Advertisement

Analysis of the Relative Roles of Supply-Side and Demand-Side Measures in Tackling the Global 1.5 °C Target

  • Babak Mousavi
  • Markus Blesl
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Energy book series (LNEN, volume 64)

Abstract

This chapter explores, in a systematic manner, the required energy system transformations and the associated price-dependent energy-service demands reductions in order to hold the increase in global average temperature below 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. It also evaluates the macroeconomic implications of the climate mitigation policy. The analysis is carried out using the global hybrid TIAM-MACRO model. The major findings show that a rapid decarbonisation of all sectors in the global energy system is fundamental in achieving a 1.5 °C consistent goal. This requires a portfolio of supply-side and demand-side mitigation measures. While technological measures are essential to meet the decarbonisation target, reducing energy-service demands is found to be a mitigation measure that facilitates a cost-effective transition. In addition, energy-service demands reductions play an important role in offsetting the macroeconomic impacts of the climate policy. Finally, any overshoot of the energy sector carbon budget must be counterbalanced by a significant deployment of negative emissions technologies.

References

  1. Bairam E (1991) Elasticity of substitution, technical progress and returns to scale in branches of Soviet industry: a new CES production function approach. J Appl Econometrics 6:91–96.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.3950060108sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dessens O, Anandarajah G, Gambhir A (2016) Limiting global warming to 2 °C: what do the latest mitigation studies tell us about costs, technologies and other impacts? Energy Strategy Rev 13–14:67–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2016.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fujimori S, Kainuma M, Masui T et al (2014) The effectiveness of energy service demand reduction: a scenario analysis of global climate change mitigation. Energy Policy 75:379–391.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. IEA (2017) Energy Technology PerspectivesGoogle Scholar
  5. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCCGoogle Scholar
  6. Kesicki F, Anandarajah G (2011) The role of energy-service demand reduction in global climate change mitigation: combining energy modelling and decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 39:7224–7233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Koljonen T, Lehtilä A (2012) The impact of residential, commercial, and transport energy demand uncertainties in Asia on climate change mitigation. Energy Econ 34:S410–S420.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kypreos S, Lehtila A (2015) Decomposing TIAM-MACRO to assess climatic change mitigation. Environ Model Assess 20:571–581.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-015-9451-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Loulou R, Labriet M (2008) ETSAP-TIAM: The TIMES integrated assessment model Part I: model structure. CMS 5:7–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10287-007-0046-zCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Lovell AK (1973) Estimation and prediction with CES and VES production functions. Int Econ Rev 14:676–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McGlashan NR, Workman MHW, Caldecott B, Shah N (2012) Negative emissions technologies. Grantham Inst Clim Change Briefing Pap No 8:1–27Google Scholar
  12. Mousavi B, Lopez NSA, Chiu ASF et al (2017) Driving forces of Iran’s CO2 emissions from energy consumption: an LMDI decomposition approach. Appl Energy 206:804–814.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pye S, Usher W, Strachan N (2014) The uncertain but critical role of demand reduction in meeting long-term energy decarbonisation targets. Energy Policy 73:575–586.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Remme U, Blesl M (2006) Documentation of the TIMES-MACRO modelGoogle Scholar
  15. Resch G, Held A, Faber T et al (2008) Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy 36:4048–4056.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N et al (2016) Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534:631–639.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307
  17. Roskamp KW (1977) Labor productivity and the elasticity of factor substitution in west germany industries. Rev Econ Stat 59:366–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. World Bank (2017) World bank country and lending groups, income data https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups
  19. Zellner A, Ryu H (1998) Alternative functional forms for production, cost and returns to scale functions. Appl Econometrics 13:101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Energy Economics and Rational Energy Use (IER)Stuttgart UniversityStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations