A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies

Abstract

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.

Demand-side approaches for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C

“…Demand-side measures and supply-side decarbonization are inextricably linked, and rapid action is needed on both fronts. This is consistent with the basic idea that downsizing the energy system (by tackling ever-rising demand) makes it more feasible to decarbonize the energy resource mix via renewables and other measures (Grubler et al 2018).…”

“…A recent IAM study posed the question: Can the 1.5°C target be met without relying on BECCS, or indeed, any CCS? The study found that it can, but only by unprecedented transformation of end-use services to reduce total global energy demand by around 40% from 2020 to 2050 (Grubler et al 2018). Importantly, although this study used a global IAM to quantify the optimal energy supply mix, the analysis of energydemand reduction potentials was done Boff modelû sing bottom-up estimations of activity levels and energy intensity for each energy service and end-use sector.…”

“…Interestingly, a higher tax (ranging from 20 US$/tCO 2 in 2020 to 53 US$/tCO 2 in 2040) is shown to deliver the same emission reductions and keep the sector within the 1.5°C target; however costs are much higher in the absence of complementary demand-side policies. This emphasizes that increased energy efficiency (or lower energy intensity) reduces mitigation costs (Grubler et al 2018;Luderer et al 2013;Riahi et al 2015;Rogelj et al 2013).…”

“…Furthermore, we do not yet fully understand the implications of stringent, demand-side policy instruments in the 1.5°C context. Emerging literature stresses the importance of demand-side measures and call for substantial new research advances in this area (e.g., on policy issues, modeling, mitigation costs) Grubler et al 2018).…”

The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet

“…Both the Van Vuuren et al () and Grubler et al () scenarios cited above represent a degrowth approach, showing the Paris target can be brought within reach (and, in the case of Grubler, achieved) by reducing material throughput and energy demand, with positive synergies for the social and environmental objectives of the SDGs. The Grubler et al scenario was included in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C () as an alternative to relying on speculative negative emissions technologies.…”