While climate policies would have a beneficial effect for energy security in most countries, energy independence policies would not bring significant climate benefits.
Ambitious policies to reduce energy imports would have little impact on climate change, and could be achieved much more cheaply than the climate mitigation measures needed to limit climate change to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 according to a new study published in the journal Nature Energy (DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2016.73). The 2°C target was agreed in 2010 and re-affirmed at the Paris climate talks in December 2015.
Previous research has shown that climate policies would benefit other areas including energy security. The new study, led by IIIEE/MESPOM alumnus Jessica Jewell (currently at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria) and Aleh Cherp, Professor at the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University explored how policies focused on energy security would affect greenhouse gas emissions. They found that restricting energy imports would have a very small impact on emissions.
The study used five different energy-economy models to examine eight long-term scenarios for policies focused either on reducing the emissions that cause climate change or on cutting oil or all energy imports. It shows that ambitious restriction of fuel imports would lower 21st century emissions by only 2 to 15% of baseline, which corresponds to future warming of roughly 3.5°C to 4°C over pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. In contrast, in order to limit global warming to no more than 2°C by 2100, we would need to achieve a 70% reduction in emissions.
The study also shows that reducing energy imports would cost between 3 and 20 times less than climate stabilization by 2100. “To understand which policies are likely to be pursued, we need a better understanding of their relative cost. If a government is interested in reducing energy imports, how much are they willing to pay to achieve that? Specifically, are they willing to pay for expensive climate stabilization policies and have energy security as a 'co-benefit' or is it more attractive to separately pursue much cheaper measures for reducing imports?” says Dr. Jewell.
Dr. Nico Bauer, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-author to the study says, “Fossil fuel exporters such as the Middle East and Russia would lose revenues and hence bear a disproportionate share of the costs both in the case of climate change mitigation and in the case of energy independence policies pursued by importers. However, climate mitigation policies might be more attractive to the exporters since in this case they at least can take part in the negotiations of the conditions.”
The study also examined a less ambitious climate policy based on pledges similar to those submitted to the Paris climate meeting in December 2015. It shows that the policy cost for these pledges is comparable to the policy cost for energy security policies, while limiting climate change to 2.5°C to 3.2°C by 2100.
Aleh Cherp thinks this finding is especially interesting. “Does politics make it more likely that energy independence and climate change are pursued together only if their costs are similar? We need more analysis of the interaction of political coalitions pursuing different but inter-related energy objectives. Collaboration between energy economists and political scientists is essential for such an analysis”
For more information contact:
Prof. Aleh Cherp, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University
aleh [dot] cherp [at] iiiee [dot] lu [dot] se (aleh[dot]cherp[at]iiiee[dot]lu[dot]se)
Press release and links:
IIASA press release concerning the article is here
The link to the article is here and further to the editorial comment entitled “Energy security and climate change: Friends with asymmetric benefits”.