KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3

Jeopolitik Risk Karbon Emisyonunu Artırır mı? OECD Ülkeleri İçin CS-ARDL Modelinden Kanıtlar

Does Geopolitical Risk Rise Carbon Emissions? Evidence from a CS-ARDL Model for OECD Countries

Zeynep Gizem Can(Adana Alparslan Türkeş Bilim ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2852-4995
Sayfa
994–1007
Yayın Tarihi
2025-09-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Ampirik bulgular, artan jeopolitik riskin karbon emisyonları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif bir etki yaratarak çevresel bozulmayı şiddetlendirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Jeopolitik risk, karbon emisyonları ve ekolojik sistemlerin istikrarı üzerinde derin etkiler yaratarak giderek büyüyen küresel bir sorun haline gelmiştir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Enerji arz güvenliği, tedarik zincirleri, ticaret akışları ve yatırım kararları üzerindeki olumsuz etkileri, bu risklerin çevresel bozulmayı hızlandırma potansiyelini artırmaktadır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Ampirik bulgular, artan jeopolitik riskin karbon emisyonları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif bir etki yaratarak çevresel bozulmayı şiddetlendirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Jeopolitik Risk · Karbon Emisyonu · CS-ARDL

Özet

Jeopolitik risk, karbon emisyonları ve ekolojik sistemlerin istikrarı üzerinde derin etkiler yaratarak giderek büyüyen küresel bir sorun haline gelmiştir. Enerji arz güvenliği, tedarik zincirleri, ticaret akışları ve yatırım kararları üzerindeki olumsuz etkileri, bu risklerin çevresel bozulmayı hızlandırma potansiyelini artırmaktadır. Bu çalışma, metodolojik titizlik sağlamak amacıyla kapsamlı ön testler ve sağlamlık kontrolleri içeren gelişmiş ekonometrik teknikler kullanarak, 25 OECD üyesinden oluşan dengeli bir panel veri seti üzerinde jeopolitik risk ile karbon emisyonları arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Ampirik bulgular, artan jeopolitik riskin karbon emisyonları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif bir etki yaratarak çevresel bozulmayı şiddetlendirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, nüfus artışı ve kişi başına düşen GSYH’nin ekolojik tahribatın başlıca belirleyicileri olduğu; buna karşılık ticari açıklık ve finansal gelişmenin karbon emisyonlarını azaltıcı faktörler olarak öne çıktığı tespit edilmiştir. Bulgular, jeopolitik gerilimlerin azaltılması için sınır ötesi diyalogların teşvik edilmesi ve uluslar üstü kurumlarca oluşturulacak platformların güçlendirilmesinin, küresel güvenlik ve çevresel sürdürülebilirlik açısından kritik önem taşıdığını vurgulamaktadır.

Abstract

Geopolitical risk constitutes an escalating global challenge, exerting profound implications for carbon emissions and the stability of ecological systems. This paper investigates the nexus between geopolitical risk and carbon emissions by employing advanced econometric techniques on a balanced panel of 25 OECD member states, incorporating extensive pre-estimation diagnostics and robustness checks to ensure methodological rigor. The empirical evidence demonstrates that elevated geopolitical risk exerts a statistically significant and positive effect on carbon emissions, thereby intensifying environmental degradation. Moreover, population expansion and higher per capita GDP are identified as key drivers of ecological deterioration, while trade openness and financial development emerge as mitigating factors. These results underscore the critical importance of fostering cross-border dialogue and enhancing institutional platforms established by supranational bodies to reduce geopolitical tensions. Coordinated international strategies that address both political stability and environmental sustainability are thus imperative for mitigating the intertwined challenges of global security and climate change.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Can, Z. G. (2025). Jeopolitik Risk Karbon Emisyonunu Artırır mı? OECD Ülkeleri İçin CS-ARDL Modelinden Kanıtlar. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 994–1007. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1680590

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (48)

  1. Anser, M.K., Syed, Q.R. and Apergis, N. (2021). Does geopolitical risk escalate CO2 emissions? Evidence from the BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(35), 48011-48021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14032-z
  2. Asongu, S.A. and Odhiambo, N.M. (2021). Enhancing governance for environmental sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Exploration & Exploitation, 39(1), 444-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598719900657
  3. Bakhsh, S., Zhang, W., Ali, K. and Oláh, J. (2024). Strategy towards sustainable energy transition: The effect of environmental governance, economic complexity and geopolitics. Energy Strategy Reviews, 52, 101330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101330
  4. Bashir, M.A., Dengfeng, Z., Amin, F., Mentel, G., Raza, S.A. and Bashir, M.F. (2023). Transition to greener electricity and resource use impact on environmental quality: Policy based study from OECD countries. Utilities Policy, 81, 101518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2023.101518
  5. Bordoff, J. and O'Sullivan Meghan, L. (2022). Green upheaval: The new geopolitics of energy. Foreign Affairs, 101, 68. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/
  6. Borowski, P.F. (2022). Mitigating climate change and the development of green energy versus a return to fossil fuels due to the energy crisis in 2022. Energies, 15(24), 9289. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249289
  7. Borozan, D. (2024). Do geopolitical and energy security risks influence carbon dioxide emissions? Empirical evidence from European Union countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 439, 140834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140834
  8. Bricout, A., Slade, R., Staffell, I. and Halttunen, K. (2022). From the geopolitics of oil and gas to the geopolitics of the energy transition: is there a role for European supermajors? Energy Research & Social Science, 88, 102634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102634
  9. Caldara, D. and Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194-1225. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823
  10. Chen, S., Zhang, H. and Wang, S. (2022). Trade openness, economic growth, and energy intensity in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 179, 121608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121608
  11. Cheng, J., Tong, D., Zhao, H., Xu, R., Qin, Y., Zhang, Q.,. Davis, S.J. (2025). Trade risks to energy security in net-zero emissions energy scenarios. Nature Climate Change, 15, 505-513. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02305-1
  12. Chudik, A. and Pesaran, M.H. (2015). Common correlated effects estimation of heterogeneous dynamic panel data models with weakly exogenous regressors. Journal of Econometrics, 188(2), 393-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.03.007
  13. Dietz, T. and Rosa, E.A. (1994). Rethinking the environmental impacts of population, affluence and technology. Human Ecology Review, 1(2), 277-300. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/
  14. Ding, T., Li, H., Tan, R. and Zhao, X. (2023). How does geopolitical risk affect carbon emissions? An empirical study from the perspective of mineral resources extraction in OECD countries. Resources Policy, 85, 103983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103983
  15. Ehrlich, P.R. and Holdren, J.P. (1971). Impact of Population Growth: Complacency concerning this component of man's predicament is unjustified and counterproductive. Science, 171(3977), 1212-1217. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3977.1212
  16. Feng, Y., Pan, Y., Lu, S. and Shi, J. (2024). Identifying the multiple nexus between geopolitical risk, energy resilience, and carbon emissions: Evidence from global data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, 123661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123661
  17. Fu, C., Lu, L. and Pirabi, M. (2023). Advancing green finance: A review of sustainable development. Digital Economy and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44265-023-00020-3
  18. Gardes-Landolfini, C., Grippa, P., Oman, W. and Yu, S. (2023). Energy transition and geoeconomic fragmentation: Implications for climate scenario design (IMF Staff Climate Note No. 2023/003). Retrieved from https://bnr.bg/files/uploads/CLNEA2023003.pdf
  19. Gozgor, G. (2017). Does trade matter for carbon emissions in OECD countries? Evidence from a new trade openness measure. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(36), 27813-27821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0361-z
  20. Gu, B., Chen, F. and Zhang, K. (2021). The policy effect of green finance in promoting industrial transformation and upgrading efficiency in China: Analysis from the perspective of government regulation and public environmental demands. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(34), 47474-47491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13944-0
  21. Hansen, C.B. (2007). Generalized least squares inference in panel and multilevel models with serial correlation and fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics, 140(2), 670-694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2006.07.011
  22. Hoffart, F.M., D'Orazio, P., Holz, F. and Kemfert, C. (2024). Exploring the interdependence of climate, finance, energy, and geopolitics: A conceptual framework for systemic risks amidst multiple crises. Applied Energy, 361, 122885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122885
  23. Hunjra, A.I., Azam, M., Verhoeven, P., Taskin, D. and Dai, J. (2024). The impact of geopolitical risk, institutional governance and green finance on attaining net-zero carbon emission. Journal of Environmental Management, 359, 120927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120927
  24. Khan, Z., Ali, M., Jinyu, L., Shahbaz, M. and Siqun, Y. (2020). Consumption-based carbon emissions and trade nexus: Evidence from nine oil exporting countries. Energy Economics, 89, 104806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104806
  25. Lamb, W.F. and Minx, J.C. (2020). The political economy of national climate policy: Architectures of constraint and a typology of countries. Energy Research & Social Science, 64, 101429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101429
  26. Li, R. and Wang, Q. (2023). Does renewable energy reduce per capita carbon emissions and per capita ecological footprint? New evidence from 130 countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 49, 101121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101121
  27. Liang, H. and You, F. (2023). Reshoring silicon photovoltaics manufacturing contributes to decarbonization and climate change mitigation. Nature Communications, 14(1), 1274. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36827-z
  28. Maddodi, S. and Kunte, S.R. (2024). Market resilience in turbulent times: a proactive approach to predicting stock market responses during geopolitical tensions. Journal of Capital Markets Studies, 8(2), 173-194. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCMS-12-2023-0049
  29. Maja, M.M. and Ayano, S.F. (2021). The impact of population growth on natural resources and farmers’ capacity to adapt to climate change in low-income countries. Earth Systems and Environment, 5(2), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-021-00209-6
  30. Mani, Z.A. and Goniewicz, K. (2023). Adapting disaster preparedness strategies to changing climate patterns in Saudi Arabia: A rapid review. Sustainability, 15(19), 14279. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914279
  31. Mukhtarov, S., Mikayilov, J.I., Maharramov, S., Aliyev, J. and Suleymanov, E. (2022). Higher oil prices, are they good or bad for renewable energy consumption: The case of Iran? Renewable Energy, 186, 411-419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.12.135
  32. Overland, I. (2021). The geopolitics of energy: Out with the old, in with the new? Oxford Institute for Energy Studies Forum, 126, 41-55. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordenergy.org/
  33. Paramati, S.R., Safiullah, M. and Soytas, U. (2025). Does geopolitical risk increase carbon emissions and public health risk? Energy Economics, 108235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108235
  34. Pengfei, C., Xingang, H. and Baekryul, C. (2023). The effect of geopolitical risk on carbon emissions: influence mechanisms and heterogeneity analyzed using evidence from China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(48), 105220-105230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29829-3
  35. Pesaran, M.H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  36. Pesaran, M.H. (2021). General diagnostic tests for cross-sectional dependence in panels. Empirical Economics, 60(1), 13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
  37. Pesaran, M.H. and Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  38. Qamruzzaman, M. and Karim, S. (2024). Green energy, green innovation, and political stability led to green growth in OECD nations. Energy Strategy Reviews, 55, 101519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101519
  39. Scheffran, J. (2023). Limits to the Anthropocene: Geopolitical conflict or cooperative governance? Frontiers in Political Science, 5, 1190610. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1190610
  40. Shu, H., Wang, Y., Umar, M. and Zhong, Y. (2023). Dynamics of renewable energy research, investment in EnvoTech and environmental quality in the context of G7 countries. Energy Economics, 120, 106582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106582
  41. Wang, K.H., Kan, J.M., Jiang, C.F. and Su, C.W. (2022). Is geopolitical risk powerful enough to affect carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence from China. Sustainability, 14(13), 7867. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137867
  42. Wang, Q., Wang, X. and Li, R. (2024). Geopolitical risks and energy transition: The impact of environmental regulation and green innovation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03770-3
  43. Wang, Q., Zhang, F. and Li, R. (2024). Free trade and carbon emissions revisited: The asymmetric impacts of trade diversification and trade openness. Sustainable Development, 32(1), 876-901. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2703
  44. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
  45. Wiertz, T., Kuhn, L. and Mattissek, A. (2023). A turn to geopolitics: Shifts in the German energy transition discourse in light of Russia's war against Ukraine. Energy Research & Social Science, 98, 103036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103036
  46. Yasmeen, R. and Shah, W.U.H. (2024). Energy uncertainty, geopolitical conflict, and militarization matters for renewable and non-renewable energy development: Perspectives from G7 economies. Energy, 306, 132480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132480
  47. Zhang, Y.J. (2011). The impact of financial development on carbon emissions: An empirical analysis in China. Energy Policy, 39(4), 2197-2203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.026
  48. Cheng, J., Tong, D., Zhao, H., Xu, R., Qin, Y., Zhang, Q.,. Davis, S.J. (2025). Trade risks to energy security in net-zero emissions energy scenarios. Nature Climate Change, 15, 505-513. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02305-1