Examining the Effects of Renewable Energy and Economic Growth on Carbon Emission in Canada: Evidence from the Nonlinear ARDL Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing industrial activities trigger the intense use of fossil fuels and increase the number of carbon emissions in the atmosphere. Countries with a high share in current carbon emissions need to expand their use of renewable energy sources. Canada is an important energy producer and consumer globally. In this regard, its decisions are important for the future development of global emissions. This study examines the asymmetric effects of economic growth, renewable energy, and non-renewable energy consumption on carbon emissions in Canada from 1965 to 2017. In the first stage of the analysis, unit root testing was performed for the variables. For this, Lee-Strazicich (2003), ADF and PP unit root tests were used. The nonlinear ARDL method was used to analyze the relationship between variables. and Measures: In order to analyze the relationship between the variables in the established model, renewable energy consumption (%), non-renewable energy consumption (%), and carbon emissions (per capita-Mt). In addition, the economic growth (constant price 2010- US$) parameter was added to the model as a control variable. The findings support that energy consumption, economic growth, and renewable energy have an asymmetric effect on carbon emissions in the long run. The positive shock in renewable energy reduces carbon emissions, and a unit increase in renewable energy reduces carbon emissions by 1.29%. Besides, the negative shock in economic growth greatly deteriorates the quality of the environment; that is, a 1% reduction in economic growth causes emissions to increase by 0.74% in the long run. On the other hand, positive shocks in energy consumption have a positive and significant effect on carbon emissions. A 1% increase in energy consumption causes 1.69% carbon emissions. There are important policy implications for Canada to eliminate carbon emissions, increase the share of renewable energy sources and achieve its economic growth targets. In addition, Canada needs to reduce its consumption of non-renewable energy (such as gasoline coal, diesel, and natural gas).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".