Developing policy regimes for combating climate change:
the transition to a global low-carbon economy
A CAGE/CCCEP workshop
London, Tuesday 25 January 2011
A historical overview
(some thoughts from energy/economic/environmental historians)
Mar Rubio
A historical overview
(based on historical reconstructions of energy and emissions for European and Latin American countries)
•  Which carbon indicator?
–  Total, per capita, per dolar, per toe
•  Energy transitions in history
–  Slow? Could they be quicken up?
–  Who will go first?
•  Some thoughts for the debate
Which low carbon indicator?
•  1) Total emissions
•  2) Emissions per capita
•  3) Emissions per dollar
produced
•  4) Decarbonization
of energy
Total emissions
•
•
•
Little or no reduction at all in most countries
Trend to slowdown if anything
Poor historical data, most data concentrated post 1960s.
CHINA
US
USSR
UK
Source:CDIAC
•
Most polluting countries slowed down
in per capita since oil crisis
–
•
Lower emissions per capita in less
developed countries, because:
–
–
–
•
•
Sweden halved its emissions per
capita fro,1970s
Lower income=less energy used
Economic structure less energy
intensive in all events=less emissions
Newer technologies (leapfrogging)
=less emissions
But offset in the total emissions by
number of people (China)
Good news?
–
Counterfactual where would we be if
everyone polluted per capita on
average like the OECD countries??
…we are better off.
Data sources: LatAm extended energy database on Rubio et al (2010);
Bartoletto and Rubio(2008); Kander (2002); CDIAC;
CO2 per dollar
(pollution intensity of the economy)
•  EKC…
seem to work at large but
no so clear at smaller
levels…
•  Converging towards a level
below the Kton CO2 per $
Data sources for emissions:
USA, CHINA and UK from CDIAC; Sweden from Kander(2002); Italy and Spain from
Bartoletto&Rubio(2008); Latin America, elaborated for this presentation from data
extended from Rubio et al (2010); GDP from Maddison (2007)
At same level of income LA pollute less
Decarbonization
in 3 european nations (1870-2000)
coal
oil
hidroelectricity
Natural gas
Nuclear power
renewabl
Data sources: Kander (2002), Bartoleto and Rubio (2008)
Note: just modern energy sources considered in main figure
…based on UK data Fouquet (2010)
established that
•  past energy transitions were slow:
–  innovation chain took more than 100 years and
the diffusion phase nearly 50 years
•  Thus he concluded:
“Based on past experiences, a complete
transition to a low carbon economy is likely to
be very slow”.
Decarbonization
Europe vs Latin America (1870-2000)
Data sources: extended data innedit based on Rubio et al (2010)
Note: just modern energy sources considered
Decarbonization
in Latin America (1870-2000)
Data sources: extended data innedit based on Rubio et al (2010)
Note: just modern energy sources considered
…a different transition from coal to oil
1926
1919
1940
1913
1911
1929
Source: Folchi&Rubio(2008)
…very, very different
1904
1897
1907
1919
1915
The specificity of LA:
1908
1922
•  early transition to oil
•  some sudden transitions
•  some reversions to coal
•  many inverse transitions
Source: Folchi&Rubio(2008)
(oil to coal and then
back)
… repeated findings as we added countries
1926
1918
1923
1915
1918
1908
Source: Folchi&Rubio(2008)
By 1925 everyone (but Brazil),
has completed the transition to oil in Latin America
(although Chile and Uruguay will go back to coal for a while)
Looking for explanations
•  Size matters (path dependency)
•  Trade partners (technology + policy)
•  Endowment (relative prices)
Coal consumption (000
TOE)
Size matters:
the smaller consumers made it earlier and faster
Length of
transition
Trade partners
•  Patterns of coal trade
were different from total
trade patterns
 Having
USA as a coal
supplier, introduced a
positive bias towards an
early transition to oil,
 meanwhile buying coal
from UK, favoured coal
consumption persistence.
No data
UK both periods
UK pre-1914 >>USA after
USA both periods
Mostly USA
Producers
Anna Carreras Marín (U.B.) & Marc Badia (U.B.) Trading with the
Caribbean: An Economic Geography of Coal, 1890-1930
Endowment matters
Transporting coal to Latin America was twice as
expensive as transporting oil,
(quality differences acknowledged)
(Bertoni, Román, Rubio 2009)
Thus we concluded…
•  The standard energy transition model of developed countries is
not a paradigm
•  The succession of energy carriers over time does not respond to a
universal law of technological or economic progress
–  Some countries never made it to the steam engine (leapfrogging)
–  Tansitions can be quick, at times cahotic and in some instances reversible
transition
•  Variables that may produce alternative energy transitions:
–
–
–
–
Initial levels (easier to switch the smaller the amounts used)
Path dependence (sunk cost may be high in energy infrastructure)
Transport cost and relative prices -endowmentTrade partners (technology + policy)
Some thoughts for the debate
•  Be ready for different transitions
–  early coal adopters were not precisely fast making the
transition out of coal
–  The UK and the USA are historical outliyers:
do we want to device policy advice for the exception or the
rule?
–  Small less developed countries would be first to the low
carbon economy?
•  Leapfrogging the combustion engine!
–  Is a reversal to coal a threat?
•  Economics may not be all
–  slavery was economically sound yet socially unaceptable (it
took few millennia to abandon it)
•  From waste to resource
–  Can CO2 be useful for industrial production of H from algae?