Population and Environment

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 281–313 | Cite as

Historical Analysis of Energy Intensity of Spain: From a “Conventional View” to an “Integrated Assessment”

  • Jesús Ramos-Martín
Article

Abstract

Understanding the relationship between the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the throughput of matter and energy over time in modern societies is crucial for understanding the sustainability predicament as it is linked to economic growth. Available data on changes in energy use and economic performance in Spain (over the period 1960–1996) shows that Spain has been increasing its energy intensity during this period contrary to the hypothesis of an “inverted-U shaped curve of intensity of use.” Will this increase be followed soon by a decrease? Or rather should we look for alternative explanatory hypotheses and study changes in the dynamic energy budget of Spain as movements between ‘attractor points’? If this is the case, what are the main mechanisms generating such a behaviour? Three non-equivalent methods of analysis complementing each other are used to deal with these questions.

Spain dematerialization EKC punctuated equilibrium energy intensity attractor points societal metabolism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Cleveland, C.J., Costanza, R., Hall, C.A.S., & Kaufman, R. (1984). Energy and the U.S. Economy: a Biophysical Perspective. Science 225, 890–897.Google Scholar
  2. Daly, H. (1991). Steady state economics: Second edition with new essays. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  3. De Bruyn, S.M. (1999). The need to change attractors, Ökologisches Wirtschaften, 3.Google Scholar
  4. De Bruyn, S.M., & Opschoor, J. B. (1997). Developments in the throughput-income relationship: theoretical and empirical observations, Ecological Economics 20, 255–268.Google Scholar
  5. Eldridge, N., & Gould, J. S. (1972). Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In T.J.M Schopf (Ed.): Models in paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Co.Google Scholar
  6. Giampietro, M. (1997). Linking technology, natural resources, and the socioeconomic structure of human society. Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 6.Google Scholar
  7. Giampietro, M., & Mayumi, K. (2000). Jevons' paradox: Scaling in Societal Metabolism and the fairy tale of Kuznets curves. Proceedings of the 3rd Biannual Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics, Vienna, 3–6 May 2000: Transitions towards a Sustainable Europe. Ecology-Economy-Policy.Google Scholar
  8. Gowdy, J.M. (1994). Coevolutionary economics: The Economy, Society, and the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Hall, C.A.S., Cleveland, C.J., & Kaufman, R. (1986). Energy and Resource Quality. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Herring, H. (1999). Does energy efficiency save energy? The debate and its consequences. Applied Energy, 63, 209–226.Google Scholar
  11. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (1992). Contabilidad Nacional de España. Serie enlazada 1964–1991. Base 1986. Madrid.Google Scholar
  12. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (1998). Serie contable 1992–1997. Madrid.Google Scholar
  13. Jänicke, M., H., Mönch, T., Ranneberg, & Simonis, U. E. (1989). Economic Structure and Environmental Impacts: East-West Comparisons. The Environmentalist, 9, 171–182.Google Scholar
  14. Jevons, F. (1990). Greenhouse: A paradox. Search 21(5). Google Scholar
  15. Kopolo, G. (1999). Surrogate emissions. Could this be a new twist to the carbon-trading debate? MSc Thesis, Environmental Change Unit, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Malenbaum, W. (1978). World demand for raw materials in 1985 and 2000. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Mielnik, O., & Goldemberg, J. (1999). The evolution of the 'carbonization index' in developing countries. Energy Policy 27, 307–308.Google Scholar
  18. OECD (1999). OECD Statistical Compendium on CD-ROM, Paris.Google Scholar
  19. Opschoor, J.B. (1997). Industrial metabolism, economic growth and institutional change. In M. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  20. Schumpeter, J.A. (1949). The Theory of Economic Development, 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Simonis, U.E. (1989). Industrial restructuring for sustainable development: three points of departure. Berlin: Science Centre Berlin. FS II 89–401.Google Scholar
  22. Sun, J.W. (1999). The nature of CO2emissions Kuznets curve. Energy Policy, 27, 691–694.Google Scholar
  23. Unruh, G.C., & Moomaw, W.R. (1998). An alternative analysis of apparent EKC-type transitions, Ecological Economics, 25, 221–229.Google Scholar
  24. Von Wëizsacker, E.U., Lovins, A.B., & Lovins, L.H. (1997). Factor four: Doubling wealth, halving resource Use. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesús Ramos-Martín
    • 1
  1. 1.Lindsay Hall Keele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations