Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Marginal effect of clean energy, nuclear energy-related R&D investment, energy security risk, and policy uncertainty on the environment in the USA
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 17 February 2026

Marginal effect of clean energy, nuclear energy-related R&D investment, energy security risk, and policy uncertainty on the environment in the USA

  • Mustafa Tevfik Kartal1,2,3,
  • Dilvin Taşkın4,5,
  • Marco Mele6,7 &
  • …
  • Cosimo Magazzino8,9 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 797 Accesses

  • 1 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Environmental sciences
  • Environmental social sciences

Abstract

Environmental problems have been attracting the interest of all relevant parties because of the increasing negative effects on humanity. At this point, further clean, especially nuclear, energy consumption (EC) is seen as a strategic option to combat environmental deterioration (ED). Because clean energy, nuclear energy-related R&D investments (NRD), energy security risk (ESR), as well as increasing economic policy uncertainty (EPU) and trade policy uncertainty (TPU) in recent times have the potential to affect clean EC, this research uncovers the contribution of nuclear EC (NEC) in combating ED by considering also gross domestic product (GDP) and renewable EC (REC) along with the interaction terms of NEC with NRD, ESR, EPU, and TPU. In this vein, the study focuses on the USA case as the biggest economy and leading country in NEC, applies the kernel regularized least squares (KRLS) approach on data from 1974 through 2022, and uses carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the main analysis and ecological footprint (EFP) in checking robustness as an ED indicator. The empirical results show that (i) NEC (REC & EPU) is completely ineffective (beneficial) to reduce CO2 emissions; (ii) GDP, ESR, and TPU is almost completely unhelpful to decline CO2 emissions; (iii) the interaction of NRD and EPU with NEC provide a decrease in CO2 emissions; (iv) KRLS approach successfully estimates variations in CO2 emissions around 95%; (v) some variables (e.g., GDP & TPU) have a varying effect across percentiles, whereas others don’t. Thus, the study reveals the efficiency of certain factors (e.g., REC, EPU, interaction of NEC with NRD & EPU) on CO2 emissions, whereas GDP, NEC, ESR, & TPU can’t be helpful to protect the environment. Accordingly, the study argues policy implications (e.g., allocating free/low cost land, ensuring low cost financing support, removing customs-related barriers to import relevant components to install new clean EC capacity in short term, trying to nationally produce clean EC components in long term, ensuring long-term security of rare earth minerals, as well as preventing the displacement between REC and NEC through simultaneously supporting both REC and NEC to appropriately allocating incentives) for USA policymakers.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  1. Ali, M. I., Islam, M. M., & Ceh, B. Growth-environment nexus in Canada: Revisiting EKC via demand and supply dynamics. Energy Environ. 0958305X241263833 (2024).

  2. Mehboob, M. Y., Ma, B., Sadiq, M. & Zhang, Y. Does nuclear energy reduce consumption-based carbon emissions: The role of environmental taxes and trade globalization in highest carbon emitting countries. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 56(1), 180–188 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lau, L., Choong, C., Ng, C., Liew, F. & Ching, S. Is nuclear energy clean? Revisit of environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis in OECD countries. Econ. Model. 77, 12–20 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pan, B., Adebayo, T. S., Ibrahim, R. L. & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. Does nuclear energy consumption mitigate carbon emissions in leading countries by nuclear power consumption? Evidence from quantile causality approach. Energy Environ. 34(7), 2521–2543 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy, C., Cole, W., Bistline, J., Bragg-Sitton, S., Dixon, B., Eschmann, E., Ho, J., Kwon, A., Martin, L., Namovicz, C., & Sowder, A. Nuclear power’s future role in a decarbonized U.S. electricity system. https://doi.org/10.2172/1988235 (2023).

  6. EIA. U.S. nuclear industry. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php, Accessed on 20 June 2025 (2023).

  7. EIA. U.S. nuclear generating statistics. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65104#:~:text=In%202024%2C%20U.S.%20utilities%20operated,generation%20fleet%20in%20the%20world, Accessed on 20 June 2025 (2024).

  8. Kim, S. H., Taiwo, T. A. & Dixon, B. W. The carbon value of nuclear power plant lifetime extensions in the United States. Nucl. Technol. 207(6), 775–790 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hassan, S. T., Khan, D., Zhu, B. & Batool, B. Is public service transportation increase environmental contamination in China? The role of nuclear energy consumption and technological change. Energy 238, 121890 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Majeed, M. T., Öztürk, İ, Samreen, I. & Luni, T. Evaluating the asymmetric effects of nuclear energy on carbon emissions in Pakistan. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 54(5), 1664–1673 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bozkaya, Ş, Onifade, S. T. & Duran, M. S. Nuclear energy utilization and the expectations of emission-reduction gains: Empirical evidence from economic trajectory of selected utilizing states. Prog. Nucl. Energy 178, 105526 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Özcan, B., Kılıç Depren, S. & Kartal, M. T. Impact of nuclear energy and hydro electricity consumption in achieving environmental quality: Evidence from load capacity factor by quantile based non-linear approaches. Gondwana Res. 129, 412–424 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jiang, Y., Zhou, Z. & Liu, C. Does economic policy uncertainty matter for carbon emission? Evidence from US sector level data. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26(24), 24380–24394 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Song, K., Dai, W. & Bian, Y. Trade policy uncertainty and environmental performance of Chinese enterprises. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 64, 73–85 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chiou, W. J. P., Fu, S. H., Lin, J. B. & Tsai, W. Exploring the impacts of economic policies, policy uncertainty, and politics on carbon emissions. Environ. Resour. Econ. 88(4), 895–919 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mandacı, P. E., Çağlı, E. C., Taşkın, D. & Kocakaya, B. T. Quantile-on-quantile connectedness of uncertainty with fossil and green energy markets. Renew. Energy 249, 123235 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jaforullah, M. & King, A. Does the use of renewable energy sources mitigate CO2 emissions? A reassessment of the US evidence. Energy Economics 49, 711–717 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bhowmik, R., Syed, Q. R., Apergis, N., Alola, A. A. & Gai, Z. Applying a dynamic ARDL approach to the environmental phillips curve (EPC) hypothesis amid monetary, fiscal, and trade policy uncertainty in the USA. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29(10), 14914–14928 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Işık, C. et al. Renewable energy, climate policy uncertainty, industrial production, domestic exports/re-exports, and CO2 emissions in the USA: a SVAR approach. Gondwana Res. 127, 156–164 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Joof, F., Samour, A., Ali, M., Rehman, M. A. & Tursoy, T. Economic complexity, renewable energy and ecological footprint: The role of the housing market in the USA. Energy Build. 311, 114131 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kraft, J. & Kraft, A. On the relationship between energy and GNP. J Energy Dev. 3(2), 401–403 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. Environmental impacts of a North American free trade agreement. NBER Working Paper. No. 3914 (1991).

  23. Payne, J. E. Survey of the international evidence on the causal relationship between energy consumption and growth. J. Econ. Stud. 37(1), 53–95 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ali, M. I., Rahaman, M. A., Ali, M. J. & Rahman, M. F. The growth-environment nexus amid geopolitical risks: Cointegration and machine learning algorithm approaches. Discov. Sustain. 6(1), 78 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Magazzino, C. Ecological footprint, electricity consumption, and economic growth in China: geopolitical risk and natural resources governance. Empirical Econ. 66(1), 1–25 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Baek, J. & Pride, D. On the income-nuclear energy-CO2 emissions nexus revisited. Energy Econ. 43, 6–10 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Baek, J. & Kim, H. S. Is economic growth good or bad for the environment? Empirical evidence from Korea. Energy Econ. 36, 744–749 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Danish, K., Ulucak, R. & Erdogan, S. The effect of nuclear energy on the environment in the context of globalization: Consumption vs production-based CO2 emissions. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 54(4), 1312–1320 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Al-Mulali, U. Investigating the impact of nuclear energy consumption on GDP growth and CO2 emission: A panel data analysis. Prog. Nucl. Energy 73, 172–178 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mahmood, N., Danish, N., Wang, Z. & Zhang, B. The role of nuclear energy in the correction of environmental pollution: Evidence from Pakistan. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52(6), 1327–1333 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ali, M. I., Islam, M. M. & Ceh, B. Interaction between decomposed energy utilization and environmental health in Canada: A cointegration and counterfactual analysis approach. Int. J. Energy Res. 2025(1), 1173970 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hicks, J. R. The theory of wages (Macmillan, 1932).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Binswanger, H. P. & Ruttan, V. W. Induced innovation: Technology, institutions, and development. J. Dev. Stud. 14(3), 1–25 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Griliches, Z. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell J. Econ. 92–116 (1979).

  35. Lin, B. & Bai, R. Oil prices and economic policy uncertainty: Evidence from global, oil importers, and exporters’ perspective. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 56, 101357 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  36. He, Z., Dong, T., Qian, W. & Xu, W. Dynamic interactions among trade policy uncertainty, climate policy uncertainty, and crude oil prices. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 95, 103479 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Grossman, G. M. & Krueger, A. B. Economic growth and the environment. Q. J. Econ. 110(2), 353–377 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sadorsky, P. Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economies. Energy Policy 37(10), 4021–4028 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ali, M. I., Islam, M. M. & Ceh, B. Assessing the impact of three emission (3E) parameters on environmental quality in Canada: A provincial data analysis using the quantiles via moments approach. Int. J. Green Energy 22(3), 551–569 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  40. WB. Data of GDP. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator, Accessed on 21 May 2025 (2025).

  41. IEA. Energy Technology R&D Budgets. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/energy-technology-rd-and-d-budget-database-2, Accessed on 21 May 2025 (2025).

  42. Islam, M. M., Ali, M. I., & Moniruzzaman, M. Synergy between energy technologies and CO2 emitting goods trade in leading energy-intensive economies: proactive or counterproductive governance? Sustain. Futures, 100950 (2025).

  43. EI. Data of Energy (Including Nuclear and Renewable Energy) Consumption and CO2 Emissions. https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads, Accessed on 21 May 2025 (2025).

  44. GFN. Data of EFP. https://data.footprintnetwork.org, Accessed on 21 May 2025 (2025).

  45. USC. Data of Energy Security Risk. https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/energy-security-risk-index, Accessed on 21 May 2025 (2025).

  46. www.policyuncertainty.com. Data of Economic Policy Uncertainty and Trade Policy Uncertainty. https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/energy-security-risk-index, Accessed on 21 May 2025 (2025).

  47. Magazzino, C., Monarca, U., Cassetta, E., Costantiello, A. & Gattone, T. Uncovering CO2 drivers with machine learning in high-and upper-middle-income countries. Energies 18(21), 5552 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mehboob, M. Y., Ma, B., Mehboob, M. B. & Zhang, Y. Does green finance reduce environmental degradation? The role of green innovation, environmental tax, and geopolitical risk in China. J. Clean. Prod. 435, 140353 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Islam, M. M. et al. Renewable and non-renewable energy consumption driven sustainable development in ASEAN countries: Do financial development and institutional quality matter?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29(23), 34231–34247 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kartal, M. T. Time, frequency, and quantile-based role of R&D investments in energy on sectoral degradation in the United States. Energy Environ. 0958305X241228508 (2024).

  51. Dam, M. M., Naimoğlu, M., & Shahbaz, M. Minimizing Fossil Fuel Energy Losses: The Role of R&D and Nuclear Energy in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 144819 (2025).

  52. Kartal, M. T., Taşkın, D., Shahbaz, M., Kirikkaleli, D. & Kılıç Depren, S. Role of energy transition in easing energy security risk and decreasing CO2 emissions: Disaggregated level evidence from the USA by quantile-based models. J. Environ. Manag. 359, 120971 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Dickey, D. A. & Fuller, W. A. Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74(366a), 427–431 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Phillips, P. C. & Perron, P. Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75(2), 335–346 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Broock, W. A., Scheinkman, J. A., Dechert, W. D. & LeBaron, B. A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Economet. Rev. 15(3), 197–235 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sinha, A., Ghosh, V., Hussain, N., Nguyen, D. K. & Das, N. Green financing of renewable energy generation: Capturing the role of exogenous moderation for ensuring sustainable development. Energy Econ. 126, 107021 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hainmueller, J. & Hazlett, C. Kernel regularized least squares: Reducing misspecification bias with a flexible and interpretable machine learning approach. Polit. Anal. 22(2), 143–168 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Kartal, M. T., Magazzino, C., Taşkın, D., Depren, Ö. & Ayhan, F. Efficiency of green bond, clean energy, oil price, and geopolitical risk on sectoral decarbonization: Evidence from the globe by daily data and marginal effect analysis. Appl. Energy 392, 125963 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Kartal, M. T., Mukhtarov, S., Depren, Ö., Ayhan, A. & Ulussever, T. How can SDG-13 be achieved by energy, environment, and economy-related policies? Evidence from five leading emerging countries. Sustain. Dev. 33(4), 5110–5133 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Kartal, M. T., Sharif, A., Magazzino, C., Mukhtarov, S. & Kirikkaleli, D. The Effects of energy transition and environmental policy stringency subtypes on ecological footprint: Evidence from BRICS countries via a KRLS approach. Engineering https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2025.02.007 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Qianqian, D., Zhen, W., Mehboob, M. Y. & Shehzadi, A. Does green innovation mitigate consumption-based carbon emissions? The role of nuclear energy consumption and energy productivity in G-7 nations. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 57(5), 103384 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Yi, S., Abbasi, K. R., Hussain, K., Albaker, A. & Alvarado, R. Environmental concerns in the United States: Can renewable energy, fossil fuel energy, and natural resources depletion help?. Gondwana Res. 117, 41–55 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Usman, O., Ozkan, O., Alola, A. A. & Ghardallou, W. Energy security-related risks and the quest to attain USA’s net-zero emissions targets by 2050: A dynamic ARDL simulations modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 31(12), 18797–18812 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kartal, M. T., Depren, Ö. & Ayhan, F. Uncovering displacement between nuclear and renewable electricity generation for G7 countries by novel wavelet-based methods. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 32(2), 186–203 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Pata, U. K., Kartal, M. T., Mukhtarov, S. & Magazzino, C. Do energy and geopolitical risks influence environmental quality? A quantile-based load capacity factor assessment for fragile countries. Energ. Strat. Rev. 53, 101430 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research has been financed by Servizi Fondo Bombole Metano S.p.A. (Rome, Italy).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Finance and Banking, European University of Lefke, Lefke, Northern Cyprus, TR-10 Mersin, Türkiye

    Mustafa Tevfik Kartal

  2. Clinic of Economics, Azerbaijan State University of Economics (UNEC), Baku, Azerbaijan

    Mustafa Tevfik Kartal

  3. Division of International Studies, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea

    Mustafa Tevfik Kartal

  4. Department of International Trade and Finance, Yaşar University, İzmir, Türkiye

    Dilvin Taşkın

  5. ARUCAD Research Centre, Arkin University of Creative Arts and Design, Northern Cyprus, TR-10 Mersin, Türkiye

    Dilvin Taşkın

  6. “Niccolò Cusano” University, Rome, Italy

    Marco Mele

  7. Servizi Fondo Bombole Metano S.P.A., Rome, Italy

    Marco Mele

  8. Department of Management, Finance and Technology, LUM University “Giuseppe Degennaro”, Casamassima, Italy

    Cosimo Magazzino

  9. Economic Research Center (WCERC), Western Caspian University, Baku, Azerbaijan

    Cosimo Magazzino

Authors
  1. Mustafa Tevfik Kartal
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dilvin Taşkın
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Mele
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cosimo Magazzino
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.T.K. and D.T. wrote Sections 3–4. M.M. and C.M. wrote Sections 1, 2, and 5. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Mele.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Consent for publication

The authors are willing to permit the Journal to publish the article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kartal, M.T., Taşkın, D., Mele, M. et al. Marginal effect of clean energy, nuclear energy-related R&D investment, energy security risk, and policy uncertainty on the environment in the USA. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-36312-9

Download citation

  • Received: 23 August 2025

  • Accepted: 12 January 2026

  • Published: 17 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-36312-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Environmental deterioration
  • Clean energy
  • Nuclear energy-related R&D investments
  • Energy security risk
  • Economic & trade policy uncertainty
  • USA
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene