Skip to main content

Future Transitions to a Renewable Stationary Energy Sector: Implications of the Future Ecological Footprint and Land Use

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Agroecological Footprints Management for Sustainable Food System

Abstract

We investigate the development of stationary energy policy for the national and sub-national ecological footprint. Three carbon emission mitigation scenarios relating to the electricity sector (two different fuel mix scenarios and the rate of technological uptake) are explored. We find that the effectiveness of sub-national policy varies with global uncertainty. To be robust, policy to reduce carbon emissions from the stationary energy sector must be successful irrespective of which future eventuates and/or must be highly adaptable and responsive to different futures. We investigate the impact of emission reduction policy on other parts of the ecological footprint—energy land. Many low carbon energy production methods require large areas of land, and this exacerbates current land use competition, particularly with respect to agricultural land. We find that holistic policy development will need to identify land uses which can operate synergistically with land required for renewable energy to mitigate ecological footprint expansion as renewable energy increases. Our case study using Australia and four of its states provides a framework applicable elsewhere in the world to increase the resilience of the energy sector and agriculture.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The A2 storyline describes a very heterogeneous world. Population growth is high. Economic development is primarily regionally oriented and medium-low. Technological change is more fragmented and slower than in other storylines.

    The B1 storyline describes a convergent world with a medium-high global population. It has rapid changes in economic structures and medium income growth. There is a globally coordinated emphasis which is on global solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability.

    The B2 storyline describes a world in which the emphasis is on local solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability. Global population size is low and income growth is medium. Technology growth is less rapid.

Abbreviations

IPCC:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

CO2:

Carbon dioxide

SRES:

Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

STIRPAT:

Stochastic Impacts by Regression on Population, Affluence and Technology

IPAT:

Impact, Population, Affluence and Technology

OLS:

Ordinary least squares

IEA:

International Energy Agency

GDP:

Gross domestic product

ABARE:

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics

MT:

Megaton

KWh:

Kilowatt-hour

CSP:

Concentrated solar power

CCS:

Carbon capture and storage

Ha:

Hectare

GWh:

Gigawatt-hour

NG:

Natural gas

Geoth:

Geothermal

Bioms:

Biomass

PV:

Photovoltaic

Qld:

Queensland

WA:

Western Australia

SA:

South Australia

VIC:

Victoria

CO2-e:

Carbon dioxide equivalent

References

  • ABARE (2009) Energy in Australia 2009. Department of Resources, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht G, Higginbotham N, Freeman S (2001) Transdisciplinary thinking in health social science research: definition, rationale, and procedures. In: Higginbotham N, Albrecht G, Connor L (eds) Health social science: a transdisciplinary and complexity perspective. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Australia’s Centre for International Economics (2007) Geodynamics says ‘it has hottest rocks on earth’. The Australian

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Greenhouse Office (2008) National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett DJ (2001) Component ecological footprint: developing sustainable scenarios. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal 19:107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke L, Weyant J, Edmonds J (2008) On the sources of technological change: what do the models assume? Energy Econ 30:409–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSIRO (2011) LCA shows full picture on energy use

    Google Scholar 

  • de Araujo MS, De Campos CP, Rosa LP (2007) GHG historical contribution by sectors, sustainable development and equity. Renew Sust Energ Rev 11:988–997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries BJM, van Vuuren DP, Hoogwijk MM (2007) Renewable energy sources: their global potential for the first-half of the 21st century at a global level: an integrated approach. Energy Policy 35:2590–2610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diesendorf M (2005) Towards Victoria’s clean energy future. Clean Energy Future Group Environment Victoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Rosa E (1997) Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 94:175–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH (1990) The population explosion. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Energy Watch Group (2007) Coal: resources and future production. Energy Watch Group, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Feron P, Paterson L (2011) Reducing the costs of CO2 capture and storage (CCS). CSIRO, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Frees EW, Miller TW (2004) Sales forecasting using longitudinal data models. Int J Forecasting 20:99–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon L, Bélanger C, Uchiyama Y (2002) Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: the status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy 30:1267–1278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnaut R (2011) The Garnaut review 2011: Australia in the global response to climate change. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawell K, Reed M, Wright PM (1999) Preliminary report: geothermal energy, the potential for clean power from the earth. Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • GFN (2013) Ten-in-ten initiative. Global Footprint Network

    Google Scholar 

  • GWEC (2008) Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding R, Hendriks CM, Faruqi M (2009) Environmental decision making: exploring complexity and context. The Federation Press, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie T, Tibshirani R (1993) Varying-coefficient models. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B 55:757–796

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm A, Blodgett L, Jennejohn D, Gawel K (2010) Geothermal energy: international market update. Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogwijk MM, Van Vuuren D, De Vries BJM, Turkenburg WC (2007) Exploring the impact on cost and electricity production of high penetration levels of intermittent electricity in OECD Europe and the USA, results for wind energy. Energy 32:1381–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2012) International Energy Agency

    Google Scholar 

  • IHA, IEA-HA, ICOLD, CHA (2000) Hydropower and the world’s energy future. International Hydropower Association, IEA Hydropower Agreement, International Commission on Large Dams, and Canadian Hydropower Association, Compton, UK, Paris, France, and Ottawa, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (n.d.) IPCC special report on emissions scenarios

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings V, Lloyd-Smith B, Ironmonger D (1999) Household size and the poisson distribution. J Popul Res 16:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgenson AK, Clarke 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0117-x

  • Klein Goldevijk GK (2001) Estimating global land use change over the past 300 years: the HYDE database. Global Biogeochem Cycles 15:417–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, McBain B (2012) Using tensor calculus for scenario modelling. Environ Model Softw 37:41–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Schaeffer R (2012) Historical and potential future contributions of power technologies to global warming. Clim Chang 112:601–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, Dey C, Foran B, Widmer-Cooper A, Ohlemuller R, Williams M, Wiedenmann J (2013) Modeling interactions between economic activity, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and agricultural production. Environ Model Assess 18:377–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M, McBain B, Trainer T, Jütte S, Rey-Lescure O, Huang J (2016) Simulating low-carbon electricity supply for Australia. Appl Energy 2016:553–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louthean R (2007) Big energy role for central Australia’s hot rocks. Geoscience Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu X, McElroy M, Kiviluoma J (2009) Global potential for wind-generated electricity. PNAS 106:10933–10938

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McBain B, Lenzen M, Wackernagel M, Albrecht G (2017) How long can global ecological overshoot last? Glob Planet Chang 155:13–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald GW, Patterson MG (2004) Ecological footprints and interdependencies of the New Zealand regions. Ecol Econ 50:49–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald RI, Fargione J, Kiesecker J, Miller WM, Powell J (2009) Energy sprawl or energy efficiency: climate policy impacts on natural habitat for the United States of America. PLoS One 4:e6802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milman A, Short A (2008) Incorporating resilience into sustainability indicators: an example for the urban water sector. Glob Environ Chang 18:758–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr SH, Evans GM (2009) Forecasting coal production until 2100. Fuel 88:2059–2067

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nakićenović N, Swart R (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg J, Cummings GS (2008) Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nourry M (2008) Measuring sustainable development: some empirical evidence for France from eight alternative indicators. Ecol Econ 67:441–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilisation wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:969–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paish O (2002) Small hydro power: technology and current status. Renew Sust Energ Rev 6:537–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld AH, Bassett DA (1999) The dependence of energy efficiency improvement (AEEI) on price and policy. The conference on climate change and ozone protection

    Google Scholar 

  • Trieb F, Langniß O, Klaiß H (1997) Solar electricity generation - a comparative view of technologies, costs and environmental impact. Sol Energy 59:89–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2010) Solar and wind energy resource assessment (World Development Report 2010 - development and climate change. United Nations Environmental Program

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Zwaan B, Rabl A (2004) The learning potential of photovoltaics: implications for energy policy. Energy Policy 32:1545–1554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Energy Council (2004) 2004 survey of energy resources. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  • York R, Rosa E, Dietz T (2003) STIRPAT, IPAT and ImPACT: analytic tools for unpacking the driving sources of environmental impacts. Ecol Econ 46:351–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank our research partners the Global Footprint Network, Forestry Corporation of NSW and the State of Environment Reporting units for the NSW, Victorian, Queensland, Tasmanian, South Australian and Western Australian state governments. We thank Olivier Rey Lescure for his invaluable assistance with GIS.

Funding

This work was supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant [grant number: LP0669290].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bonnie McBain .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McBain, B., Lenzen, M., Albrecht, G., Wackernagel, M. (2021). Future Transitions to a Renewable Stationary Energy Sector: Implications of the Future Ecological Footprint and Land Use. In: Banerjee, A., Meena, R.S., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K. (eds) Agroecological Footprints Management for Sustainable Food System. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9496-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics