[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation – an analysis with REMIND

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We analyze the dynamics of global fossil resource markets under different assumptions for the supply of fossil fuel resources, development pathways for energy demand, and climate policy settings. Resource markets, in particular the oil market, are characterized by a large discrepancy between costs of resource extraction and commodity prices on international markets. We explain this observation in terms of (a) the intertemporal scarcity rent, (b) regional price differentials arising from trade and transport costs, (c) heterogeneity and inertia in the extraction sector. These effects are captured by the REMIND model. We use the model to explore economic effects of changes in coal, oil and gas markets induced by climate-change mitigation policies. A large share of fossil fuel reserves and resources will be used in the absence of climate policy leading to atmospheric GHG concentrations well beyond a level of 550 ppm CO2-eq. This result holds independently of different assumptions about energy demand and fossil fuel availability. Achieving ambitious climate targets will drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption, in particular the consumption of coal. Conventional oil and gas as well as non-conventional oil reserves are still exhausted. We find the net present value of fossil fuel rent until 2100 at 30tril.US$ with a large share of oil and a small share of coal. This is reduced by 9 and 12tril.US$ to achieve climate stabilization at 550 and 450 ppm CO2-eq, respectively. This loss is, however, overcompensated by revenues from carbon pricing that are 21 and 32tril.US$, respectively. The overcompensation also holds under variations of energy demand and fossil fuel supply.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Rents are the discounted stream of annual profits of a region from selling fossil resources. For each region we use the domestic price as well as the production costs and the domestic transportation costs. The international transportation costs need not be taken into account because they are equivalent to the price differences to the international market price. See also Fig. S7 & 8.

  2. This sensitivity is also observed in the GCAM and the WITCH model. Hence, the result is a property of variations in assumptions and not model-specific.

  3. The Weak Policy scenario leads to cumulative emission reductions of only 840GtCO2 mainly due to 6.1ZJ less coal consumption.

References

  • Aguilera R, Eggert RG, Lagos GCC, Tilton JE (2009) Depletion and future availability of petroleum reserves. Energy J 30:141–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askari H, Krichene N (2010) An oil demand and supply model incorporating monetary policy. Energy 35:2013–2021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker T, Bashmakov I et al (2007) Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of WGIII to the AR4 of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N, Edenhofer O, Kypreos S (2008) Linking energy system and macroeconomic growth models. J Comput Manag Sci 5:95–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N, Baumstark L, Leimbach M (2012a) The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation. Clim Change 114:145–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N, Brecha RJ, Luderer G (2012b) Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies. PNAS 109:16805–16810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt AR (2009) Converting oil shale to liquid fuels: energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions of the shell in-situ conversion process. Environ Sci Tech 42:7489–7495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Petroleum BP (2012) Statistical Review of World Energy. http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=7500&contentId=7068481 (accessed August 1, 2012)

  • Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (2010) Kurzstudie 2010. Hannover, Germany

  • Charpentier AD, Bergerson JA, MacLean HL (2009) Understanding the Canadian oil sands industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Res Lett 4:014005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF22 international scenarios. Energy Econ 31:S64–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl C, Duggan TE (1998) Survey of price elasticities from economic exploration models of oil and gas supply. J Energy Finance Dev 3:129–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees S, Gasteuil A, Kaufman RK, Mann M (2008) Assessing the factors behind oil price changes. ECB Working Paper, Frankfurt, Germany. https://www.ecb.de/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp855.pdf (accessed October 11, 2012)

  • Edenhofer O, Knopf B et al (2010) The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31(Special):223–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan Y, Xu JH (2011) What has driven oil prices since 2000? Energy Econ 33:1082–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb M (2001) Who’s afraid of atmospheric stabilisation? Making the link between energy resources and climate change. Energy Policy 29:837–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta S, Tirpak DA et al (2007) Policies instruments and co-operative arrangements. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of WGIII to the AR4 of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton JD (2009) Understanding crude oil prices. Energy J 30:179–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harberger AC (1964) The measurement of waste. Am Econ Rev 54:58–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Herfindahl OC (1967) Depletion and economic theory. In: Gaffney M (ed) Extractive resources and taxation. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2007) Energy Balances of OECD and non-OECD countries. Paris, France.

  • International Energy Agency IEA (2008) World energy outlook 2008. Paris, France

  • International Energy Agency IEA (2009) World energy outlook 2009. Paris, France

  • International Energy Agency IEA (2011) World energy outlook 2011. Paris, France

  • Jakobsson K, Bentley R, Söderbergh B, Aleklett K (2012) The end of cheap oil: bottom-up economic and geologic modeling of aggregate oil production curves. Energy Policy 41:860–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalkuhl M, Brecha RJ (2013) The carbon rent economics of climate policy. Energy Econ 39:89–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman RK (2011) The role of market fundamentals and speculation in recent price changes for crude oil. Energy Policy 39:105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilian L (2009) Not all oil price shocks are alike: disentangling demand and supply shocks in the crude oil market. Am Econ Rev 99:1053–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krichene N (2002) World crude oil and natural gas: a demand and supply model. Energy Econ 24:557–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luderer G, Bossetti V et al (2012a) The economics of decarbonizing the energy system. Clim Change 114:9–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luderer G, Pietzcker GC, Kriegler E, Haller M, Bauer N (2012b) Asia’s role in mitigating climate change: a technology and sector specific analysis with REMIND-R. Energy Econ 34(Supplement 3):S378–S390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüken M, Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Leimbach M, Luderer G, Bauer N (2011) The role of technological availability for the distributive impacts of climate change mitigation policy. Energy Policy 39:6030–6039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemet GF, Brandt AR (2011) Willingness to pay for a climate backstop. Energy J 33:53–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (2000) The six major puzzels in international macroeconomics. In: Bernanke BS, Rogoff K (eds) NBER macroeconomics annual. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 339–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrson TA, Azar C, Johannson D, Lindgren K (2007) Major oil exporters may profit rather than lose, in a carbon-constrained world. Energy Policy 35:6346–6353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogner HH (1997) An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources. Annu Rev Energy Environ 22:217–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogner HH, Aguilera R et al (2012) Energy resources and potentials. In: Johansson TB, Patwardhan A, Nakicenovic N, Gomez-Echeverri L (eds) Global energy assessment, Chapter 7. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg J, Hallegate S, Vogt-Schilb A, Sassi O, Guivarch C, Waisman H, Hourcade JC (2010) Climate policies as a hedge against the uncertainty on future oil supply. Clim Change 101:663–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorrell S, Speirs J, Bentley R, Brandt A, Miller R (2010) Global oil depletion: a review of evidence. Energy Policy 38:5290–5295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US EIA (2011) Annual energy outlook. US DoE, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vuuren DP, Hoogwijk M et al (2009) Comparison of top-down and bottom-up estimates of sectoral and regional greenhouse gas emission reduction potentials. Energy Policy 37:5125–5139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds JA et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 11:5–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyant JP (2001) Economic models: how they work and why their results differ. In: Claussen E (ed) Climate change: science, strategies and solutions. Brill Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by Stiftung Mercator (http://www.stiftung-mercator.de). Funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in the Call “Economics of Climate Change” (funding code 01LA11020B, Green Paradox) is gratefully acknowledged by Nico Bauer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 601203, 14412, Potsdam, Germany

    Nico Bauer, Ioanna Mouratiadou, Gunnar Luderer, Lavinia Baumstark, Ottmar Edenhofer & Elmar Kriegler

  2. Department of Physics, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, 45469, USA

    Robert J. Brecha

Authors
  1. Nico Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ioanna Mouratiadou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gunnar Luderer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lavinia Baumstark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert J. Brecha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ottmar Edenhofer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elmar Kriegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nico Bauer.

Additional information

This article is part of a Special Issue on “The Impact of Economic Growth and Fossil Fuel Availability on Climate Protection: Introduction to the RoSE Special Issue” 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

(DOCX 24 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 871 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bauer, N., Mouratiadou, I., Luderer, G. et al. Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation – an analysis with REMIND. Climatic Change 136, 69–82 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0901-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0901-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation