ArticlePloS one2024
Nexus of green energy, financial inclusion, militarization, and environmental sustainability: A global perspective.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-09-04Concerns/Issues about Authorship/Affiliation · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Objections by Author(s) ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article investigates the dynamic impact of green energy consumption (GE), financial inclusion (FI), and military spending (MS) on environmental sustainability (ES) by utilizing a sample of 121 countries from 2003 to 2022. The dataset is divided into high-income, upper-middle income and low and lower-middle-income countries. We employed a two-step system GMM approach, which was further robust through panel Quantile and Driscoll-Kraay (D-K) regressions. The findings divulged that green energy resources benefit ES at global and all income levels because of having a significant negative impact of 5.9% on ecological footprints. At the same time, FI and MS significantly enhance ecological footprints by 7% and 6.9%, respectively, proving these factors detrimental to ES. Moreover, conflicts (CON), terrorism (TM), institutional quality (IQ), and socioeconomic conditions (SEC) also have a significantly positive association with global ecological footprints and most of the income level groups. Dissimilarly, financial inclusion and armed conflicts have a non-significant influence on ecological footprints in low-income and high-income countries, respectively. Furthermore, institutional quality enhances ES in upper-middle and low and lower-middle-income countries by negatively affecting ecological footprints. At the same time, terrorism significantly reduces ecological footprints in high-income countries. This research also provides the imperative policy inferences to accomplish various SDGs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.