World Scientific
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Mon, Jun 21st, 2021 at 1am (EDT)

During this period, the E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 6 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
Special Issue on Implementing Climate Policies in the Major Economies: An Assessment of Durban Platform Architectures — Results from the LIMITS ProjectNo Access

ENERGY INVESTMENTS UNDER CLIMATE POLICY: A COMPARISON OF GLOBAL MODELS

    The levels of investment needed to mobilize an energy system transformation and mitigate climate change are not known with certainty. This paper aims to inform the ongoing dialogue and in so doing to guide public policy and strategic corporate decision making. Within the framework of the LIMITS integrated assessment model comparison exercise, we analyze a multi-IAM ensemble of long-term energy and greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Our study provides insight into several critical but uncertain areas related to the future investment environment, for example in terms of where capital expenditures may need to flow regionally, into which sectors they might be concentrated, and what policies could be helpful in spurring these financial resources. We find that stringent climate policies consistent with a 2°C climate change target would require a considerable upscaling of investments into low-carbon energy and energy efficiency, reaching approximately $45 trillion (range: $30–$75 trillion) cumulative between 2010 and 2050, or about $1.1 trillion annually. This represents an increase of some $30 trillion ($10–$55 trillion), or $0.8 trillion per year, beyond what investments might otherwise be in a reference scenario that assumes the continuation of present and planned emissions-reducing policies throughout the world. In other words, a substantial "clean-energy investment gap" of some $800 billion/yr exists — notably on the same order of magnitude as present-day subsidies for fossil energy and electricity worldwide ($523 billion). Unless the gap is filled rather quickly, the 2°C target could potentially become out of reach.

    References

    • BNEF (2012). Global trends in clean energy investment (Q3 2012). Bloomberg New Energy Finance . Google Scholar
    • J. Bollen, S. Hers and B. van der Zwaan, Energy Policy 38, 4021 (2010). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Bosetti, V, E de Cian, A Sgobbi and M Tavoni (2009). The 2008 WITCH model: New model features and baseline. FEEM Working Paper N. 85.2009, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Milan and Venice, Italy . Google Scholar
    • A. Bowen, E. Campiglio and M. Tavoni, Climate Change Economics 5(1), (2014). Google Scholar
    • Calvin, K (2011). GCAM Wiki Documentation. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Joint Global Change Research Institute, College Park, MD, USA. Available at https://wiki.umd.edu/gcam/. Accessed on September 30, 2013 . Google Scholar
    • K. Calvinet al., Climate Change Economics 4(4), 1340014 (2014). LinkGoogle Scholar
    • C. Carraro, A. Favero and E. Massetti, Energy Economics 34(), S15 (2012). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • CPI (2012). The landscape of climate finance 2012. Climate Policy Initiative . Google Scholar
    • CTF (2013). Clean technology fund. Available at https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/2. Accessed on May 6, 2013 . Google Scholar
    • M. J. den Elzenet al., Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15, 433 (2010). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • R.   Doctor et al. , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage , eds. B.   Metz et al. ( Cambridge University Press , Cambridge, UK , 2005 ) . Google Scholar
    • O. Edenhoferet al., Energy Journal 31, 11 (2010). Google Scholar
    • T. Ekholmet al., Energy Policy 59, 562 (2013). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • GCF (2013). Global climate fund. Available at http://gcfund.net/. Accessed on May 8, 2013 . Google Scholar
    • GEA (2012). Global energy assessment public scenario pathway database. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria. Available at http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/geadb/. Accessed on May 16, 2013 . Google Scholar
    • Grubler, A, F Aguayo, K Gallagher, M Hekkert, K Jiang, L Mytelka, L Neij, G Nemet and C Wilson (2012). Policies for the Energy Technology Innovation System (ETIS). Global Energy Assessment — Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1665–1744 . Google Scholar
    • House of Lords (2013). No country is an energy island: Security investment for the EU's future. 14th Report of Session 2012–2013, United Kingdom House of Lords, European Union Committee, London . Google Scholar
    • IEA (2012a). Energy technology perspectives 2012: Pathways to a clean energy system. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France . Google Scholar
    • IEA (2012b). World energy outlook 2012. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France . Google Scholar
    • IMF (2013). Energy Eubsidy reform: Lessons and implications. International Monetary Fund . Google Scholar
    • IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007 — fourth assessment report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva . Google Scholar
    • Jaccard, M, L Agbenmabiese, C Azar, A de Oliveira, C Fischer, B Fisher, A Hughes, M Ohadi, Y Kenji and X Zhang (2012). Policies for energy system transformations: Objectives and instruments. Global Energy Assessment — Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1549–1602 . Google Scholar
    • S. Jacobsson and V. Lauber, Energy Policy 34, 256 (2006). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • J. Jewellet al., Climate Change Economics 4(4), 1340011 (2014). LinkGoogle Scholar
    • M. Kalkuhl, O. Edenhofer and K. Lessmann, Resource and Energy Economics 34, 1 (2012). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • I. Keppo and B. Zwaan, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 17, 177 (2012). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • T. Kober, B. van der Zwaan and H. Rosler, Climate Change Economics 5(1), 1440001 (2014). LinkGoogle Scholar
    • J. G.   Koomey , Cold Cash, Cool Climate: Science Based Advice for Ecological Entrepreneurs ( Analytics Press , Burlingame, California, USA , 2012 ) . Google Scholar
    • Kriegler, E, M Tavoni, T Aboumahboub, G Luderer, K Calvin, G De Maere, V Krey, K Riahi, H Rosler, M Schaeffer and D van Vuuren (2014). What does the 2°C target imply for a global climate agreement in 2020? The LIMITS study on Durban Platform scenarios. To appear in Climate Change Economics, 4(4), 1340008 . Google Scholar
    • Kriegler, E, JP Weyant, GJ Blanford, V Krey, L Clarke, J Edmonds, A Fawcett, G Luderer, K Riahi, R Richels, SK Rose, M Tavoni, DP van Vuuren (forthcoming). The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. To appear in Climatic Change . Google Scholar
    • J. I. Lewis and R. H. Wiser, Energy Policy 35, 1844 (2007). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • G. Ludereret al., Climatic Change 114, 9 (2012a). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Luderer, G, M Leimbach, N Bauer and E Kriegler (2012b). Description of the ReMIND-R model. Technical Report. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research . Google Scholar
    • G. Marangoni and M. Tavoni, Climate Change Economics 5(1), 1440003 (2014). LinkGoogle Scholar
    • D. McCollum, V. Krey and K. Riahi, Nature Climate Change 1, 428 (2011). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Medeiros, V (2012). Ethanol: A leap to the future. Petrobras Magazine. Petrobras, Brazil, pp. 30–37 . Google Scholar
    • B. Moore and R. Wüstenhagen, Business Strategy and the Environment 13, 235 (2004). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Mytelka, L, F Aguayo, G Boyle, S Breukers, G de Scheemaker, I Abdel Gelil, R Kemp, J Monkelbaan, C Rossini, J Watson and R Wolson (2012). Policies for capacity development. Global Energy Assessment — Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1745–1802 . Google Scholar
    • Nakicenovic, N and K Riahi (2003). Model runs with MESSAGE in the Context of the Further Development of the Kyoto-Protocol. IIASA and the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Berlin . Google Scholar
    • W. Nordhaus, Energy Economics 33, 665 (2011). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • REN21 (2013). Renewables 2013 Global Status Report. REN21 Secretariat, Paris . Google Scholar
    • Riahi, K, F Dentener, D Gielen, A Grubler, J Jewell, Z Klimont, V Krey, D McCollum, S Pachauri, S Rao, B van Ruijven, DP van Vuuren and C Wilson (2012). Energy pathways for sustainable development. Global Energy Assessment — Toward a Sustainable Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 1203–1306 . Google Scholar
    • K. Riahi, A. Grübler and N. Nakicenovic, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74, 887 (2007). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Schaeffer, M and DP van Vuuren (2012). Evaluation of IEA ETP 2012 emission scenarios. Climate analytics, Berlin . Google Scholar
    • M. Tavoniet al., Climate Change Economics 4(4), (2014). Google Scholar
    • The Climate Group (2013). Shaping China's climate finance policy. Beijing . Google Scholar
    • B. van der Zwaanet al., Climate Change Economics 4(4), (2014). Google Scholar
    • van Sluisveld, MAE, DEHJ Gernaat, S Ashina, KV Calvin, A Garg, M Isaac, PL Lucas, I Mouratiadou, AAC Otto, S Rao, PR Shukla, J van Vliet and DP van Vuuren (2014). A multi-model analysis of post-2020 mitigation efforts of five major economies. To appear in Climate Change Economics, 4(4) . Google Scholar
    • van Vuuren, DP (2007). Energy systems and climate policy: Long-term scenarios for an uncertain future. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands . Google Scholar
    • C. Wilsonet al., Nature Climate Change 2, 780 (2012). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    Published: 4 June 2014
    Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles!

    Be inspired by these New titles in Energy, Resource & Environmental Economics today.
    Featuring authors from Princeton, Columbia University, Imperial College Business School and many more!