Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development on carbon emissions: empirical evidence from Turkey

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the impact of economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, financial development on carbon emissions for the case of Turkey by using annual time series data for the period of 1960–2013. The Lee and Strazicich test suggests that the variables are suitable for applying the bounds testing approach to cointegration. The cointegration analysis reveals that there exists a long-run relationship between the per capita real income, per capita energy consumption, trade openness, financial development, and per capita carbon emissions in the presence of structural breaks. The results show that in the long run, carbon emissions are mainly determined by economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development. The VECM Granger causality analysis indicates a long-run unidirectional causality running from economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development to carbon emissions. The findings also show that the EKC hypothesis is valid for Turkey both in the long run and short run. The study provides some implications for policy makers to decrease carbon emissions in Turkey.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, Stern et al. (1996), Ekins (1997), Stern (1997), and Stern and Common (2001) present a critical and comprehensive literature regarding the EKC hypothesis.

  2. See Stern (2000), Soytas et al. (2007), Narayan and Smith (2008), Halicioglu (2009), and Ozturk (2010) for comprehensive reviews.

  3. Since carbon emissions as the primary GHG emission is responsible for global warming and climate change, several studies (e.g., Jalil and Feridun 2011; Sharma 2011; Omri 2013) employ this variable as a main indicator of environmental pollution.

  4. Per capita energy use is generally employed as an explanatory variable in the equation of carbon emissions (Acaravci and Ozturk 2010; Omri 2013).

  5. Following Shahbaz et al. (2014) and Saboori et al. (2014), we use per capita real GDP as a determinant of carbon emissions and it also represents economic growth.

  6. The square of per capita real GDP is a main variable used in several empirical studies related to EKC hypothesis (Akbostanci et al. 2009; Shahbaz et al. 2014).

  7. Jayanthakumaran et al. (2012) and Shahbaz et al. (2013a) use trade openness as an explanatory variable in the carbon emissions function.

  8. It is generally known that the most common proxies for financial development are the ratio of money and quasi-money to GDP, the ratio of liquid liabilities to GDP, the ratio of domestic credit on private sector to GDP, and the ratio of domestic credit provided by the banking sector to GDP (Ang 2009; Sadorsky 2011). However, several studies (e.g., Shahbaz and Lean 2012; Mudakkar et al. 2013) use the ratio of domestic credit on private sector to GDP as the main indicator of financial development.

  9. Free trade brings about environmental pollution owing to economic expansion. This is called the scale effect. According to technique effect, the import of efficient technologies can reduce environmental pollution. The composition effect implies that free trade can decrease or increase environmental pollution depending on whether there exists a comparative advantage in cleaner or dirty industries of a country (Antweiler et al. 2001).

  10. ADF, PP, and Ng-Perron (MZa and MZt) unit root tests use the null hypothesis of a unit root. In these methods, the null hypothesis is tested against the alternative of stationarity. However, Ng-Perron test results are more reliable and consistent compared to the traditional unit root tests. In addition, the problem of over-rejection of null hypothesis can be solved by Ng-Perron test, and it can be performed for small sample size (DeJong et al. 1992).

  11. Narayan (2005) provides the critical bounds which are suitable for small sample (30–80). These are significantly greater than the critical bounds presented by Pesaran et al. (2001) (Narayan and Narayan 2005).

References

  • Abid M (2016) Impact of economic, financial, and institutional factors on CO2 emissions: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa economies. Util Policy 41:85–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Acaravci A, Ozturk I (2010) On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy 35:5412–5420

    Google Scholar 

  • Akbostanci E, Turut-Asik S, Tunc GI (2009) The relationship between income and environment in Turkey: is there an environmental Kuznets curve? Energy Policy 37:861–867

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkhathlan K, Javid M (2013) Energy consumption, carbon emissions and economic growth in Saudi Arabia: an aggregate and disaggregate analysis. Energy Policy 62:1525–1532

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-mulali U (2012) Factors affecting CO2 emission in the Middle East: a panel data analysis. Energy 44:564–569

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang JB (2009) Financial development and the FDI-growth nexus: the Malaysian experience. Appl Econ 41:1595–1601

    Google Scholar 

  • Antweiler W, Copeland B, Taylor S (2001) Is free trade good for the environment? Am Econ Rev 91:877–908

    Google Scholar 

  • Anwar S, Robert W, Alexander J (2016) Pollution, energy use, GDP and trade: estimating the long-run relationship for Vietnam. Appl Econ 48(53):5221–5232

    Google Scholar 

  • Apergis N (2016) Environmental Kuznets curves: new evidence on both panel and country-level CO2 emissions. Energy Econ 54:263–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Apergis N, Payne JE (2009) Energy consumption and economic growth: evidence from the commonwealth of independent states. Energy Econ 31:641–647

    Google Scholar 

  • Aricanlı T, Rodrik D (1990) The political economy of Turkey: debt, adjustment and sustainability. Palgrave Mcmillan, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Arouri MEH, Youssef AB, M’henni H, Rault C (2012) Energy consumption, economic growth and CO2 emissions in Middle East and north African countries. Energy Policy 45:342–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Baek J, Kim HS (2013) Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical evidence from Korea. Energy Econ 36:744–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1988) The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Birdsall N, Wheeler D (1993) Trade policy and industrial pollution in Latin America: where are the pollution havens? J Environ Dev 2:137–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Boluk G, Mert M (2015) The renewable energy, growth and environmental Kuznets curve in Turkey: an ARDL approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:587–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutabba MA (2014) The impact of financial development, income, energy and trade on carbon emissions: evidence from the Indian economy. Econ Model 40:33–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown RL, Durbin J, Evans JM (1975) Techniques for testing the constancy of regression relations over time. J R Stat Soc Ser B 37:149–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetin M, Ecevit E, Yucel AG (2018) Structural breaks, urbanization and CO2 emissions: evidence from Turkey. J Appl Econ Bus Re 8(2):122–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Coondoo D, Dinda S (2002) Causality between income and emission: a country group-specific econometric analysis. Ecol Econ 40:351–367

    Google Scholar 

  • DeJong DN, Nankervis JC, Savin NE, Whiteman CH (1992) Integration versus trend stationarity in time series. Econometrica 60:423–433

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickey DA, Fuller WA (1979) Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J Am Stat Assoc 74:427–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogan E, Seker F (2016) The influence of real output, renewable and non-renewable energy, trade and financial development on carbon emissions in the top renewable energy countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 60:1074–1085

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrook G (2006) Case closed: the debate about global warming is over. Issues Gov Stud 3:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekins P (1997) The Kuznets curve for the environment and economic growth: examining the evidence. Environ Plan A 29:805–830

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertugrul HM, Cetin M, Seker F, Dogan E (2016) The impact of trade openness on global carbon dioxide emissions: evidence from the top ten emitters among developing countries. Ecol Indic 67:543–555

    Google Scholar 

  • Farhani S, Chaibi A, Rault C (2014) CO2 emissions, output, energy consumption, and trade in Tunisia. Econ Model 38:426–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel J, Rose A (2002) An estimate of the effect of common currencies on trade and income. Q J Econ 117(2):437–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokmenoglu K, Taspinar N (2016) The relationship between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth and FDI: the case of Turkey. J Int Trade Econ Dev 25(5):706–723

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman G, Krueger A (1995) Economic growth and the environment. Q J Econ 110:353–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Halicioglu F (2009) An econometric study of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, income and foreign trade in Turkey. Energy Policy 37:1156–1164

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamit-Haggar M (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and economic growth: a panel cointegration analysis from Canadian industrial sector perspective. Energy Econ 34:358–364

    Google Scholar 

  • He J (2006) Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: the case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecol Econ 60:228–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain MS (2011) Panel estimation for CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic growth, trade openness and urbanization of newly industrialized countries. Energy Policy 39:6991–6999

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • IMF (2016) World economic outlook: too slow for too long. International Monetary Fund, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2014) Intergovernmental panel on climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalil A, Feridun M (2011) The impact of growth, energy and financial development on the environment in China: a cointegration analysis. Energy Econ 33:284–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Jalil A, Mahmud SF (2009) Environment Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions: a cointegration analysis for China. Energy Policy 37:5167–5172

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaunky VC (2011) The CO2 emissions-income nexus: evidence from rich countries. Energy Policy 39(3):1228–1240

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jayanthakumaran K, Verma R, Liu Y (2012) CO2 emissions, energy consumption, trade and income: a comparative analysis of China and India. Energy Policy 42:450–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen V (1996) The pollution haven hypothesis and the industrial flight hypothesis: Some perspectives on theory and empirics. Working Paper No.5, Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo

  • Jobert T, Karanfil K (2007) Sectoral energy consumption by source and economic growth in Turkey. Energy Policy 35:5447–5456

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansen S, Juselies K (1990) Maximum likelihood estimation and inferences on cointegration. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 52:169–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Kais S, Sami H (2016) An econometric study of the impact of economic growth and energy use on carbon emissions: panel data evidence from fifty eight countries. Renew Sust Energ Rev 59:1101–1110

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang YK, Zhao T, Yang YY (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve for CO2 emissions in China: a spatial panel data approach. Ecol Indic 63:231–239

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kanjilal K, Ghosh S (2013) Environmental Kuznet’s curve for India: evidence from tests for cointegration with unknown structural breaks. Energy Policy 56:509–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Katircioğlu ST, Taspinar N (2017) Testing the moderating role of financial development in an environmental Kuznets curve: empirical evidence from Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 68:572–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearsley A, Riddel M (2010) A further inquiry into the pollution haven hypothesis and the environmental Kuznets curve. Ecol Econ 69:905–919

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau LS, Choong CK, Eng YK (2014) Investigation of the environmental Kuznets curve for carbon emissions in Malaysia: do foreign direct investment and trade matter? Energy Policy 68:490–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Le TH (2016) Dynamics between energy, output, openness and financial development in sub-Saharan African countries. Appl Econ 48(10):914–933

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee CC, Lee JD (2009) Income and CO2 emissions: evidence from panel unit root and cointegration tests. Energy Policy 37:413–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee J, Strazicich MC (2004) Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Working paper. Available at: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp0417.pdf

  • Lee J, Strazicich MC (2013) Minimum LM unit root test with one structural break. Econ Bull 33(4):2483–2492

    Google Scholar 

  • Li T, Wang Y, Zhao D (2016) Environmental Kuznets curve in China: new evidence from dynamic panel analysis. Energy Policy 91:138–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Lise W (2006) Decomposition of CO2 emissions over 1980-2003 in Turkey. Energy Policy 34:1841–1852

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudakkar SR, Zaman K, Shakir H, Arif M, Naseen I, Naz L (2013) Determinants of energy consumption function in SAARC countries: balancing the odds. Renew Sust Energ Rev 28:566–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan PK (2005) The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Appl Econ 37:1979–1990

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan PK, Narayan S (2010) Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: panel data evidence from developing countries. Energy Policy 38:661–666

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan PK, Smith R (2008) Energy consumption and real GDP in G7 countries: new evidence from panel cointegration with structural breaks. Energy Econ 30(5):2331–2341

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng S, Perron P (2001) Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69(6):1519–1554

    Google Scholar 

  • Omri A (2013) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth nexus in MENA countries: evidence from simultaneous equations models. Energy Econ 40:657–664

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozcan B (2013) The nexus between carbon emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Middle East countries: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 62:1138–1147

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk I (2010) A literature survey on energy-growth nexus. Energy Policy 38(1):340–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:3220–3225

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk I, Acaravci A (2013) The long-run and causal analysis of energy, growth, openness and financial development on carbon emissions in Turkey. Energy Econ 36:262–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Pao HT, Tsai CM (2010) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in BRIC countries. Energy Policy 38:7850–7860

    Google Scholar 

  • Pao HT, Tsai CM (2011) Multivariate granger causality between CO2 emissions, energy consumption, FDI and GDP: evidence from a panel of BRIC (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, and China) countries. Energy 36:685–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Pao HT, Yu HC, Yang YH (2011) Modeling the CO2 emissions, energy use, and economic growth in Russia. Energy 36(8):5094–5100

    Google Scholar 

  • Perron P (1989) The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57:1361–1401

    Google Scholar 

  • Perroni C, Wigle RM (1994) International trade and environmental quality: how important the linkages? Can J Econ 27(3):551–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Shin Y (1999) An autoregressive distributed-lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. In Econometrics and Economic Theory in the 20th Century. The Ragnar Frisch Centennial Symposium, ed. Steinar Strom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16:289–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips PC, Perron P (1988) Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75(2):335–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren S, Yuan B, Ma X, Chen X (2014) International trade, FDI and embodied CO2 emissions: a case study of China’s industrial sectors. China Econ Rev 28:123–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Saboori B, Sulaiman J (2013) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries: a cointegration approach. Energy 55:813–822

    Google Scholar 

  • Saboori B, Sapri M, bin Baba M (2014) Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in OECD’s transport sector: a fully modified bi-directional relationship approach. Energy 66:150–161

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sadorsky P (2011) Financial development and energy consumption in central and eastern European frontier economies. Energy Policy 39:999–1006

    Google Scholar 

  • Salahuddin M, Gow J, Ozturk I (2015) Is the long-run relationship between economic growth, electricity consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and financial development in gulf cooperation council countries robust? Renew Sust Energ Rev 51:317–326

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seker F, Ertugrul HM, Cetin M (2015) The impact of foreign direct investment on environmental quality: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Turkey. Renew Sust Energ Rev 52:347–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Selden T, Song D (1994) Environmental quality and development: is there a Kuznet’s curve for air pollution emissions? J Environ Econ Manag 27(2):147–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafik N (1994) Economic development and environmental quality: an econometric analysis. Oxf Econ Pap 46:757–773

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M (2013) Does financial instability increase environmental degradation? Fresh evidence from Pakistan. Econ Model 33:537–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Lean HH (2012) Does financial development increase energy consumption? The role of industrialization and urbanization in Tunisia. Energy Policy 40:473–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Adnan Hye QM, Tiwari AK, Leitão NC (2013a) Economic growth, energy consumption, financial development, international trade and CO2 emissions in Indonesia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:109–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Mahmooda H, Arouri M (2013b) Does financial development reduce CO2 emissions in Malaysian economy? A time series analysis. Econ Model 35:145–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Ozturk I, Afza T, Ali A (2013c) Revisiting the environmental Kuznets curve in a global economy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 25:494–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Tiwari AK, Nasir M (2013d) The effects of financial development, economic growth, coal consumption and trade openness on CO2 emissions in South Africa. Energy Policy 61:1452–1459

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Mutascu M, Azim P (2013e) Environmental Kuznets curve in Romania and the role of energy consumption. Renew Sust Energ Rev 18:165–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Khraief N, Uddin GS, Ozturk I (2014) Environmental Kuznets curve in an open economy: a bounds testing and causality analysis for Tunisia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 34:325–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Solarin SA, Sbia R, Bibi S (2015) Does energy intensity contribute to CO2 emissions? A trivariate analysis in selected African countries. Ecol Indic 50:215–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Shahbaz M, Mahalik MK, Shah H, Sato JR (2016) Time-varying analysis of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth nexus: statistical experience in next 11 countries. Energy Policy 98:33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma SS (2011) Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: empirical evidence from 69 countries. Appl Energy 88:376–382

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert H (1992) Economics of the environment. Springer Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U (2018) Influence of foreign direct investment on indicators of environmental degradation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:24845–24859

    Google Scholar 

  • Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Musah I, Ozturk I (2017a) Investigating the pollution haven hypothesis in Ghana: an empirical investigation. Energy 124:706–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Sahu PK (2017b) Globalisation and its effect on pollution in Malaysia: the role of trans-Pacific partnership (TPP) agreement. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(29):23096–23113

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Solarin SA, Al-Mulali U, Ozturk I (2017c) Validating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in India and China: the role of hydroelectricity consumption. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:1578–1587

    Google Scholar 

  • Soytas U, Sari R (2009) Energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon emissions: challenges faced by an EU candidate member. Ecol Econ 68:1667–1675

    Google Scholar 

  • Soytas U, Sari R, Ewing BT (2007) Energy consumption, income, and carbon emissions in the United States. Ecol Econ 62:482–489

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern DI (1997) Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: a neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics. Ecol Econ 21:197–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern DI (2000) Multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the U.S. macroeconomy macroeconomy. Energy Econ 22:267–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern DI, Common MS (2001) Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for sulfur? J Environ Econ Manage 41:162–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier EB (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Dev 24:1151–1160

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamazian A, Chousaa JP, Vadlamannatia KC (2009) Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy 37(1):246–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari AK, Shahbaz M, Adnan Hye QM (2013) The environmental Kuznets curve and the role of coal consumption in India: cointegration and causality analysis in an open economy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 18:519–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai P-L (1999) Is trade liberalization harmful to the environment? An alternative view. J Econ Stud 26(3):201–209

    Google Scholar 

  • TSIa (2016) Turkish statistical institute, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, 2014, http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=21582

  • TSIb (2016) Turkish statistical institute, Foreign trade by months and years, 1986–2016. http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=21803

  • Ulucak R, Lin D (2017) Persistence of policy shocks to ecological footprint of the USA. Ecol Indic 80:337–343

    Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (2012) National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990—2010. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/sbi/eng/31.pdf

  • US Energy Information Administration (2013) Turkey Report 2013. http://www.eia.gov/countries /analysisbriefs/Turkey/turkey.pdf

  • Wang K-M (2012) Modelling the nonlinear relationship between CO2 emissions from oil and economic growth. Econ Model 29(5:1537–1547

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang SS, Zhou DQ, Zhou P, Wang QW (2011) CO2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in China: a panel data analysis. Energy Policy 39(9):4870–4875

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank World Development Indicators Database (2016) http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators

  • WRI (2014) World resources institute, climate analysis indicators tool (CAIT) 2.0: WRI’s climate data explorer. Accessed May 2015. http://cait.wri.org

  • WTO (2012) Trade Policy Review: Turkey. Accessed January 2017. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp359_e.htm

  • Yuxiang K, Chen Z (2010) Financial development and environmental performance: evidence from China. Environ Dev Econ 16:1–19

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Namik Kemal University, Tekirdag, Turkey

    Murat Cetin

  2. Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

    Eyyup Ecevit & Ali Gokhan Yucel

Authors
  1. Murat Cetin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eyyup Ecevit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Gokhan Yucel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Gokhan Yucel.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Muhammad Shahbaz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cetin, M., Ecevit, E. & Yucel, A.G. The impact of economic growth, energy consumption, trade openness, and financial development on carbon emissions: empirical evidence from Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25, 36589–36603 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3526-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3526-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation