A Roadmap toward Achieving Sustainable Environment: Evaluating the Impact of Technological Innovation and Globalization on Load Capacity Factor

Technological innovations have been a matter of contention, and their environmental consequences remain unresolved. Moreover, studies have extensively evaluated environmental challenges using metrics such as nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide, carbon emissions, and ecological footprint. The environment has the supply and demand aspect, which is not a component of any of these indicators. By measuring biocapacity and ecological footprint, the load capacity factor follows a certain ecological threshold, allowing for a thorough study on environmental deterioration. With the reduction in load capacity factor, the environmental deterioration increases. In the context of the environment, the interaction between technological innovation and load capacity covers the demand and supply side of the environment. In light of this, employing the dataset ranging from 1980 to 2017 for the case of South Africa, the bound cointegration test in conjunction with the critical value of Kripfganz and Schneider showed cointegration in the model. The study also employed the ARDL, whose outcome revealed that nonrenewable energy usage and economic growth contribute to environmental deterioration, whereas technological innovation and globalization improve the quality of the environment. This study validated the hypothesis of the environmental Kuznets curve for South Africa, as the short-term coefficient value was lower than the long-term elasticity. Furthermore, using the frequency-domain causality test revealed that globalization and economic growth predict load capacity in the long term, and nonrenewable energy predicts load capacity factors in the long and medium term. In addition, technological innovation predicts load capacity factors in the short and long term. Based on the findings, we propose that policymakers should focus their efforts on increasing funding for the research and development of green technologies.

[1]  T. Adebayo,et al.  CO2 behavior amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy development , 2022, Renewable Energy.

[2]  Husam Rjoub,et al.  The influence of renewable energy usage on consumption-based carbon emissions in MINT economies , 2022, Heliyon.

[3]  Derviş Kırıkkaleli,et al.  Load Capacity Factor and Financial Globalization in Brazil: The Role of Renewable Energy and Urbanization , 2022, Frontiers in Environmental Science.

[4]  J. Martins,et al.  How Do Renewable Energy, Economic Growth and Natural Resources Rent Affect Environmental Sustainability in a Globalized Economy? Evidence From Colombia Based on the Gradual Shift Causality Approach , 2022, Frontiers in Energy Research.

[5]  M. Ramzan,et al.  Does Globalization Moderate the Effect of Economic Complexity on CO2 Emissions? Evidence From the Top 10 Energy Transition Economies , 2021, Frontiers in Environmental Science.

[6]  M. Ramzan,et al.  Determinants of carbon emissions in Argentina: The roles of renewable energy consumption and globalization , 2021 .

[7]  Zeeshan Fareed,et al.  Role of Export Diversification and Renewable Energy on the Load Capacity Factor in Indonesia: A Fourier Quantile Causality Approach , 2021, Frontiers in Environmental Science.

[8]  A. Alola,et al.  Examining the dynamics of ecological footprint in China with spectral Granger causality and quantile-on-quantile approaches , 2021, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology.

[9]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Asymmetric nexus among financial globalization, non-renewable energy, renewable energy use, economic growth, and carbon emissions: impact on environmental sustainability targets in India , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[10]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Modelling the globalization-CO2 emission nexus in Australia: evidence from quantile-on-quantile approach , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[11]  Derviş Kırıkkaleli,et al.  The Impact of Public-Private Partnership Investment in Energy and Technological Innovation on Ecological Footprint: The Case of Pakistan , 2021, Sustainability.

[12]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Role of political risk to achieve carbon neutrality: Evidence from Brazil. , 2021, Journal of environmental management.

[13]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Is there a tradeoff between financial globalization, economic growth, and environmental sustainability? An advanced panel analysis , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[14]  Husam Rjoub,et al.  The asymmetric effects of renewable energy consumption and trade openness on carbon emissions in Sweden: new evidence from quantile-on-quantile regression approach , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[15]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Coal Consumption and Environmental Sustainability in South Africa: The role of Financial Development and Globalization , 2021, International Journal of Renewable Energy Development.

[16]  Samuel Asumadu Sarkodie,et al.  Mitigating human-induced emissions in Argentina: role of renewables, income, globalization, and financial development , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[17]  Husam Rjoub,et al.  Modeling the Dynamic Linkage between Renewable Energy Consumption, Globalization, and Environmental Degradation in South Korea: Does Technological Innovation Matter? , 2021, Energies.

[18]  Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar,et al.  Dominance of Fossil Fuels in Japan’s National Energy Mix and Implications for Environmental Sustainability , 2021, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[19]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Linking financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint: what is the role of technological innovation? , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[20]  M. Ramzan,et al.  The environmental sustainability effects of financial development and urbanization in Latin American countries , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[21]  T. E. Salari,et al.  Globalization, renewable energy consumption, and agricultural production impacts on ecological footprint in emerging countries: using quantile regression approach , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[22]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Ecological footprint, public-private partnership investment in energy, and financial development in Brazil: a gradual shift causality approach , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[23]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Impact of renewable energy consumption, globalization, and technological innovation on environmental degradation in Japan: application of wavelet tools , 2021, Environment, Development and Sustainability.

[24]  Avik Sinha,et al.  Impact of technological innovation on energy efficiency in industry 4.0 era: Moderation of shadow economy in sustainable development , 2021 .

[25]  Boqiong Yang,et al.  Remittance inflows affect the ecological footprint in BICS countries: do technological innovation and financial development matter? , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[26]  M. Destek,et al.  Technological innovation, financialization, and ecological footprint: evidence from BEM economies , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[27]  O. Usman,et al.  Testing the environmental Kuznets curve with structural breaks: the role of globalization, energy use, and regulatory quality in South Africa , 2021, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[28]  Adnan Safi,et al.  Does Energy Productivity and Technological Innovation Limit Trade-Adjusted Carbon Emissions? , 2020, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja.

[29]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Do renewable energy consumption and financial development matter for environmental sustainability? New global evidence , 2020, Sustainable Development.

[30]  Abdulai Abdul Majeed,et al.  The dynamic impact of natural resources, technological innovations and economic growth on ecological footprint: An advanced panel data estimation , 2020 .

[31]  M. Usman,et al.  Dynamic relationship between technological innovations, financial development, renewable energy, and ecological footprint: fresh insights based on the STIRPAT model for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation countries , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[32]  T. Adebayo,et al.  Does globalization matter for ecological footprint in Turkey? Evidence from dual adjustment approach , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[33]  Mohd Arshad Ansari,et al.  Do renewable energy and globalization enhance ecological footprint: an analysis of top renewable energy countries? , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[34]  D. B. Kalmaz,et al.  Reinvestigating the Determinants of Environmental Degradation in Nigeria , 2020, International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies.

[35]  O. Usman,et al.  Modelling environmental degradation in South Africa: the effects of energy consumption, democracy, and globalization using innovation accounting tests , 2020, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[36]  Avik Sinha,et al.  Interplay between technological innovation and environmental quality: Formulating the SDG policies for next 11 economies , 2020, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[37]  Md. Rahat Hossain,et al.  Urbanization-globalization-CO2 emissions nexus revisited: empirical evidence from South Africa , 2019, Heliyon.

[38]  O. Usman,et al.  Globalization, energy use, and environmental degradation in South Africa: Startling empirical evidence from the Maki-cointegration test. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[39]  Zhaohua Wang,et al.  Does globalization increase the ecological footprint? Empirical evidence from Malaysia , 2019, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[40]  Sebastian Kripfganz,et al.  ARDL: Stata module to perform autoregressive distributed lag model estimation , 2018 .

[41]  Enrique Ortega,et al.  Convergence of ecological footprint and emergy analysis as a sustainability indicator of countries: Peru as case study , 2010 .

[42]  Seema Narayan,et al.  Carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: Panel data evidence from developing countries , 2010 .

[43]  Jörg Breitung,et al.  Testing for short- and long-run causality: A frequency-domain approach , 2006 .

[44]  Richard J. Smith,et al.  Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships , 2001 .