Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 148, Issue 4, pp 481–490 | Cite as

Has the relationship between non-fossil fuel energy sources and CO2 emissions changed over time? A cross-national study, 2000–2013

  • Ryan P. ThombsEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the possibly changing relationship between non-fossil fuel energy sources (biomass, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind) and CO2 emissions over the temporal period 2000 to 2013. The results from two-way fixed effects longitudinal models demonstrate that the carbon elasticities of these energy sources change over time but not symmetrically. Wind’s association with CO2 emissions became increasingly negative after the Great Recession (i.e., suppressed emissions at a greater rate). Nuclear’s association with CO2 resembled a distorted U-shaped curve over time. Biomass’ elasticity fluctuated between positive and negative values. Solar and geothermal’s elasticity remained fairly consistent over the course of the analysis, and hydro’s elasticity increased over time but remained negative throughout the study’s temporal period. The study provides several tentative explanations for these findings. Overall, the results suggest there are various processes at play that influence an energy source’s relation to CO2 emissions.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2215_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Allison P (2009) Fixed effects regression models. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum CF (2006) An introduction to modern econometrics using Stata. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck N, Katz J (1995) What to do (and not do) with time-series cross-section data. Am Polit Sci Rev 89:634–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruckner T, Bashmakov IA, Mulugetta Y, Chum H, de la Vega Navarro A, Edmonds J, Faaij A, Fungtammasan B, Garg A, Hertwich E, Honnery D, Infield D, Kainuma M, Khennas S, Kim S, Nimir HB, Riahi K, Strachan N, Wiser R, Zhang X (2014) Energy systems. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC (eds) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 511–597Google Scholar
  5. Chiu CL, Chang TH (2009) What proportion of renewable energy supplies is needed to initially mitigate CO2 emissions in OECD member countries? Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(6):1669–1674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Commoner B (1971) The closing circle. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Commoner B, Corr M, Stamler PJ (1971) The causes of pollution. Environment 13:2–19Google Scholar
  8. Ehrlich P, Holdren J (1970) The people problem. Saturday Rev:42–43Google Scholar
  9. Ehrlich P, Holdren J (1972) A bulletin dialogue on the ‘closing circle’: critique: one-dimensional ecology. Bull At Sci 28:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans A, Strezov V, Evans T (2009) Assessment of sustainability indicators for renewable energy technologies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13:1082–1088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fargione JE, Plevin RJ, Hill JD (2010) The ecological impact of biofuels. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:351–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrell AE, Plevin RJ, Turner BT, Jones AD, O’Hare M, Kammen DM (2006) Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311:506–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feng K, Davis SJ, Sun L, Hubacek K (2015) Drivers of the US CO2 emissions from 1997-2013. Nat Commun 6:1–8Google Scholar
  14. Fitzgerald JB, Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2015) Energy consumption and working hours: a longitudinal analysis of developed and developing nations, 1990-2008. Environ Sociol 1(3):213–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greening LA, Greene DL, Difiglio C (2000) Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey. Energy Policy 28:389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Renewable Energy Agency (2017) Renewable capacity headlights. International Renewable Energy Agency. http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Mar/RE_stats_highlights_2017.pdf?la=en &hash=7C535399F0994173AE445772FE62FF8C156D39DE. Accessed 30 November 2017
  17. IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T, Minx JC (eds) Climate change 2014, mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Jorgenson AK (2012) The sociology of ecologically unequal exchange and carbon dioxide emissions, 1960-2005. Soc Sci Res 41(2):242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorgenson AK (2014) Economic development and the carbon intensity of human well-being. Nat Clim Chang 4:186–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2010) Assessing the temporal stability of the population/environment relationship in comparative perspective: a cross-national panel study of carbon dioxide emissions, 1960-2005. Popul Environ 32:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2012) Are the economy and the environment decoupling? A comparative international study, 1965-2005. Am J Sociol 118:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jorgenson AK, Auerbach D, Clark B (2014) The (de-) carbonization of urbanization, 1960-2010. Clim Chang 127:561–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mundaca L, Richter JL (2015) Assessing the ‘green economy’ stimulus packages: evidence from the U.S. programs targeting renewable energy. Renew Sust Energ Rev 42:1174–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Obama B (2017) The irreversible momentum of clean energy. Science:1–9Google Scholar
  25. Roberts JT, Parks BC (2007) A climate of injustice: global inequality, north-south politics, and climate policy. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinn HW (2012) The green paradox: a supply-side approach to global warming. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Thombs RP (2017) The paradoxical relationship between renewable energy and economic growth: a cross-national panel study, 1990-2013. J World Syst Res 23(2):540–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thombs RP (2018) The transnational tilt of the treadmill and the role of trade openness on carbon emissions: a comparative international study, 1965-2010. Sociol Forum 33(2)Google Scholar
  29. United Nations (2017) Energy statistics database. http://data.un.org/Explorer.aspx?d=EDATA. Accessed 20 June 2017
  30. World Bank (2017) World development indicators. The World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. Accessed 28 July 2017
  31. World Resources Institute (2017) Climate analysis indicators tool: WRI’s climate data explorer. World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/cait-historical-emissions-data-countries-us-states-unfccc. Accessed 4 Mar 2017
  32. York R (2012) Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? Nat Clim Chang 2(6):441–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. York R, McGee JA (2016) Understanding the Jevons paradox. Environ Sociol 2:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. York R, McGee JA (2017) Does renewable energy development decouple economic growth from CO2 emissions? For Soc 3:1–6Google Scholar
  35. York R, Rosa EA, Dietz T (2003) Footprints on the earth: the environmental consequences of modernity. Am Sociol Rev 68(2):279–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations