Professor of International Energy and Climate Change Policy UCL Editor inChief Climate Policy journal Keynote Presentation to international conference Our Common Future under Climate Change Paris 7 July 2015 ID: 591864
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Michael Grubb" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Michael Grubb
Professor of International Energy and Climate Change Policy, UCL Editor-in-Chief, Climate Policy journalKeynote Presentation to international conference Our Common Future under Climate Change, Paris, 7 July 2015
Some History of Energy and Emissions
Energy-economy relationships in basic economic development Patterns? - centrality of structural change Projections? - history of forecasting errors The bill? - relative constancy of national energy expendituresShares, shocks and shifts – emission trends and territory, from last 50 to last 5 years
Key pointsSlide2
Across time and countries, basic
industrialisation is energy-intensive;historically aggregated income – energy relationships often assumed to extend- falling energy costs important feature of initial ‘industrial revolution’- but global
emissions dominated by modern economies > $10,000/capS
ectoral and national developmental patterns suggest a different picture ….Vast majority of emissions from countries now > $10,000/cap; developed econs > $30,000
Energy-GDP relationship:
the Common
Caricature
Many fascinating studies of energy-in-development patterns
eg
. Fouquet,
Grubler
, SmilSlide3
‘The
Pattern’ - profound structural changes with development“From Production ….…. to Pleasure”
Source: A. Schafer, Structural change in energy use,
Energy Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 429–43
Industry rises to dominate over the agricultural and domestic needs of subsistence economies
By c. $10,000 per capita: relative industrial decline, growth in transport & servicesSlide4
‘The
Projections?’ Very poor record in energy / emissions forecasting, particularly as countries move beyond basic industrialisation Source: A. Schafer, Structural change in energy use, Energy Policy, Volume 33, Issue 4, March 2005, Pages 429–43
US: energy consumption in 2000
turned out to be below the low end of all mid-70s forecastsUK: “
Against projected 30% increase in UK GHG emissions over the next decade … demanding ambition to return emissions in 2000 to 1990 levels”
- Mrs Thatcher, 1990Slide5
Figure 6‑1 The most important diagram in energy economics
Note: The graph plots average energy intensity against average energy prices (1990-2005) for a range of prices. The dotted line shows the line of constant energy expenditure (intensity x price) per unit GDP over the
period
Source: After Newbery (2003), with updated data from International Energy Agency and EU KLEMSEg. Japan spent the same %GDP on energy as the US despite end-user prices being more than twice as high; so did France and Germany. Countries that subsidised energy to keep it cheap have ended up spending more. Source: Grubb et al., Planetary Economics, Figure 6.1 derived from Newbery
‘The Bill’? At least amongst
industrialised countries, long-run energy
expenditure
/ GDP
quite constant despite wide price
variationsSlide6
Upper-middle and lower income regions in general growing “embodied” exports to high income countries
High-income regions generally net importers, footprint significant growth 1990-2010
‘The Shares’ - IPCC AR5 Illustrated the rapid rise of CO
2 from Upper-Middle income countries (particularly China), but partly due to ‘embodied’ tradeSlide7
tCO2 / capita
Trends in per-capita GDP and E-CO2 of different regions up to 2014,
territorial (from 1960) and consumption footprint (from 1970)
1960197319902008US
GDP (constant 2005 US$000 PPP) / capita
Mean of four major international Multi-Regional Input-Output models, as convened and analysed by EU FP7 Carbon Cap consortium, with particular thanks to NTNU and TNO.
Territorial
CO2
Consumption CO2 footprint
‘The shocks and shifts’, Part 1: OECD per-cap emissions
vs
wealth,
through oil & financial shocks (1960 – 2014)
2014Slide8
tCO2 / capita
USGDP (constant 2005 US$000 PPP) / capita
Mean of four major international Multi-Regional Input-Output models, as convened and analysed by EU FP7 Carbon Cap consortium, with particular thanks to NTNU and TNO.
Territorial CO2
Consumption CO2 footprint
Trends in per-capita GDP and
E-CO
2
of
different regions up to 2014,
territorial
(from 1960) and consumption footprint (from 1970)
1960
1973
1990
2008
‘The shocks and shifts’, Part 1: OECD per-cap emissions
vs
wealth,
through oil & financial shocks (1960 – 2014)Slide9
tCO2 / capita
USGDP (constant 2005 US$000 PPP) / capita
Mean of four major international Multi-Regional Input-Output models, as convened and analysed by EU FP7 Carbon Cap consortium, with particular thanks to NTNU and TNO.
Territorial CO2
Consumption CO2 footprint
1960
1973
1990
2008
‘The shocks and shifts’, Part 1: OECD per-cap emissions
vs
wealth,
through oil & financial shocks (1960 – 2014)Slide10
tCO2 / capita
US
Canada
GDP (constant 2005 US$000 PPP) / capitaMean of four major international Multi-Regional Input-Output models, as convened and analysed by EU FP7 Carbon Cap consortium, with particular thanks to NTNU and TNO.Territorial CO2
Consumption CO2 footprint
Trends in per-capita GDP and
E-CO
2
of
different regions up to 2014,
territorial
(from 1960) and consumption footprint (from 1970)
1960
1973
1990
2008
‘The shocks and shifts’, Part 1: OECD per-cap emissions
vs
wealth,
through oil & financial shocks (1960 – 2014)Slide11
tCO2 / capita
US
Canada
EU-15196020081990
GDP (constant 2005 US$000 PPP) / capita
Mean of four major international Multi-Regional Input-Output models, as convened and analysed by EU FP7 Carbon Cap consortium, with particular thanks to NTNU and TNO.
Territorial
CO2
Consumption CO2 footprint
1960
1973
1990
2008
‘The shocks and shifts’, Part 1: OECD per-cap emissions
vs
wealth,
through oil & financial shocks (1960 – 2014)
OECD territorial p.c. emissions now back to level of 1960s; consumption emissions c 10% below 2008 peak
Japan
1973Slide12
GDP (constant 2005 US$000 PPP) / capita
tCO2 / capitaMean of four major international Multi-Regional Input-Output models, as convened and analysed by EU FP7 Carbon Cap consortium, with particular thanks to NTNU and TNO.
US
CanadaEU-15
Mexico
Brazil
1990
1990
Territorial
CO2
Consumption CO2 footprint
‘The shocks and shifts’, Part 2: Some advanced emerging economies have so far kept emissions to a small fraction (2-4 tCO2/cap) of historical
antecedants
1960
1973
1990
2008
2008
1990
2014Slide13
Mexico
Brazil
GDP (constant 2005 US$000 PPP) / capita
tCO2 / capitaMean of four major international Multi-Regional Input-Output models, as convened and analysed by EU FP7 Carbon Cap consortium, with particular thanks to NTNU and TNO.
US
Canada
EU-15
China
1990
1990
India
Territorial
CO2
Consumption CO2 footprint
‘The shocks and shifts’, Part 3: Asian giants so far closer to the ‘old
course’
1960
1973
1990
2008
2008
1990
2014
China
territorial
per-cap equals EU-15,
of
today
and 1960!Slide14
Energy-economy
relationships… Energy essential to basic economic development Patterns? ‘Production to pleasure’ phase shift around $10,000/cap with trend breaksProjections? A history of forecasting errors
The Bill? Relative constancy of national energy expenditures / GDP
Shares, shocks and shifts – some determining questionsWill rich countries accelerate decarbonisation as part of recovery from recession?Can ‘advanced emerging’ economies maintain rapid development within 2-4 tCO2/cap? With China entering ‘industrial maturation’ can it make an early turn towards decarbonization
– and which path will India chart?
Key points
Michael Grubb
Professor
of International Energy and Climate Change Policy,
UCL
Editor
-in-Chief,
Climate Policy
journal
Some History of Energy and
Emissions: conclusions