Decomposing the “clean” energy paradox: Carbon versus land ecological footprints in G7 nations

Global efforts to curb carbon emissions have produced a paradox: across the G7 economies, renewable energy has grown at 5.4% per annum and CO ₂ has declined at 2.0%, yet the aggregate Ecological Footprint (EF) has contracted only 1.1% per annum. This article argues that the aggregate masks two opposing channels. Using a G7 balanced panel (1975–2024; N  = 7, T = 50; 350 country-year observations) from the Global Footprint Network and the Energy Institute Statistical Review, we decompose Total EF into Carbon EF and Land EF and estimate the ecological elasticities of GDP, fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables using Common Correlated Effects fixed-effects, Method of Moments Quantile Regression, and Dumitrescu–Hurlin panel Granger causality tests. Three findings emerge. First, renewable energy significantly reduces Carbon EF (−0.308, p  < .01) but has no detectable effect on Land EF (0.037, p  = .506): the decarbonization benefit does not translate into land-use relief. Second, nuclear energy operates primarily through the land channel (Land EF elasticity 0.078 vs Carbon EF 0.028), reflecting the physical footprint of siting, fuel cycles, and exclusion zones. Third, GDP exerts a larger pressure on Land EF (0.423) than on Carbon EF (0.184). Dumitrescu–Hurlin tests confirm unidirectional causality from each driver to EF, with bidirectional feedback only for nuclear. The results support a “two channels, two instruments” policy logic: decarbonization tools alone cannot close the biocapacity gap, and land-channel instruments must complement carbon pricing.