Climatic Change

, Volume 136, Issue 1, pp 69–82 | Cite as

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

  • Nico Bauer
  • Ioanna Mouratiadou
  • Gunnar Luderer
  • Lavinia Baumstark
  • Robert J. Brecha
  • Ottmar Edenhofer
  • Elmar Kriegler


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.


Fossil Fuel Climate Policy Marginal Abatement Cost Curve Baseline Assumption Fossil Fuel Price 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by Stiftung Mercator ( 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.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_901_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)
10584_2013_901_MOESM2_ESM.docx (871 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 871 kb)


  1. Aguilera R, Eggert RG, Lagos GCC, Tilton JE (2009) Depletion and future availability of petroleum reserves. Energy J 30:141–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Askari H, Krichene N (2010) An oil demand and supply model incorporating monetary policy. Energy 35:2013–2021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer N, Edenhofer O, Kypreos S (2008) Linking energy system and macroeconomic growth models. J Comput Manag Sci 5:95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer N, Baumstark L, Leimbach M (2012a) The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation. Clim Change 114:145–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer N, Brecha RJ, Luderer G (2012b) Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies. PNAS 109:16805–16810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 42:7489–7495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. British Petroleum BP (2012) Statistical Review of World Energy. (accessed August 1, 2012)
  9. Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (2010) Kurzstudie 2010. Hannover, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  10. Charpentier AD, Bergerson JA, MacLean HL (2009) Understanding the Canadian oil sands industry’s greenhouse gas emissions. Environ Res Lett 4:014005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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–S81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dahl C, Duggan TE (1998) Survey of price elasticities from economic exploration models of oil and gas supply. J Energy Finance Dev 3:129–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dees S, Gasteuil A, Kaufman RK, Mann M (2008) Assessing the factors behind oil price changes. ECB Working Paper, Frankfurt, Germany. (accessed October 11, 2012)
  14. Edenhofer O, Knopf B et al (2010) The economics of low stabilization: model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. Energy J 31(Special):223–241Google Scholar
  15. Fan Y, Xu JH (2011) What has driven oil prices since 2000? Energy Econ 33:1082–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grubb M (2001) Who’s afraid of atmospheric stabilisation? Making the link between energy resources and climate change. Energy Policy 29:837–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton JD (2009) Understanding crude oil prices. Energy J 30:179–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harberger AC (1964) The measurement of waste. Am Econ Rev 54:58–76Google Scholar
  20. Herfindahl OC (1967) Depletion and economic theory. In: Gaffney M (ed) Extractive resources and taxation. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  21. IEA (2007) Energy Balances of OECD and non-OECD countries. Paris, France.Google Scholar
  22. International Energy Agency IEA (2008) World energy outlook 2008. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  23. International Energy Agency IEA (2009) World energy outlook 2009. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  24. International Energy Agency IEA (2011) World energy outlook 2011. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 41:860–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalkuhl M, Brecha RJ (2013) The carbon rent economics of climate policy. Energy Econ 39:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaufman RK (2011) The role of market fundamentals and speculation in recent price changes for crude oil. Energy Policy 39:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kilian L (2009) Not all oil price shocks are alike: disentangling demand and supply shocks in the crude oil market. Am Econ Rev 99:1053–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krichene N (2002) World crude oil and natural gas: a demand and supply model. Energy Econ 24:557–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luderer G, Bossetti V et al (2012a) The economics of decarbonizing the energy system. Clim Change 114:9–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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–S390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 39:6030–6039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nemet GF, Brandt AR (2011) Willingness to pay for a climate backstop. Energy J 33:53–81Google Scholar
  34. 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 339–390Google Scholar
  35. Perrson TA, Azar C, Johannson D, Lindgren K (2007) Major oil exporters may profit rather than lose, in a carbon-constrained world. Energy Policy 35:6346–6353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogner HH (1997) An assessment of world hydrocarbon resources. Annu Rev Energy Environ 22:217–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 MAGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 101:663–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sorrell S, Speirs J, Bentley R, Brandt A, Miller R (2010) Global oil depletion: a review of evidence. Energy Policy 38:5290–5295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. US EIA (2011) Annual energy outlook. US DoE, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 37:5125–5139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds JA et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 11:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nico Bauer
    • 1
  • Ioanna Mouratiadou
    • 1
  • Gunnar Luderer
    • 1
  • Lavinia Baumstark
    • 1
  • Robert J. Brecha
    • 2
  • Ottmar Edenhofer
    • 1
  • Elmar Kriegler
    • 1
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsUniversity of DaytonDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations