Stringency Data. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from
  60. Oil Change International (2015) The cost of subsidizing fossil fuel production in Turkey, (September 2015). Retrieved from
  61. Pata UK (2018a) Renewable energy consumption, urbanization, financial development, income and CO2 emissions in Turkey: testing EKC hypothesis with structural breaks. J Clean Prod 187:770–779. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pata UK (2018b) The influence of coal and noncarbohydrate energy consumption on CO2 emissions: revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Turkey. Energy 160:1115–1123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16(3):289–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rasoulinezhad E, Saboori B (2018) Panel estimation for renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic growth, CO2 emissions, the composite trade intensity, and financial openness of the commonwealth of independent states. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(18):17354–17370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sarkodie SA, Strezov V (2019) A review on environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis using bibliometric and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 649:128–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shafiei S, Salim RA (2014) Non-renewable and renewable energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy 66:547–556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shahbaz M, Loganathan N, Mujahid N, Ali A, Nawaz A (2016a) Determinants of life expectancy and its prospects under the role of economic misery: a case of Pakistan. Soc Indic Res 126(3):1299–1316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shahbaz M, Shahzad SJH, Ahmad N, Alam S (2016b) Financial development and environmental quality: the way forward. Energy Policy 98:353–364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shahbaz M, Shahzad SJH, Alam S, Apergis N (2018) Globalisation, economic growth and energy consumption in the BRICS region: the importance of asymmetries. J Int Trade Econ Dev 8199:1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shin Y, Yu B, Greenwood-Nimmo M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In: Sickles RC, Horrace WC (eds) Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt, vol 44. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 281–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Musah I, Ozturk I (2017a) Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation. Energy 124:706–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2017b) Validating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in India and China: the role of hydroelectricity consumption. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:1578–1587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stern DI (2003) The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (working papers in economics no. 0302). October. Troy, NYGoogle Scholar
  74. Strazicich MC, Lee J, Day E (2004) Are incomes converging among OECD countries? Time series evidence with two structural breaks. J Macroecon 26(1):131–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sugiawan Y, Managi S (2016) The environmental Kuznets curve in Indonesia: exploring the potential of renewable energy. Energy Policy 98:187–198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taha R, Šliogerienė J, Loganathan N, Jokšienė I, Shahbaz M, Mardani A (2018) The Nexus between tax reformation, financial development and economic recovery: the case of Malaysia. Technol Econ Dev Econ 24(3):1258–1279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tamazian A, Bhaskara Rao B (2010) Do economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental degradation? Evidence from transitional economies. Energy Econ 32(1):137–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Tamazian A, Chousa JP, Vadlamannati KC (2009) Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy 37(1):246–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. the Economic and Development Review Committee (EDRC) of the OECD (2018) OECD Economic Surveys: Turkey. Retrieved from
  80. Turkish Statistical Institute (2018) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Statistics, 2016. Retrieved August 8, 2018, from;jsessionid=6h2ybpyZZPplp0972xtTsZXg9GBntVP2lSF3zKWTZ8T16hTlDJL1!1771578339?id=27675
  81. World Bank (2018) World Development Indicators. Retrieved June 7, 2018, from
  82. Zaidi SAH, Danish, Hou F, Mirza FM (2018) The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption in CO2 emissions: a disaggregate analysis of Pakistan. In: Environ Sci Pollut Res, vol 25, pp 31616–31629. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zambrano-Monserrate MA, Silva-Zambrano CA, Davalos-Penafiel JL, Zambrano-Monserrate A, Ruano MA (2018) Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Peru: the role of renewable electricity, petroleum and dry natural gas. Renew Sust Energ Rev 82:4170–4178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zivot E, Andrews DWK (2002) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-Price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. J Bus Econ Stat 20(1):25–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of EconomicsAfyon Kocatepe UniversityAfyonkarahisarTurkey

Personalised recommendations