Abstract

The following article conducts an analysis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), specifically in relation to Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). We focus on the key drivers of economic growth, how these are derived and whether IAMs properly reflect the underlying biophysical systems. Since baseline IAM scenarios project a three- to eight-fold increase in gross domestic product (GDP)-per-capita by 2100, but with consumption losses of only between 3–11%, strong mitigation seems compatible with economic growth. However, since long-term productivity and economic growth are uncertain, they are included as exogenous parameters in IAM scenarios. The biophysical economics perspective is that GDP and productivity growth are in fact emergent parameters from the economic-biophysical system. If future energy systems were to possess worse biophysical performance characteristics, we would expect lower productivity and economic growth, and therefore, the price of reaching emission targets may be significantly costlier than projected. Here, we show that IAMs insufficiently describe the energy-economy nexus and propose that those key parameters are integrated as feedbacks with the use of environmentally-extended input-output analysis (EEIOA). Further work is required to build a framework that can supplement and support IAM analysis to improve biophysical rigour.

Highlights

  • We show that Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) insufficiently describe the energy-economy nexus and propose that those key parameters are integrated as feedbacks with the use of environmentally-extended input-output analysis (EEIOA)

  • Much of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Work Group 3 (Mitigation) reporting relies on prospective energy modelling based on Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) [1]

  • Biophysical economics (BPE) is related to the field of industrial ecology, which uses the tools of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and environmentally-extended input-output analysis (EEIOA) to explore the full environmental assessment of the life cycle of products and services

Read more

Summary

Scenario Modelling

Much of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Work Group 3 (Mitigation) reporting relies on prospective energy modelling based on Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) [1]. The Kaya identity states that total CO2 emissions are the product of population, GDP per-capita, energy intensity and carbon intensity, shown in Equation (1). Since strong mitigation scenarios result in global consumption (in this context, consumption refers to economic goods and services) losses in 2100 of only between 3–11% relative to the baseline If future energy systems were to possess worse biophysical performance characteristics, productivity and economic growth may be overstated in the IAM literature, and the price of reaching emission targets may be significantly costlier than projected.

Biophysical Economics
Integrated Assessment Models
Total Factor Productivity and GDP Growth
Declining Energy Intensity
Life-Cycle Assessment Methodologies
Steel and Cement
Biofuels
EROI Constraints
Fossil Fuel Resource Availability
Discussion and Recommendations
A Proposed Net-Energy Feedback Model
Findings
Future Work
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call