Skip to main content

The effect of African growth on future global energy, emissions, and regional development

Abstract

Today Africa is a small emitter, but it has a large and faster-than-average growing population and per capita income that could drive future energy demand and, if unconstrained, emissions. This paper uses a multi-model comparison to characterize the potential future energy development for Continental and Sub-Saharan Africa under different assumptions about population and income. Our results suggest that population and economic growth rates will strongly influence Africa’s future energy use and emissions. We show that affluence is only one face of the medal and the range of future emissions is also contingent on technological and political factors. Higher energy intensity improvements occur when Africa grows faster. In contrast, climate intensity varies less with economic growth and it is mostly driven by climate policy. African emissions could account for between 5 % and 20 % of global emissions, with Sub-Saharan Africa contributing between 4 % and 10 % of world emissions in 2100. In all scenarios considered, affluence levels remain low until the middle of the century, suggesting that the population could remain dependent on traditional bioenergy to meet most residential energy needs. Although the share of electricity in final energy, electric capacity and electricity use per capita all rise with income, even by mid-century they do not reach levels observed in developed countries today.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    The individual models use different criteria to map countries to regions. GCAM and IPAC focus on geographic proximity and as such all regions include contiguous countries. REMIND and WITCH aggregate countries to regions based on their development and therefore include North Africa with Middle East and South Africa with Korea and Australia (WITCH) and with the Rest of the World (REMIND).

  2. 2.

    The GDP per capita scenarios have been developed using the methodology described in Hawksworth (2006). The methodology is based on a Solow-Swan model with capital and quality adjusted labor as input factor and exogenous assumption about future Total Factor Productivity (TFP) growth. Population scenarios are from the UN, historic GDP and investment information are from the Penn World Tables and data on education levels are from Barro and Lee (2010). Variations in the speed of growth are obtained by varying the TFP growth of the US. The other regions are assumed to converge to the technology frontier at a slow or fast speed. All models used in the comparison exercise, represent economic entities in Market Exchange Rate (MER). As a consequence, the Purchasing Parity Power (PPP) GDP per capita scenarios have been converted into MER using a projection of the PPP to MER ratio for the 21st century.

  3. 3.

    As noticed in other studies for Africa, this share is significantly larger than the expected share of China or India (Cilliers and Moyer 2011).

  4. 4.

    Table 1 shows the results of scenario implementation in the individual models.

  5. 5.

    In REMIND the efficiency parameters are assumed to change at the same rate as labor efficiency, plus an additional adjustment factor is applied that varies per region and final energy type and results in continuity of past trends and a converging behavior between regions (EJ/capita over GDP PPP/capita) (Luderer et al. 2013).

  6. 6.

    Traditional biomass is usually defined as unprocessed fuelwood, agricultural residues, and animal dung, as well as charcoal, normally combusted on open fires or in very inefficient stoves. Traditional biomass is represented as a function of GDP per capita in the WITCH and GCAM models, and exogenous assumptions are employed in REMIND.

  7. 7.

    Electrification rates are driven by numerous factors. Some mechanisms that influence electrification rates, e.g. in the case of REMIND, include a) possibility of substitution between transport energy, electricity, and non-electric energy for stationary end uses within the nested Constant Elasticity of Substitution production function, b) calibration of the energy efficiencies of the stationary electricity CES leaf, c) provision of energy through numerous competing technologies characterized by different efficiencies, lifetimes, investment costs, fixed and variable operation and maintenance costs, learning rates, etc.

  8. 8.

    Reasons motivating differences in the deployment of solar and nuclear across models include a) in REMIND solar (and wind) technologies are characterized by endogenous technological change through learning-by-doing, where investment costs decrease by pre-specified rates for each doubling of cumulated capacity, b) solar is not considered in the WITCH model, c) in REMIND and IPAC a sharper increase of gas and coal prices in the second half of the century is observed.

  9. 9.

    Global energy intensity growth rates range between −2.2 and −1.1 %, while carbon intensity rates range between −0.1 and 0.9 %.

