TX_1~AT/TX_2~AT International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023 279 International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy ISSN: 2146-4553 available at http: www.econjournals.com International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 2023, 13(3), 279-291. The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review Haider Mahmood1*, Muhammad Shahid Hassan2, Soumen Rej3, Maham Furqan4 1Department of Finance, College of Business Administration, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, 173 Alkharj 11942, Saudi Arabia, 2Department of Economics and Statistics, Dr. Hassan Murad School of Management, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, 3University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, India, 4School of Public Policy, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. *Email: haidermahmood@hotmail.com Received: 23 January 2023 Accepted: 27 April 2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.14270 ABSTRACT Renewable energy consumption (REC) would reduce pollution and a large pool of literature has probed the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) including REC in a panel or a country-specific model. The present study reviewed 69 empirical studies and found that 57 out of 69 studies validated the EKC but 12 studies did not confirm the EKC. Out of these, 64 studies found that REC reduced emissions. In the country-specific analyses, 18 out of 25 studies validated the EKC and 24 out of 25 studies substantiated that REC reduced emissions. In the panel studies, 39 out of 44 studies validated the EKC and 40 out of 44 studies found that REC reduced emissions. Comparatively, panel studies reported more evidence of the EKC compared to country-specific studies. However, country-specific studies reported more evidence of the positive environmental effect of REC. The results of logistic regression show that the chance of the validity of the EKC is 4.82 times more in the studies if REC reduced emissions in a model. Thus, future studies on EKC testing should include REC in the model. In comparison, panel studies carry more chance of confirmation of the EKC than country-specific studies. Keywords: Renewable Energy Consumption, The Environmental Kuznets Curve, The Panel Studies, Country-Specific Studies JEL Classifications: O44, P18, Q20 1. INTRODUCTION The issue of pollution emissions and global warming is hot in the present environmental and energy economic literature. Renewable energy consumption (REC) would reduce emissions from economic activities and increase carbon productivity. But, the generation of renewable sources of energy and technologies needs a lot of Research and Development (R&D) activities and investment, which may be supported by public finance. Moreover, the economic growth of any country may demand and generate the renewable energy market (Apergis and Payne, 2010). Here, we cannot ignore the discussions of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC). Fossil fuel would be used more during the 1st phase of economic growth, which would damage the environment (Grossman and Kreuger, 1991). Thus, the government of a country may impose pollution taxes to avoid such damages. Here, government regulators are policy suppliers. Later, the communities require a clean atmosphere after a threshold point of growth, and the community is a policy demander for a clean environment. This demand forces the government of a country to make tight environmental regulations and to support the R&D activities to generate renewable energy projects (Komen et al., 1997). Thus, a technique effect may emerge at this stage to support the REC in the economy and REC would help in tracing the 2nd phase of the EKC. The initial cost of installation of renewable energy projects might be high. Thus, the government might support renewable energy projects by providing tax incentives and subsidies. Moreover, the increasing REC may also increase the competitiveness of a country This Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023280 in the international market (Jordan‐Korte, 2011). Thus, producers might shift to REC to reduce social costs (Owen, 2006), to get tax- incentive, and to avoid pollution tax on their production. From the policy perspective to promote REC, green certificate policies can be used to promote renewable portfolio standards. This policy motivates power suppliers to buy Renewable Energy (RE) plants (Wang et al., 2020). Further, subsidies and renewable energy certificates can be provided for RE investment (Ozge et al., 2020; Ge et al., 2019). Thus, investment in renewable technology would increase RE generation (Genus and Iskandarova, 2020). Moreover, an optimum pricing policy should be designed by providing subsidized to have long-run stable returns from the RE producers (Wang et al., 2016). Overall, the market mechanism is very important to accelerate REC at a large scale (Yu et al., 2019). However, RE production may cause congestion to the power system and an optimum RE production plan should be provided to reduce the congestion (Reza et al., 2017). Moreover, administrative problems and market obstacles would slow down the process of RE transition (Liu et al., 2018), which should be resolved. R&D and innovations in new technologies of RE are essential for Renewable Energy Transition (RET) in an economy to replace the old energy technologies. However, RET also needs time to diffuse in the industry and the whole economy. Moreover, social and market acceptance are required to diffuse the new technologies (Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). The adoption of new energy needs an educational program to diffuse (Negro et al., 2012) and academic research should support the innovation process to be generalized. The process of development of new energies is started with academic research and the government of any country would play a significant role to accelerate the innovation for cleaner technologies. Afterward, knowledge transfer is required to diffuse technologies among all stakeholders (Gallagher et al., 2012). Nevertheless, a lack of energy infrastructure and political reasons may become a hurdle in the way of RET (Tsoutsos and Stamboulis, 2005). However, economies of scale may foster the process of adaptation to new technologies. Moreover, entrepreneurs would implement new technologies and may support technology diffusion. In addition, the financial market would also finance new green technology projects (Tamazian et al., 2009). The theoretical literature on REC motivates a lot of empirical studies in testing the role of REC in tracing the EKC. Some review studies conducted in the EKC literature on some macroeconomic indicators of pollution (Saini and Sighania, 2019; Liobikienė, 2020; Leal and Marques, 2022; Chang et al., 2017). Isa et al. (2015) reviewed the relationship between growth and energy use. Other studies focused on the scientific aspects of RE i.e., RE trading and generation (Huang and Li, 2022), RE integration in smart grids (Godoy Simões et al., 2019), uncertainty in predicting methods for RE power (Li et al., 2021), the role of RE in generation expansion planning (Dagoumas and Koltsaklis, 2019), sustainable RE supply chain (Fontes and Freires, 2018), Bayesian networks in RE system (Borunda et al., 2016), technology diffusion in RE technology (Rao and Kishore, 2010), optimized methods to renewable energy (Banos et al., 2011), and RE policy mechanisms (Cheng and Yi, 2017). However, a comprehensive review study is missing to present a complete role of REC in emissions and shaping the EKC, which is the main motivation behind this review study. 2. REC AND GLOBAL CO2 EMISSIONS TRENDS To capture the snapshot of the REC and emissions relationship, we collect the global data from BP (2022) and Global Carbon Atlas (2022). Figure 1 shows that the REC trend is upward but still the percentage of REC in primary energy consumption (PEC) is meager in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the scatterplot of REC and territorial emissions nexus. A positive relationship shows that REC could not help to reduce total territorial emissions. However, Figures 4 and 5 show a minute negative effect of REC on per-person emissions and territorial emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). Thus, REC helped to increase carbon productivity and to reduce per capita emissions. Figure 6 shows the scatterplot of the positive relationship between REC and consumption-based emissions. Thus, REC is increasing total consumption-based emissions. However, Figures 7 and 8 show a negative impact of REC on per-person emissions and Figure 1: Primary energy consumption and Renewable Energy Consumption trends Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023 281 Figure 2: Percentage of renewable energy consumption in primary energy consumption Figure 3: Renewable energy consumption and territorial emissions relationship Figure 4: Renewable energy consumption and per person territorial emissions relationship Figure 6: Renewable energy consumption and consumption emissions relationship Figure 5: Renewable energy consumption and territorial emissions per gross domestic product unit relationship consumption-based emissions per unit of GDP. Thus, REC helped to increase carbon productivity in terms of consumption-based emissions and reduced per capita consumption-based emissions as well. The above figures expose a complex relationship between REC and emissions, which motivates a lot of literature to capture the exact relationship in different regions of the globe. Section 3 presents a comprehensive review of the literature in this regard. 3. LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1. The Testing of the EKC Including REC in Country-Specific Analysis First, we discuss the studies investigating the EKC in country- specific analyses and Table 1 shows a summary. For instance, Ohler (2015) investigated the US from 1990 to 2008 and found that REC could not decrease CO2 emissions. Moreover, the EKC was Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023282 not validated. Benavides et al. (2017) investigated Austria from 1970 to 2012 using the autoregressive distributive lag (ARDL) and found that REC reduced methane emissions (CH4). Moreover, the EKC was validated. Paweenawat and Plyngam (2017) investigated Thailand from 1986 to 2012 by using the ARDL technique and found that REC did not reduce CO2 emissions in the manufacturing sector. In addition, the EKC was also corroborated. Shahbaz et al. (2017) investigated the US economy from 1960- 2016 by using ARDL and found that biomass energy, exports, and imports reduced CO2 emissions. Moreover, the EKC was also substantiated. Dogan and Ozturk (2017) investigated the US from 1980 to 2014 by using ARDL and found that REC reduced CO2 emissions. Non-REC increased emissions and the EKC was not validated. Solarin et al. (2017) studied China and India from 1965 to 2013 by using ARDL and found that hydroelectricity consumption reduced CO2 emissions. Urbanization increased emissions and the EKC was validated in both countries. El-Aasar and Hanafy (2018) examined the Egyptian economy from 1971 to 2012 by using the ARDL technique and found that REC reduced GHG emissions. However, the EKC was not corroborated, and trade openness also did not affect GHG emissions. Bekhet and Othman (2018) examined Malaysia from 1971 to 2015 and found that REC reduced CO2 emissions. However, the EKC was not confirmed in Malaysia. In another study, Gill et al. (2018) examined Malaysia from 1970 to 2011 by using the ARDL framework and found that REC decreased CO2 emissions. However, the EKC was not found valid in their analysis. Dong et al. (2018) investigated China considering ARDL, FMOLS, and DOLS in a sample period ranging from 1993-2016 and confirmed the evidence of the EKC hypothesis. REC also reduced emissions. Sinaga et al. (2019) investigated Malaysia from 1978 to 2016 using ARDL and found that hydroelectricity reduced CO2 emissions. Moreover, the EKC was also validated. Sasana and Aminata (2019) investigated Indonesia from 1990 to 2014 using regression analysis and noticed that REC decreased CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, the EKC was not substantiated, and economic growth, population, and primary energy accelerated CO2 emissions. Saudi et al. (2019) applied the ARDL for the Malaysian economy from 1980 to 2017 and substantiated the EKC. They further found that REC significantly reduced carbon emissions in Malaysia. Stadniczeńko (2020) explored Poland from 1980 to 2018 by using the ARDL technique and found that REC reduced CO2 emissions. The EKC was also validated. In Koc and Bulus’s (2020) study, we see that GDP significantly left an N-shaped influence on emissions in South Korea. They considered the ARDL approach from 1971 to 2017 and further exposed that REC reduced emissions. Ridzuan et al. (2020) analyzed Malaysia from 1978 to 2016 by using ARDL and found that REC, crops, and fisheries reduced CO2 emissions. The EKC was also validated. Sarkodie et al. (2020) investigated China from 1961 to 2016 by using ARDL and found that fossil fuels increased CO2 emissions. REC reduced emissions and the EKC was corroborated. Sharif et al. (2020) investigated Turkey from 1965 to 2017 and validated the EKC by using ARDL and found that REC reduced ecological footprint. Muchran et al. (2021) tested the inverted U-shaped relationship in the Indonesian economy. They considered the ARDL from 1980 to 2018 and confirmed the EKC. The empirical findings further concluded that REC reduced carbon emissions. Nguyen et al. (2021) utilized the ARDL from 1980-2018 and found a U-shaped influence of per capita GDP growth on carbon emissions while REC reduced emissions in Vietnam. The validity of the EKC was also tested by Salari et al. (2021) for 50 US states. After using the system GMM technique over the period from 1997 to 2016, they concluded that per capita GDP had an inverted U-shaped effect on carbon emissions while energy consumption in aggregated and disaggregated forms significantly enhanced carbon emissions. REC was significantly reducing emissions. Besides them, Murshed et al. (2021) utilized the ARDL, FMOLS, and DOLS estimators over the sample from 1980 to 2015 and found the EKC in Bangladesh. Further, hydropower consumption as a proxy for REC significantly curtailed emissions. Afterward, Pata (2021) utilized FMOLS and DOLS from 1980- 2016 and substantiated the validity of the EKC in the US. The results further uncovered that REC played a facilitating role in reducing pollution. Murshed et al. (2022a) investigated Argentina Figure 8: Renewable energy consumption and per person consumption emissions relationship Figure 7: Renewable energy consumption and per person consumption emissions relationship Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023 283 Table 1: The EKC testing in the country-specific analyses Authors Journal Sample period Geographical sample Technique Pollution proxy The EKC is validated or not The effect of REC on pollution Ohler (2015) The Energy Journal 1990–2008 The US Panel regression CO2 No Reducing Benavides et al. (2017) IJEEP 1970–2012 Austria ARDL CH4 Yes Reducing Paweenawat and Plyngam (2017) Economics Bulletin 1986–2012 Thailand ARDL CO2 Yes No effect Shahbaz et al. (2017) Energy Economics 1960–2016 The US ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Dogan and Ozturk (2017) ESPR 1980–2014 The US ARDL CO2 No Reducing Solarin et al. (2017) RSER 1965–2013 China and India ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing El-Aasar and Hanafy (2018) IJEEP 1971–2012 Egypt ARDL CO2 No Reducing Bekhet and Othman (2018) Energy Economics 1971–2015 Malaysia ARDL CO2 No Reducing Gill et al. (2018) EDS 1970–2011 Malaysia ARDL CO2 No Reducing Dong et al. (2018) JCP 1993–2016 China ARDL, FMOLS, and DOLS CO2 Yes Reducing Sinaga et al. (2019) IJEEP 1978–2016 Malaysia ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Sasana and Aminata (2019) IJEEP 1990–2014 Indonesia Multiple regression model CO2 No Reducing Saudi et al. (2019) IJEEP 1980–2017 Malaysia ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Stadniczeńko (2020) IJEEP 1980–2018 Poland ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Koc and Bulus (2020) ESPR 1971–2017 South Korea ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Ridzuan et al. (2020) Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1978–2016 Malaysia ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Sarkodie et al. (2020) Science of the Total Environment 1961–2016 China ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Sharif et al. (2020) Sustainable Cities and Society 1965Q1– 2017Q4 Turkey ARDL Ecological footprint Yes Reducing Muchran et al. (2021) IJEEP 1980–2018 Indonesia ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Nguyen et al. (2021) IJEEP 1980–2018 Vietnam ARDL CO2 No Reducing Salari et al. (2021) Economic Analysis and Policy 1997–2016 50-US States System Generalized Method of Movement CO2 Yes Reducing Murshed et al. (2021) ESPR 1980–2015 Bangladesh ARDL, FMOLS, DOLS CO2 and GHG Yes Reducing Pata (2021) ESPR 1980–2016 The US FMOLS and DOLS CO2 and ecological footprints Yes Reducing Murshed et al. (2022a) ESPR 1971–2014 Argentina ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Bouyghrissi et al. (2022) ESPR 1980–2017 Morocco ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing IJEEP: International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, ESPR: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, ESPR: Environmental Science and Pollution, GHG: Greenhouse gas, EDS: Environment, development and sustainability, JCP: Journal of Cleaner Production, EKC: Environmental Kuznets Curve, REC: Renewable energy consumption, ARDL: Autoregressive distributive lag, FMOLS: Fully modified ordinary least square, DOLS: Dynamic Ordinary Least Square from 1971 to 2014 by using ARDL and found that REC and innovation reduced CO2 emissions. Globalization increased emissions and the EKC was validated. Bouyghrissi et al. (2022) investigated Morocco from 1980 to 2017 by using ARDL and found that REC reduced, and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and financial development increased CO2 emissions. The EKC was also validated. 3.2. The Testing of the EKC Including REC in the Panel Analyses After discussion of the EKC studies in a single country, we reviewed the studies investigating the EKC in a panel and Table 2 displays these studies. For instance, Sharma (2011) examined 69 countries from 1985 to 2005 by using the GMM approach and found that REC and urbanization reduced CO2 emissions. Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023284 Table 2: The EKC testing in the panel analyses Authors Journal Sample period Geographical sample Technique Pollution proxy The EKC is validated or not The effect of REC on pollution Sharma (2011) Applied Energy 1985–2005 69 countries GMM CO2 Yes Reducing Burke (2012) Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 1960–2006 105 countries Binomial dependent variable modeling CO2 Yes Reducing Ben Jebli et al. (2015) African Development Review 1980–2010 24 SSA economies Cointegration and causality tests CO2 No No effect Halkos and Psarianos (2016) Environmental economics and policy studies 1990–2011 43 countries GMM CO2 No Reducing Dogan and Seker (2016) Renewable Energy 1980–2012 15 EU countries DOLS CO2 Yes Reducing Jebli et al. (2016) Ecological Indicators 1980–2010 25-OECD countries FMOLS and DOLS CO2 Yes Reducing Al-Mulali et al. (2016) Ecological Indicators 1980–2010 7 regions in the globe DOLS CO2 Yes, except for SSA and MENA Reducing, except SSA and MENA Zaghdoudi (2017) Economics Bulletin 1990–2015 OECD FMOLS and DOLS CO2 Yes reducing Hasnisah et al. (2019) IJEEP 1980–2014 13 Asian countries FMOLS and DOLS CO2 Yes No effect Ng et al. (2019) International Journal of Business and Society 1990–2013 25 OECD countries FMOLS and DOLS CO2 Yes Reducing Majeed and Luni (2019) Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 1990–2017 166 countries Fixed Effects (FE) and Random Effect (RE) CO2 No Reducing Baležentis et al. (2019) Resources, Conservation and Recycling 1995–2015 27 EU nations FMOLS and DOLS GHG Yes Reducing Lau et al. (2019) Economic Modelling 1995–2015 18 OECD countries GMM CO2 Yes Reducing Zafar et al. (2019) Resources Policy 1990–2016 G-7 and N-11 Bootstrap panel cointegration method CO2 Yes Reducing Salim et al. (2019) Applied Economics 1980–2015 Selected Asian developing countries ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Sharif et al. (2019) Renewable energy 1990–2015 74 economies FMOLS and Cross-sectional Dependence (CD) tests CO2 Yes Reducing Ehigiamusoe (2020) The Singapore Economic Review 1990–2016 Asia PMG CO2 Yes Reducing Florea et al. (2020) Agricultural economics 2000–2017 11 European economies ARDL GHG No Reducing Dong et al. (2020) The World Economy 1995–2015 120 countries GMM CO2 Yes Reducing Elshimy and El-Aasar (2020) Environment, Development and Sustainability 1980–2014 Arab world ARDL Carbon footprint Yes Reducing Hanif et al. (2020) Environment, Development and Sustainability 1990–2017 16 OECD and 14 non-OECD nations RE CO2 Yes Reducing Vural (2020) Resources Policy 1980–2014 8 SSA nations DOLS CO2 Yes Reducing Kamoun et al. (2020) Journal of the knowledge economy 1990–2013 13 OECD countries GMM Net savings from emissions Yes Reducing (Contd...) Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023 285 Authors Journal Sample period Geographical sample Technique Pollution proxy The EKC is validated or not The effect of REC on pollution Danish et al. (2020) Sustainable Cities and Society 1992–2016 BRICS FMOLS and DOLS Ecological footprints Yes Reducing Aydogan, and Vardar (2020) International Journal of Sustainable Energy 1990–2014 E-7 FMOLS and DOLS CO2 Yes No effect Ahmad et al. (2021) Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1990–2014 26 OECD nations FMOLS CO2 Yes Reducing Nathaniel et al. (2021a) Studies of Applied Economics 1990–2016 MENA nations FMOLS and DOLS Ecological footprint Yes Reducing Khan et al. (2021) Applied Economics 1987–2017 RCEP countries CS-ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Tian et al. (2021) Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 1995–2015 G-20 Countries FMOLS and DOLS CO2 Yes Reducing Nathaniel et al. (2021b) ESPR 1990–2017 G7 AMG CO2 Yes No effect Xue et al. (2021) Sustainability 1990–2014 South Asia FE, RE, GMM, and AMG Ecological footprint Yes Reducing Mehmood (2022) ESPR 1990–2017 Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka CS-ARDL CO2 Yes Reducing Jun et al. (2022) Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 1995–2019 Top-10 Carbon Emitter Countries CS- cointegration CO2 Yes Reducing Jena et al. (2022) ESPR 1980–2016 China, India, and Japan PMG CO2 and ecological footprint Yes Reducing Saqib et al. (2022) Frontiers in Environmental Science 1995–2019 E-7 countries CS-ARDL and AMG CO2 Yes Reducing Sarwat et al. (2022) ESPR 1990–2014 BRICS countries FMOLS, DOLS, and Panel Quantile Regression CO2 Yes Reducing Yu-Ke et al. (2022) Renewable Energy 1995–2019 42-High Polluting Countries PMG Transport and production -based emissions Yes Reducing Yang et al. (2022) Renewable Energy 1995–2018 E-7 countries MMQR CO2 Yes Reducing Murshed et al. (2022b) Energy Sources, Part B 1995–2015 South Asia AMG Ecological footprint Yes Reducing Djellouli et al. (2022) Renewable Energy 2000–2015 Africa PMG CO2 No Reducing Afshan et al. (2022) Renewable Energy 1990-2017 OECD MMQR Ecological footprint Yes Reducing Gao et al. (2023) Resources Policy 1990–2021 Top-31 Carbon Emitting countries PMG Carbon emissions from industrial production Yes Reducing Saqib et al. (2023) ESPR 1990–2020 G-7 countries CS-ARDL, AMG Ecological footprint Yes Reducing Jahanger et al. (2023) Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 1990–2020 Top-10 manufacturing countries MMQR GHG Yes Reducing AMG: Augmented mean group, MMQR: Method of Moments of Quantile Regression, BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, PMG: Pooled mean group, EKC: Environmental Kuznets Curve, REC: Renewable energy consumption Table 2: (Continued) https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/sustainable-cities-and-society https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/sustainable-cities-and-society Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023286 However, total energy usage and trade increased emissions. Moreover, the EKC was also validated. Burke (2012) investigated 105 countries from 1960 to 2006 by using binomial dependent variable modeling and found that REC reduced CO2 emissions. Moreover, the EKC was validated. Ben Jebli et al. (2015) investigated 24 Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) economies from 1980 to 2010 by panel cointegration and found that REC could not reduce CO2 emissions. Exports increased and imports reduced emissions. Moreover, the EKC was not validated. Halkos and Psarianos (2016) investigated 43 economies from 1990 to 2011 by using the GMM approach and found that REC decreased CO2 emissions. However, the EKC was not substantiated. Dogan and Seker (2016) tested the EKC by considering the REC in their study. They used DOLS for 15 European economies from 1980 to 2012 and founded the EKC. They further confirmed that REC mitigated carbon emissions. Jebli et al. (2016) employed FMOLS and DOLS from 1980 to 2010 and found the EKC in 25 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. They also described that carbon emissions were reduced because of REC. Al-Mulali et al. (2016) investigated 7 regions in the globe from 1980 to 2010 by using DOLS and discovered that REC reduced CO2 emissions in all regions except SSA and MENA. The EKC was also validated in all regions except SSA and MENA. Zaghdoudi (2017) explored OECD countries from 1990-2015 and found that REC and oil prices reduced emissions. The EKC was substantiated in these economies. Hasnisah et al. (2019) examined Asia from 1980 to 2014 by using FMOLS and DOLS techniques and found that REC reduced emissions and corroborated the EKC. Nevertheless, non-REC increased CO2 emissions. Ng et al. (2019) examined 25 OECD countries from 1990-2013 and found that REC reduced emissions and substantiated the EKC. However, non-REC increased emissions. Majeed and Luni (2019) investigated 166 economies globally and found that REC from all sources helped in reducing CO2 emissions. However, the EKC was not validated. Baležentis et al. (2019) explored 27 EU economies from 1995-2015 by using FMOLS and DOLS panel techniques and found that biomass and other REC reduced GHG emissions. In addition, the EKC was substantiated. Lau et al. (2019) examined 18 OECD economies from 1995 to 2015 by using the GMM and corroborated that nuclear power reduced CO2 emissions. Moreover, the EKC was also found valid in their analyses and non-REC increased emissions. Zafar et al. (2019) examined G-7 and N-11 economies from 1990 to 2016 by using the bootstrap approach and found that REC reduced emissions and corroborated the EKC. The banking sector reduced carbon intensity in G-7 and increased in N-11. Moreover, capital formation increased emissions. Salim et al. (2019) explored Asian developing economies from 1980 to 2015 by using the ARDL technique and found that REC, urbanization, and trade liberalization reduced CO2 emissions. Moreover, non-REC and population increased emissions, but the EKC was substantiated. Sharif et al. (2019) investigated 74 economies from 1990 to 2015 by using FMOLS and CD-tests and found that REC and financial development reduced CO2 emissions. Non-REC increased emissions and the EKC was validated. Ehigiamusoe (2020) examined Asia from 1990 to 2016 by using the PMG and found that REC, FDI, and trade reduced emissions. Non-REC increased emissions, but the EKC was substantiated. Florea et al. (2020) analyzed 11 European economies in the years 2000–2017 and found that REC reduced GHG emissions. However, the EKC was not substantiated. Dong et al. (2020) examined 120 world economies from 1978 to 2016 using GMM and found that REC reduced emissions and corroborated the EKC. Elshimy and El-Aasar (2020) investigated the Arabian economies from 1980 to 2014 by using ARDL and found that REC reduced carbon footprint. Moreover, non-REC and livestock increased carbon footprint, but the EKC was substantiated. Hanif et al. (2020) investigated 16 OECD economies from 1990 to 2017 and found that human capital increased REC, which would help in reducing CO2 emissions. Moreover, the EKC was also validated. Vural (2020) explored 8 SSA economies from 1980 to 2014 and found that REC reduced CO2 emissions. Moreover, non- REC and trade increased emissions, but the EKC was corroborated. Kamoun et al. (2020) explored 13 OECD countries from 1990 to 2013 using GMM and found that REC increased net saving adjusted from emissions and non-REC reduced it. Moreover, the EKC was also corroborated. Afterward, Danish et al. (2020) examined the EKC in BRICS economies. They considered FMOLS and DOLS approaches from 1992 to 2016 and confirmed the validity of EKC for economies as a whole and as individuals. They also provided evidence of the negative effect of REC in curtailing ecological footprint. Aydogan and Vardar (2020) tested the EKC in seven emerging economies from 1990 to 2014 and found a significant EKC. The results also presented a mitigating effect of REC on CO2 emissions. Ahmad et al. (2021) explored 26 OECD nations from 1990 to 2014 by using FMOLS and found that REC and FDI reduced CO2 emissions. The EKC was also substantiated. Nathaniel et al. (2021a) explored MENA economies from 1990 to 2016 and found that REC and urbanization reduced ecological footprint. The EKC was also corroborated. Khan et al. (2021) investigated the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) economies from 1987 to 2017 and found that REC and innovative technologies reduced CO2 emissions and the EKC was substantiated. Tian et al. (2021) examined the EKC in G-20 economies. They applied FMOLS and DOLS methods over the period from 1995 to 2015 and substantiated the EKC. REC also reduced emissions. Nathaniel et al. (2021b) investigated G7 nations from 1990 to 2017 and found that REC did not reduce but nuclear power decreased emissions. The EKC was substantiated. Xue et al. (2021) investigated South Asia from 1990 to 2014 and found that REC reduced ecological footprint. FDI and non-REC increased ecological footprint, but the EKC was validated. Mehmood (2022) explored South Asia using CD-ARDL from 1990 to 2017 and concluded that the EKC was corroborated, and REC reduced carbon emissions. Jun et al. (2022) investigated the EKC in top-ten carbon-emitting nations. They employed CS-ARDL from 1995 to 2019 and established the EKC. They further exposed that REC had a negative impact on carbon emissions. Jena et al. (2022) explored the EKC in China, India, and Japan from 1980 to 2016 by taking renewable energy as a control variable Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023 287 and substantiated the EKC. The results also concluded that REC curtailed emissions. Saqib et al. (2022) examined the EKC by taking renewable energy as a controlling factor. They utilized CS- ARDL and AMG methods for E-7 countries from 1995 to 2019 and supported the EKC. They further disclosed that REC condenses emissions. According to Sarwat et al. (2022), GDP growth had a significant and inverted U-shaped impact on emissions in BRICS economies from 1990 to 2014. The study further exerted a negative effect of REC on emissions. Using PMG estimators from 1995 to 2019, Yu-Ke et al. (2022) found that REC reduced emissions in 42 countries. Trade openness reduced carbon emissions while industrial production significantly enhanced emissions. The EKC was also substantiated. Yang et al. (2022) investigated E-7 countries from 1995 to 2018 using MMQR and found that REC reduced emissions in lower quantiles and substantiated the EKC. Murshed et al. (2022b) investigated South Asia from 1995 to 2015 using AMG and found that intra-regional trade, REC, and FDI reduced the ecological footprint. The EKC was also corroborated. Djellouli et al. (2022) investigated Africa from 2000-2015 using PMG and found that REC reduced CO2 emissions and FDI increased emissions. But the EKC was not substantiated. Afshan et al. (2022) investigated OECD economies from 1990-2017 using MMQR and found that REC and innovation reduced ecological footprint. The EKC was also validated. Gao et al. (2023) tested the role of renewable energy in the EKC model of top-polluted economies from 1990-2021 and substantiated the EKC. Moreover, REC reduced pollution. Saqib et al. (2023) investigated the EKC in G-7 nations by taking REC in a model. Using CS-ARDL and AMG techniques from 1990 to 2020, the study substantiated the EKC hypothesis. Besides this, REC reduced ecological footprint. Jahanger et al. (2023) studied the top 10 manufacturing countries from 1990 to 2020 by using MMQR and found that REC, technology, and energy efficiency reduced GHG emissions. The EKC was also validated. 4. ANALYSES AND DISCUSSIONS Table 3 shows a summary of the validity of the EKC in the 69 reviewed studies. 57 out of 69 studies validated the EKC and 12 studies could not find the validity of the EKC. Out of these, 64 studies reported that REC helped to reduce emissions and 5 studies reported the insignificant effect of REC on emissions. In the country-specific studies, 18 out of 25 studies validated the EKC and 7 studies did not validate the EKC. Out of these, 24 studies found that REC reduced emissions and 1 study found an insignificant effect of REC on emissions. In the panel studies, 39 out of 44 studies confirmed the EKC and 5 studies could not find the validity of the EKC. Out of these, 40 studies found that REC helped to reduce emissions and 4 studies found the insignificant effect of REC on emissions. In comparison, 88.6% of panel studies found the validity of the EKC and 72% of country-specific studies reported the validity of the EKC. Alternatively, 96% of country-specific studies reported that REC reduced emissions. However, 90.9% of panel studies could find that REC reduced emissions. Thus, the EKC in panel studies is more pronounced than in country-specific studies and the positive environmental contribution of the REC is more evident in country-specific studies compared to the panel studies. Table 4 shows logistic regression estimates to test the effect of REC on the validity of the EKC. The dependent variable carries 1 if the EKC is validated and 0 otherwise. The independent variable carries 1 if the REC reduced emissions and 0 otherwise. All results show positive effects. If REC reduced emissions, then the chance of the validity of the EKC is increasing. The results from a sample of all studies show that chance of the validity of the EKC is 4.82 times (e1.5724) more than the non-validity of the EKC if REC reduced emissions in a model. In comparison, the coefficient of panel studies is much higher than the coefficient of country-specific studies. Thus, the chance of the validity of the EKC is more in the panel studies (e2.1857 = 8.98 times) compared to country-specific studies (e0.8873 = 2.43 times) if REC reduced emissions in a model. 5. CONCLUSION REC would reduce emissions to shape the EKC. The present study discusses the theoretical argument for the relationship between REC and the EKC. Moreover, we conducted a review of the 69 empirical studies investigating the EKC hypothesis in country-specific and panel analyses. We find that 57 out of 69 studies validated the EKC but 12 studies did not confirm the EKC. Moreover, 64 studies found that REC reduced emissions and 5 studies substantiated the insignificant effect of REC on emissions. In the country-specific analyses, 18 out of 25 studies proved the EKC and 7 studies could not validate the EKC. Further, 24 studies substantiated that REC reduced emissions and 1 study could not find this evidence. In the panel studies, 39 out of 44 studies validated the EKC and 5 studies did not confirm the EKC. Moreover, 40 studies reported that REC reduced emissions and 4 studies found an insignificant effect of REC on emissions. Overall, 88.6% of panel studies reported the validity of the EKC and 72% Table 3: Summary of the EKC and REC results Studies The EKC is valid No. of studies REC reduce emissions No. of studies All studies Yes 57 Yes 64 No 12 No 5 Country- specific studies Yes 18 Yes 24 No 7 No 1 Panel studies Yes 39 Yes 40 No 5 No 4 EKC: Environmental Kuznets Curve, REC: Renewable energy consumption Table 4: Logistic regression: The EKC is validated as a dependent variable Studies Coefficient (P-value) All studies REC reduce emissions 1.5724 (0.0000) Country-specific studies REC reduce emissions 0.8873 (0.0480) Panel studies REC reduce emissions 2.1957 (0.0000) EKC: Environmental Kuznets Curve, REC: Renewable energy consumption Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023288 of country-specific studies substantiated the EKC. In contrast, 96% of country-specific studies found that REC reduced emissions and 90.9% of panel studies could validate it. Therefore, panel studies reported greater evidence of the EKC, and the positive environmental effects of the REC are reported more by country- specific studies. We also tested the effect of REC on the EKC by using logistic regression in a full sample of 69 studies and found that the chance of the validity of the EKC is 4.82 times more in the studies if REC reduced emissions in a model. In the same way, the chance of the validity of the EKC is 8.98 times more in the panel studies and 2.43 times more in the country-specific studies, if REC reduced emissions in a model. Comparatively, the chance of the EKC is found more in the panel studies compared to country-specific studies. Moreover, REC has been proven to be an important component of the EKC model. Thus, we recommend future EKC studies to include REC in the model. 6. FUNDING This study was sponsored by the Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University via Project Number 2023/RV/03. REFERENCES Afshan, S., Ozturk, I., Yaqoob, T. (2022), Facilitating renewable energy transition, ecological innovations and stringent environmental policies to improve ecological sustainability: Evidence from MM- QR method. Renewable Energy, 196, 151-160. Ahmad, M., Khan, Z., Rahman, Z.U., Khattak, S.I., Khan, Z.U. (2021), Can innovation shocks determine CO2 emissions (CO2e) in the OECD economies? A new perspective. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 30(1), 89-109. Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I., Solarin, S.A. (2016), Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in seven regions: The role of renewable energy. Ecological Indicators, 67, 267-282. Apergis, N., Payne, J.E. (2010), Renewable energy consumption and economic growth: Evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Energy Policy, 38(1), 656-660. Aydogan, B., Vardar, G. (2020), Evaluating the role of renewable energy, economic growth and agriculture on CO2 emission in E7 Countries. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 39(4), 335-348. Baležentis, T., Streimikiene, D., Zhang, T., Liobikiene, G. (2019), The role of bioenergy in greenhouse gas emission reduction in EU countries: An environmental Kuznets curve modelling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 142, 225-231. Banos, R., Manzano-Agugliaro, F., Montoya, F.G., Gil, C., Alcayde, A., Gómez, J. (2011), Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(4), 1753-1766. Bekhet, H.A., Othman, N.S. (2018), The role of renewable energy to validate dynamic interaction between CO2 emissions and GDP toward sustainable development in Malaysia. Energy Economics, 72, 47-61. Ben Jebli, M., Ben Youssef, S., Ozturk, I. (2015), The role of renewable energy consumption and trade: Environmental Kuznets curve analysis for Sub-Saharan Africa countries. African Development Review, 27(3), 288-300. Benavides, M., Ovalle, K., Torres, C., Vinces, T. (2017), Economic growth, renewable energy and methane emissions: Is there an environmental Kuznets curve in Austria? International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7(1), 259-267. Borunda, M., Jaramillo, O.A., Reyes, A., Ibargüengoytia, P.H. (2016), Bayesian networks in renewable energy systems: A bibliographical survey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 32-45. Bouyghrissi, S., Murshed, M., Jindal, A., Berjaoui, A., Mahmood, H., Khanniba, M. (2022), The importance of facilitating renewable energy transition for abating CO2 emissions in Morocco. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(14), 20752-20767. BP (2022), BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022. Available from: https://www.bp.com/statisticalreview [Last accessed on 2022 Dec 25]. Burke, P.J. (2012), Climbing the electricity ladder generates carbon Kuznets curve downturns. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(2), 260-279. Chang, R.D., Zuo, J., Zhao, Z.Y., Zillante, G., Gan, X.L., Soebarto, V. (2017), Evolving theories of sustainability and firms: History, future directions and implications for renewable energy research. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 72, 48-56. Cheng, Q., Yi, H. (2017), Complementarity and substitutability: A review of state level renewable energy policy instrument interactions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 683-691. Dagoumas, A.S., Koltsaklis, N.E. (2019), Review of models for integrating renewable energy in the generation expansion planning. Applied Energy, 242, 1573-1587. Danish, Ulucak, R., Khan, S.U.D. (2020), Determinants of the ecological footprint: Role of renewable energy, natural resources, and urbanization. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 101996. Djellouli, N., Abdelli, L., Elheddad, M., Ahmed, R., Mahmood, H. (2022), The effects of non-renewable energy, renewable energy, economic growth, and foreign direct investment on the sustainability of African countries. Renewable Energy, 183, 676-686. Dogan, E., Ozturk, I. (2017), The influence of renewable and non- renewable energy consumption and real income on CO2 emissions in the USA: Evidence from structural break tests. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 10846-10854. Dogan, E., Seker, F. (2016), Determinants of CO2 emissions in the European union: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy. Renewable Energy, 94, 429-439. Dong, K., Dong, X., Jiang, Q. (2020), How renewable energy consumption lower global CO2 emissions? Evidence from countries with different income levels. The World Economy, 43(6), 1665-1698. Dong, K., Sun, R., Jiang, H., Zeng, X. (2018), CO2 emissions, economic growth, and the environmental kuznets curve in China: What roles can nuclear energy and renewable energy play? Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 51-63. Ehigiamusoe, K.U. (2020), The drivers of environmental degradation in ASEAN+ China: Do financial development and urbanization have any moderating effect? The Singapore Economic Review, https:// doi.org/10.1142/S0217590820500241. El-Aasar, K.M., Hanafy, S.A. (2018), Investigating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in Egypt: The role of renewable energy and trade in mitigating GHGs. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 8(3), 177-184. Elshimy, M., El-Aasar, K.M. (2020), Carbon footprint, renewable energy, non-renewable energy, and livestock: Testing the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for the Arab world. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(7), 6985-7012. Florea, N.M., Badircea, R.M., Pirvu, R.C., Manta, A.G., Doran, M.D., Jianu, E. (2020), The impact of agriculture and renewable energy on climate change in Central and East European Countries. Agricultural Economics, 66(10), 444-457. Fontes, C.H.D.O., Freires, F.G.M. (2018), Sustainable and renewable energy supply chain: A system dynamics overview. Renewable and Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023 289 Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 247-259. Gallagher, K.S., Grübler, A., Kuhl, L., Nemet, G., Wilson, C. (2012), The energy technology innovation system. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 137-162. Gao, J., Hassan, M.S., Kalim, R., Sharif, A., Alkhateeb, T.T.Y., Mahmood, H. (2023), The role of clean and unclean energy resources in inspecting N-shaped impact of industrial production on environmental quality: A case of high polluting economies. Resources Policy, 80, 103217. Ge, W., Qi, Z., Yan, L., Benjamin, C.M., Xunzhang, P. (2019), Corrective regulations on renewable energy certificates trading: Pursuing an equity-efficiency trade-off. Energy Economics, 80, 970-982. Genus, A., Iskandarova, M. (2020), Transforming the energy system? Technology and organisational legitimacy and the institutionalisation of community renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 125, 109795. Gill, A.R., Viswanathan, K.K., Hassan, S. (2018), A test of environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) for carbon emission and potential of renewable energy to reduce green house gases (GHG) in Malaysia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(3), 1103-1114. Global Carbon Atlas. (2022), Available from: https://w w w. globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions [Last accessed on 2022 Dec25]. Godoy Simões, M., Harirchi, F., Babakmehr, M. (2019), Survey on time‐domain power theories and their applications for renewable energy integration in smart‐grids. IET Smart Grid, 2(4), 491-503. Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B. (1991), Environmental Impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement. NBER. Working Paper 3914. Halkos, G., Psarianos, I. (2016), Exploring the effect of including the environment in the neoclassical growth model. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 18(3), 339-358. Hanif, N., Arshed, N., Aziz, O. (2020), On interaction of the energy: Human capital Kuznets curve? A case for technology innovation. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(8), 7559-7586. Hasnisah, A., Azlina, A.A., Che, C.M.I. (2019), The impact of renewable energy consumption on carbon dioxide emissions: Empirical evidence from developing countries in Asia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(3), 135. Huang, W., Li, H. (2022), Game theory applications in the electricity market and renewable energy trading: A critical survey. Frontiers in Energy Research, 10, 1009217. Isa, Z., Alsayed, A.R., Kun, S.S. (2015), Review paper on economic growth-aggregate energy consumption nexus. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 5(2), 385-401. Jahanger, A., Ozturk, I., Onwe, J.C., Joseph, T.E., Hossain, M.R. (2023), Do technology and renewable energy contribute to energy efficiency and carbon neutrality? Evidence from top ten manufacturing countries. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 56, 103084. Jebli, M.B., Youssef, S.B., Ozturk, I. (2016), Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD Countries. Ecological Indicators, 60, 824-831. Jena, P.K., Mujtaba, A., Joshi, D.P.P., Satrovic, E., Adeleye, B.N. (2022), Exploring the nature of EKC hypothesis in Asia’s top emitters: Role of human capital, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(59), 88557-88576. Jordan‐Korte, K. (2011), Government Promotion of Renewable Energy Technologies a Comparison of Promotion Instruments and National and International Renewable Energy Market Development in Germany, the United States, and Japan. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Jun, W., Mughal, N., Kaur, P., Xing, Z., Jain, V., Cong, P.T. (2022), Achieving green environment targets in the world’s top 10 emitter countries: The role of green innovations and renewable electricity production. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 35(1), 5310-5335. Kamoun, M., Abdelkafi, I., Ghorbel, A. (2020), The impact of renewable energy on sustainable growth: Evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10(1), 221-237. Khan, Z., Murshed, M., Dong, K., Yang, S. (2021), The roles of export diversification and composite country risks in carbon emissions abatement: Evidence from the signatories of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. Applied Economics, 53(41), 4769-4787. Koc, S., Bulus, G.C. (2020), Testing validity of the EKC hypothesis in South Korea: Role of renewable energy and trade openness. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(23), 29043-29054. Komen, R., Gerking, S., Folmer, H. (1997), Income and environmental RD: Empirical evidence from OECD countries. Environment and Development Economics, 2, 505-515. Lau, L.S., Choong, C.K., Ng, C.F., Liew, F.M., Ching, S.L. (2019), Is nuclear energy clean? Revisit of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in OECD countries. Economic Modelling, 77, 12-20. Leal, P.H., Marques, A.C. (2022), The evolution of the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis assessment: A literature review under a critical analysis perspective. Heliyon, 8(11), 11521. Li, J., Luo, Y., Yang, S., Wei, S.Y., Huang, Q. (2021), Review of uncertainty forecasting methods for renewable energy power. High Voltage Energy, 47, 1144-1157. Liobikienė, G. (2020), The revised approaches to income inequality impact on production-based and consumption-based carbon dioxide emissions: Literature review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(9), 8980-8990. Liu, S., Bie, Z., Lin, J., Xi, W. (2018), Curtailment of renewable energy in Northwest China and market-based solution. Energy Policy, 123, 494-502. Majeed, M.T., Luni, T. (2019), Renewable energy, water, and environmental degradation: A global panel data approach. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 13(3), 749-778. Mehmood, U. (2022), Examining the role of financial inclusion towards CO2 Emissions: Presenting the role of renewable energy and globalization in the context of EKC. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(11), 15946-15954. Muchran, M., Idrus, A., Badruddin, S., Tenreng, M., Kanto, M. (2021), Influence of the renewable and non-renewable energy consumptions and real-income on environmental degradation in Indonesia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(1), 599-606. Murshed, M., Alam, R., Ansarin, A. (2021), The environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis for Bangladesh: The importance of natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and hydropower consumption. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(14), 17208-17227. Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., Ahmad, P., Rehman, A., Alam, M.S. (2022a), Pathways to Argentina’s 2050 carbon-neutrality agenda: The roles of renewable energy transition and trade globalization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(20), 29949-29966. Murshed, M., Nurmakhanova, M., Al-Tal, R., Mahmood, H., Elheddad, M., Ahmed, R. (2022b), Can intra-regional trade, renewable energy use, foreign direct investments, and economic growth mitigate ecological footprints in South Asia? Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 17(1), 2038730. Nathaniel, S.P., Adeleye, N., Adedoyin, F.F. (2021a), Natural resource abundance, renewable energy, and ecological footprint linkage in MENA countries. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(2), 1-16. Nathaniel, S.P., Alam, M.S., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., Ahmad, P. (2021b), The roles of nuclear energy, renewable energy, and Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023290 economic growth in the abatement of carbon dioxide emissions in the G7 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 47957-47972. Negro, S.O., Alkemade, F., Hekkert, M.P. (2012), Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(6), 3836-3846. Ng, C.F., Choong, C.K., Ching, S.L., Lau, L.S. (2019), The impact of electricity production from renewable and non-renewable sources on CO2 emissions: Evidence from OECD countries. International Journal of Business Society, 20(1), 365-382. Nguyen, T., Dang, B.H., Tran, T.D.N., Su, T.O.H. (2021), The role of renewable energy consumption and FDI in testing the existing of environmental Kuznets curve in Vietnam. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 11(1), 293-301. Ohler, A.M. (2015), Factors affecting the rise of renewable energy in the US: Concern over environmental quality or rising unemployment? The Energy Journal, 36(2), 97-115. Owen, A.D. (2006), Renewable energy: Externality costs as market barriers. Energy Policy, 34(5), 632-642. Ozge, O., Benjamin, F., Marit, H., Paul, R.K. (2020), Capacity vs energy subsidies for promoting renewable investment: benefits and costs for the EU power market. Energy Policy, 137, 111166. Pata, U.K. (2021), Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption, economic complexity, CO2 emissions, and ecological footprint in the USA: Testing the EKC hypothesis with a structural break. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(1), 846-861. Paweenawat, S.W., Plyngam, S. (2017), Does the causal relationship between renewable energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic growth exist in Thailand? An ARDL approach. Economics Bulletin, 37(2), 697-711. Rao, K.U., Kishore, V.V.N. (2010), A review of technology diffusion models with special reference to renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3), 1070-1078. Reza, H., Hedayat, S., Mehdi, A.J. (2017), Stochastic planning and scheduling of energy storage systems for congestion management in electric power systems including renewable energy resources. Energy, 133, 380-387. Ridzuan, N.H.A.M., Marwan, N.F., Khalid, N., Ali, M.H., Tseng, M.L. (2020), Effects of agriculture, renewable energy, and economic growth on carbon dioxide emissions: Evidence of the environmental Kuznets curve. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, 104879. Saini, N., Sighania, M. (2019), Environmental impact of economic growth, emission and FDI: Systematic review of reviews. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 11(1), 81-134. Salari, M., Javid, R.J., Noghanibehambari, H. (2021), The nexus between CO2 Emissions, energy consumption, and economic growth in the US. Economic Analysis and Policy, 69, 182-194. Salim, R., Rafiq, S., Shafiei, S., Yao, Y. (2019), Does urbanization increase pollutant emission and energy intensity? Evidence from some Asian developing economies. Applied Economics, 51(36), 4008-4024. Saqib, N., Sharif, A., Razzaq, A., Usman, M. (2023), Integration of renewable energy and technological innovation in realizing environmental sustainability: The role of human capital in EKC framework. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 6372-16385. Saqib, N., Usman, M., Radulescu, M., Sinisi, C.I., Secara, C.G., Tolea, C. (2022), Revisiting EKC hypothesis in context of renewable energy, human development and moderating role of technological innovations in E-7 countries. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 1077658. Sarkodie, S.A., Adams, S., Owusu, P.A., Leirvik, T., Ozturk, I. (2020), Mitigating degradation and emissions in China: The role of environmental sustainability, human capital and renewable energy. Science of the Total Environment, 719, 137530. Sarwat, S., Godil, D.I., Ali, L., Ahmad, B., Dinca, G., Khan, S.A.R. (2022), The role of natural resources, renewable energy, and globalization in testing EKC theory in BRICS countries: Method of moments quantile. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(16), 23677-23689. Sasana, H., Aminata, J. (2019), Energy subsidy, energy consumption, economic growth, and carbon dioxide emission: Indonesian case studies. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(2), 117-122. Saudi, M.H.M., Sinaga, O., Jabarullah, N.H. (2019), The role of renewable, non-renewable energy consumption and technology innovation in testing environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(1), 299-307. Shahbaz, M., Solarin, S.A., Hammoudeh, S., Shahzad, S.J.H. (2017), Bounds testing approach to analyzing the environment Kuznets curve hypothesis with structural beaks: The role of biomass energy consumption in the United States. Energy Economics, 68, 548-565. Sharif, A., Baris-Tuzemen, O., Uzuner, G., Ozturk, I., Sinha, A. (2020), Revisiting the role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on Turkey’s ecological footprint: Evidence from Quantile ARDL approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 57, 102138. Sharif, A., Raza, S.A., Ozturk, I., Afshan, S. (2019), The dynamic relationship of renewable and nonrenewable energy consumption with carbon emission: A global study with the application of heterogeneous panel estimations. Renewable Energy, 133, 685-691. Sharma, S.S. (2011), Determinants of carbon dioxide emissions: Empirical evidence from 69 countries. Applied Energy, 88(1), 376-382. Sinaga, O., Alaeddin, O., Jabarullah, N.H. (2019), The impact of hydropower energy on the environmental Kuznets curve in Malaysia. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(1), 308-315. Solarin, S.A., Al-Mulali, U., Ozturk, I. (2017), Validating the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in India and China: The role of hydroelectricity consumption. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 80, 1578-1587. Stadniczeńko, D. (2020), Development and challenges for the functioning of the renewable energy prosumer in Poland: A legal perspective. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(5), 623-630. Tamazian, A., Chousa, J.P., Vadlamannati, K.C. (2009), Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246-253. Tian, X.L., Bélaïd, F., Ahmad, N. (2021), Exploring the nexus between tourism development and environmental quality: Role of renewable energy consumption and income. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 56, 53-63. Tsoutsos, T.D., Stamboulis, Y.A. (2005), The sustainable diffusion of renewable energy technologies as an example of an innovation focused policy. Technovation, 25(7), 753-761. Vural, G. (2020), How do output, trade, renewable energy and non- renewable energy impact carbon emissions in selected Sub-Saharan African Countries? Resources Policy, 69, 101840. Wang, H., Su, B., Mu, H., Li, N., Gui, S., Duan, Y., Jiang, B., Kong, X. (2020), Optimal way to achieve renewable portfolio standard policy goals from the electricity generation, transmission, and trading perspectives in southern China. Energy Policy, 139, 111319. Wang, H., Zheng, S., Zhang, Y., Kai, Z. (2016), Analysis of the policy effects of downstream feed-in tariff on China’s solar photovoltaic industry. Energy Policy, 95, 479-488. Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M., Bürer, M.J. (2007), Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2683-2691. Mahmood, et al.: The Environmental Kuznets Curve and Renewable Energy Consumption: A Review International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy | Vol 13 • Issue 3 • 2023 291 Xue, L., Haseeb, M., Mahmood, H., Alkhateeb, T.T.Y., Murshed, M. (2021), Renewable energy use and ecological footprints mitigation: Evidence from selected South Asian economies. Sustainability, 13(4), 1613. Yang, Q., Huo, J., Saqib, N., Mahmood, H. (2022), Modelling the effect of renewable energy and public-private partnership in testing EKC hypothesis: Evidence from methods moment of quantile regression. Renewable Energy, 192, 485-494. Yu, S., Zheng, Y., Li, L. (2019), A comprehensive evaluation of the development and utilization of China’s regional renewable energy. Energy Policy, 127, 73-86. Yu-Ke, C., Hassan, M.S., Kalim, R., Mahmood, H., Arshed, N., Salman, M. (2022), Testing asymmetric influence of clean and unclean energy for targeting environmental quality in environmentally poor economies. Renewable Energy, 197, 765-775. Zafar, M.W., Zaidi, S.A.H., Sinha, A., Gedikli, A., Hou, F. (2019), The role of stock market and banking sector development, and renewable energy consumption in carbon emissions: Insights from G-7 and N-11 countries. Resources Policy, 62, 427-436. Zaghdoudi, T. (2017), Oil prices, renewable energy, CO2 emissions and economic growth in OECD countries. Economics Bulletin, 37(3), 1844-1850.