Scenarios limiting global warming to 1.5°C describe major transformations in energy supply and everrising energy demand. Here we provide a contrasting perspective by developing a narrative of future change based on observable trends that results in low energy demand. We describe and quantify changes in activity levels and energy intensity in the Global North and South for all major energy services. We project that global final energy demand by 2050 reduces to 245 EJ, around 40% lower than today despite rising population, income and activity. Using an integrated assessment modelling framework, we show how changes in the quantity and type of energy services drive structural change in intermediate and upstream supply sectors (energy and land use). Down-sizing the global energy system dramatically improves the feasibility of low-carbon supply-side transformation. Our scenario meets the 1.5°C climate target as well as many Sustainable Development Goals, without relying on negative emission technologies. * Contingency reserve of 8 EJ is allocated equally to Global North and South respectively. Bunker fuels are reported at the global level only, consistent with current energy balances and emission accounting frameworks. Activity level units vary per end-use service and upstream sector: a billion m 2 of floor space; b trillion passengerkilometres; c billion tonnes of materials; d trillion tonne-kilometres.

No abstract

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war on Ukraine have impacted the global economy, including the energy sector. The pandemic caused drastic fluctuations in energy demand, oil price shocks, disruptions in energy supply chains, and hampered energy investments, while the war left the world with energy price hikes and energy security challenges. The long-term impacts of these crises on low-carbon energy transitions and mitigation of climate change are still uncertain but are slowly emerging. This paper analyzes the impacts throughout the energy system, including upstream fuel supply, renewable energy investments, demand for energy services, and implications for energy equity, by reviewing recent studies and consulting experts in the field. We find that both crises initially appeared as opportunities for low-carbon energy transitions: the pandemic by showing the extent of lifestyle and behavioral change in a short period and the role of science-based policy advice, and the war by highlighting the need for greater energy diversification and reliance on local, renewable energy sources. However, the early evidence suggests that policymaking worldwide is focused on short-term, seemingly quicker solutions, such as supporting the incumbent energy industry in the post-pandemic era to save the economy and looking for new fossil fuel supply routes for enhancing energy security following the war. As such, the fossil fuel industry may emerge even stronger after these energy crises creating new lock-ins. This implies that the public sentiment against dependency on fossil fuels may end as a lost opportunity to translate into actions toward climate-friendly energy transitions, without ambitious plans for phasing out such fuels altogether. We propose policy recommendations to overcome these challenges toward achieving resilient and sustainable energy systems, mostly driven by energy services

The Paris Agreement goals require net-zero CO 2 emissions by mid-century. The European Commission in its recent proposal for climate and energy strategy for 2050 indicated the need for more intensified actions to substantially improve the energy performances of buildings. With the rate of new construction in Europe, the challenge is to increase both the pace and depth of building energy renovations. Several barriers inhibit the wide uptake of comprehensive energy renovations, including the inability or inertia to finance upfront costs of energy renovations. Despite various policies implemented to address some of these barriers, current investments in buildings remain at suboptimal levels. The paper reviews current financing practices for energy renovations and investigates some innovative instruments with a special focus on their applicability to residential buildings. In addition to "traditional" financial schemes such as subsidies, tax incentives, and loans, the paper assesses innovative financing schemes: On property tax and on-bill financing, energy efficiency mortgages, and energy efficiency feed-in tariffs. The paper also investigates the concept of one-stop shops for building renovations and crowdfunding. The paper offers an assessment of the characteristics, benefits, and challenges of each analyzed financing instrument and provides policy recommendations for their successful implementation. In general, as financing instruments involve different stakeholders and due to complex nature of the sector, there is no single solution to accelerate energy renovation investment in buildings. The emerging financial models offer the potential to address the long-standing barriers to investment in energy efficiency.