  10. 10.

    We assume 5 GJ/capita of final energy is needed for meeting basic domestic cooking and electricity needs, as stipulated by the UN Secretary-General’s advisory group (AGECC 2010).

References

  1. African Development Bank Group (AfDB) (2011) Africa in 50 Years' Time. The Road Towards Inclusive Growth. African Development Bank, Tunis, Tunisia

  2. AGECC (2010) Energy for a sustainable future: summary report and recommendations. The UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change (AGECC), New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barro RJ, Lee JW (2010) A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950–2010. NBER Working Paper No. 15902. http://www.nber.org/people/robert_barro

  4. Bauer N, Mouratiadou I, Luderer G, Baumstark L, Brecha R, Edenhofer O, Kriegler E (this issue). Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation - an analysis with ReMIND. Climatic Change

  5. Bazilian M et al (2012) Energy access scenarios to 2030 for the power sector in Sub-Saharan Africa. Util Policy 20:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blanford GJ, Richels RG, Rutherford TF (2009) Feasible climate targets: the roles of economic growth, coalition development and expectations. Energy Econ 31:S82–S93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blanford G, Tavoni M, Rose S (2012) Baseline projections of energy and emissions in Asia. Energy Econ 34:S284–S292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Böhringer C, Löschel A, Moslener U, Rutherford TF (2009) EU climate policy up to 2020: an economic impact assessment. Energy Econ 31(2):295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buskirk R (2006) Analysis of long-range clean energy investment scenarios for Eritrea, East Africa. Energy Policy 34:1807–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cabraal AR, Barnes DF, Agarwal SG (2005) Productive uses of energy for rural development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:117–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Calvin K et al (2012) The role of Asia in mitigating climate change: results from the Asia modeling exercise. Energy Econ 34(suppl 3):S251–S260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Calvin K, Wise M, Luckow P, Kyle P, Clarke L, Edmonds J (this issue) Implications of uncertain future energy resources on bioenergy use and terrestrial carbon emissions. Climatic Change

  13. Chakravarty S, Tavoni M (2013) Energy poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation: is there a tradeoff? Nota di Lavoro

  14. Cilliers JBH, Moyer J (2011) African futures 2050. The next forty years. http://www.ifs.du.edu/assets/documents/Africa%20Futures%202050%20ISS%20Pardee%20IFs.pdf

  15. Clarke L et al (2007) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. In: U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (ed) Synthesis and assessment product 2.1 Sub-report 2.1A. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, p 154

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Econ 31:S64–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. De Cian E, Sferra F, Tavoni M (this issue) The influence of economic growth, population, and fossil fuel scarcity on energy investments. Climatic Change

  18. Desai M, Mehta S, Smith K (2004) Indoor smoke from solid fuels: assessing the environmental burden of disease at national and local levels. Environmental burden of disease series No. 4. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  19. Eberhard A, Rosnes O, Shkaratan M, Vennemo H (2011) Africa’s power infrastructure: investment, integration, efficiency. In: Foster V, Briceño-Garmendia C (eds). World Bank, Washington DC

  20. EIA (2013a) International energy outlook 2013. U.S. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0484(2013)

  21. EIA (2013b) International energy statistics. U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/countries/data.cfm

  22. Ekholm T, Krey V, Pachauri S, Riahi K (2010) Determinants of household energy consumption in India. Energy Policy 38:5696–5707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Erickson P, Heaps C, Lazarus M (2009) Greenhouse gas mitigation in developing countries. Stockholm Environment Institute

  24. Fawcett A, Delachesnaye P, Reilly J, Weyant J (2009) Overview of EMF 22 U.S. Transition scenarios. Energy Econ 31:S198–S221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goldemberg J, Johansson TB, Reddy A, Williams RH (1985) Basic needs and much more with one kilowatt per capita. Ambio 14:190–200

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hawksworth J (2006) The World in 2050. How big will the major emerging market economies get and how can the OECD compete? PricewaterhouseCoopers Report.

  27. IEA (2010) World energy outlook 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  28. IEA (2012) World energy outlook 2012. International Energy Agency, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Jiang K, Hu X, Songli Z (2006) Multi-Gas mitigation analysis by IPAC. Energy J Spec Issue 3:425–440

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kaya Y (1990) Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry subgroups, Responses Strategies Working Group, Paris

  31. Kriegler E, Mouratiadou I, Brecha R, Calvin K, De Cian E, Edmonds J, Jiang K, Luderer G, Tavoni M, Edenhofer O (this issue) Will economic growth and fossil fuel scarcity help or hinder climate stabilization? Overview of the RoSE multi-model study. Climatic Change

  32. Luderer G, Leimbach M, Bauer N, Kriegler E, Aboumahboub T, Arroyo Curras T, Baumstark L, Bertram C, Giannousakis A, Hilaire J, Klein D, Mouratiadou I, Pietzcker R, Piontek F, Roming N,Schultes A, Schwanitz J, Strefler J (2013). Description of the REMIND model (Version 1.5) (August 19, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2312844 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.2312844

  33. MIT (2012) http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/other/special/2012Outlook

  34. Modi V et al (2005) Energy services for the millennium development goals. Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Washington D.C, p 102

    Google Scholar 

  35. Newell RG, Iler S (2013) The global energy outlook, NBER Working Paper No. 18967

  36. Nilsson M, Heaps C, Persson Å, Carson M, Pachauri S, Kok M, Olsson M, Rehman I, Schaeffer R, Wood D, van Vuuren D, Riahi K, Americano B, Mulugetta Y (2012) Energy for a shared development agenda: global scenarios and governance implications. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pachauri S, Jiang L (2008) The household energy transition in India and China. Energy Policy 36:4022–4035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pachauri S et al. (2012) Chapter 19 - Energy access for development. Global energy assessment - toward a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1401–1458

  39. Pachauri S, van Ruijven BJ, Nagai Y, Riahi K, van Vuuren DP, Brew-Hammond A, Nakicenovic N (2013) Pathways to achieve universal household access to modern energy by 2030. Environ Rese Lett 8

  40. Riahi K et al. (2012) Chapter 17 - Energy pathways for sustainable development. Global Energy assessment - toward a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1203–1306

  41. Smil V (2003) Energy at the crossroads: global perspectives and uncertainties. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  42. Steinberger JK, Roberts JT (2010) From constraint to sufficiency: the decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecol Econ 70:425–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nakicenovic and Swart (2000) IPCC special report on emissions scenarios. Cambridge Univ. Press

  44. UN (2009) World population prospects: the 2008 revision, long-range projections supplement. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division

  45. Victor NM, Victor DG (2002) Macro patterns in the Use of traditional biomass fuels. Program on energy and sustainable development. Stanford University, Stanford, p 31

    Google Scholar 

  46. WB (2013) Overview. Vol. 2 of Global tracking framework. World Bank. Sustainable energy for all, Washington DC

  47. Winkler H, Hughes A, Marquard A, Haw M, Merven B (2011) South Africa’s greenhouse gas emissions under business-as-usual: the technical basis of ‘Growth without constraints’ in the long-term mitigation scenarios. Energy Policy 39:5818–5828

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by Stiftung Mercator (www.stiftung-mercator.de).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Calvin.

Additional information

This article is part of a Special Issue on “The Impact of Economic Growth and Fossil Fuel Availability on Climate Protection” with Guest Editors Elmar Kriegler, Ottmar Edenhofer, Ioanna Mouratiadou, Gunnar Luderer, and Jae Edmonds.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 135 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Calvin, K., Pachauri, S., De Cian, E. et al. The effect of African growth on future global energy, emissions, and regional development. Climatic Change 136, 109–125 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0964-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gross Domestic Product
  • Total Factor Productivity
  • Climate Policy
  • Energy Intensity
  • Final Energy