Climatic Change

, Volume 123, Issue 3–4, pp 413–426 | Cite as

Fossil resource and energy security dynamics in conventional and carbon-constrained worlds

  • David McCollum
  • Nico Bauer
  • Katherine Calvin
  • Alban Kitous
  • Keywan Riahi
Article

Abstract

Fossil resource endowments and the future development of fossil fuel prices are important factors that will critically influence the nature and direction of the global energy system. In this paper we analyze a multi-model ensemble of long-term energy and emissions scenarios that were developed within the framework of the EMF27 integrated assessment model inter-comparison exercise. The diverse nature of these models highlights large uncertainties in the likely development of fossil resource (coal, oil, and natural gas) consumption, trade, and prices over the course of the twenty-first century and under different climate policy frameworks. We explore and explain some of the differences across scenarios and models and compare the scenario results with fossil resource estimates from the literature. A robust finding across the suite of IAMs is that the cumulative fossil fuel consumption foreseen by the models is well within the bounds of estimated recoverable reserves and resources. Hence, fossil resource constraints are, in and of themselves, unlikely to limit future GHG emissions this century. Our analysis also shows that climate mitigation policies could lead to a major reallocation of financial flows between regions, in terms of expenditures on fossil fuels and carbon, and can help to alleviate near-term energy security concerns via the reductions in oil imports and increases in energy system diversity they will help to motivate. Aggressive efforts to promote energy efficiency are, on their own, not likely to lead to markedly greater energy independence, however, contrary to the stated objectives of certain industrialized countries.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We recognize the contributions of all EMF27 project partners for enabling the research results reported here, and we thank Jessica Jewell and Joeri Rogelj for making possible certain parts of our analysis. The comments of the editor and anonymous reviewers helped to substantially improve this paper. The contributions of D.M., N.B., and K.R. were supported by funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme under the LIMITS project (grant agreement no. 282846). The views expressed by A.K. are purely those of the author and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Supplementary material

10584_2013_939_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1 mb)
ESM 1(DOCX 1071 kb)

References

  1. Benson SM, et al. (2012) Chapter 13—Carbon Capture and Storage. Global Energy Assessment - Toward a Sustainable FutureGoogle Scholar
  2. BGR (2009) Energierohstoffe 2009—Reserven, Ressourcen, Verfügbarkeit. Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  3. BGR (2010) Reserves, Resources and Availability of Energy Resources. Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  4. BGR (2012) Reserves, Resources and Availability of Energy Resources. Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural ResourcesGoogle Scholar
  5. BP (2010) Statistical review of world energy. British PetroleumGoogle Scholar
  6. Cherp A, et al. (2012) Chapter 5–Energy and Security. Global Energy Assessment—Toward a Sustainable FutureGoogle Scholar
  7. Cherp A, Jewell J (2011) The three perspectives on energy security: intellectual history, disciplinary roots and the potential for integration. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 3:202–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cherp A, et al. (2013) Global energy security under different climate policies, GDP growth rates and fossil resource availabilities. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0950-x
  9. Höök M, Tang X (2013) Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic climate change—A review. Energy Policy 52:797–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IEA (2010) Technology roadmaps: carbon capture and storage (2009 and 2010). International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (2005) Special Report on CO2 capture and storage. In: Metz B, et al. (eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  12. Jewell J, et al. (2013a) Energy security under de-carbonization energy scenarios. Energy PolicyGoogle Scholar
  13. Jewell J, et al. (2013b) Energy security of China, India, the EU and the US under long-term scenarios: Results from six IAMs. Climate Change EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  14. Krey V, et al. (2013) Getting from here to there – energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF-27 scenarios. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0947-5
  15. Kriegler E, et al. (2013) The Role of Technology for Achieving Climate Policy Objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy Strategies. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0953-7
  16. Luderer G, Krey V (2013) The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: results from the EMF 27 scenarios. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0924-z
  17. McCollum DL et al (2011) An integrated approach to energy sustainability. Nat Clim Chang 1:428–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Popp A, et al. (2013) Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0926-x
  19. Riahi K, et al. (2012) Chapter 17–Energy pathways for sustainable development. Global energy assessment–toward a sustainable futureGoogle Scholar
  20. Riahi K et al (2011) RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim Chang 109:33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rogner H-H, et al. V (2012) Chapter 7–Energy resources and potentials. Global energy assessment— toward a sustainable future.Google Scholar
  22. Rose S, et al. (2013a) Bioenergy in energy transformation and climate management. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0965-3
  23. Rose S, et al. (2013b) Non-Kyoto radiative forcing in long-run greenhouse gas emissions and climate change scenarios. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0955-5
  24. Rutledge D (2011) Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms. Int J Coal Geol 85:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tavoni M, et al. (2013) The distribution of the major economies’ effort in the Durban platform scenarios. Climate Change Economics.Google Scholar
  26. USGS (2000) World petroleum assessmentGoogle Scholar
  27. van Vuuren D et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Chang 109:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ward JD et al (2012) High estimates of supply constrained emissions scenarios for long-term climate risk assessment. Energy Policy 51:598–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. WEC (2007) Survey of energy resources. World energy councilGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David McCollum
    • 1
  • Nico Bauer
    • 2
  • Katherine Calvin
    • 3
  • Alban Kitous
    • 4
  • Keywan Riahi
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria
  2. 2.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  3. 3.Joint Global Change Research InstituteCollege ParkUSA
  4. 4.Institute for Prospective Technological StudiesEuropean Commission Joint Research CentreSevillaSpain
  5. 5.Graz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations