Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Energy policy and economics under climate change

1 Department of Design, Monash University-Caulfield Campus, P.O. Box 197, Caulfield East, Victoria 3145, Australia
2 Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Monash University-Clayton Campus, Victoria, Australia

Most anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the result of the combustion of fossil fuels. Proposals for mitigating climate change thus include various carbon dioxide removal technologies, replacement of fossil fuels by non-carbon alternatives (renewable and nuclear energy), and reduction in energy use overall by improving energy efficiency. We argue here that deep controversy surrounds the efficacy and likely costs of all these technical fix proposals. Optimistic conclusions are often drawn for these technical solutions partly because many of the analyses do not follow an Earth Systems Science approach. Instead, we argue that in future solutions based on non-technical solutions will need to be a key approach for mitigating climate change in the short time frame we have left.
  Article Metrics

Keywords carbon dioxide removal; climate mitigation; fossil fuels; energy costs; energy policy; energy return; Earth System Science; nuclear energy; precautionary principle; renewable energy; uncertainty

Citation: Patrick Moriarty, Damon Honnery. Energy policy and economics under climate change. AIMS Energy, 2018, 6(2): 272-290. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.2.272


  • 1. Pearce F (2017) We could pass 1.5 °C warming by 2026. New Sci 234: 10.
  • 2. Anderson K (2015) Duality in climate science. Nat Geosci 8: 898–900.    
  • 3. Xu Y, Ramanathan V (2017) Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes. PNAS 114: 10315–10323.    
  • 4. Anonymous (2017) Climate health threat. New Sci 236: 4.
  • 5. Peters GP, Le Quéré C, Andrew RM, et al. (2017) Towards real-time verification of CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Change 7: 848–850.    
  • 6. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2017) World Energy Outlook, 2017. Paris.
  • 7. Cook J, Oreskes N, Doran PT, et al. (2016) Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environ Res Lett 11: 048002.    
  • 8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2015) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Cambridge UK, CUP.
  • 9. Schindler J (2014) The availability of fossil energy resources, In: Angrick M, Burger A, Lehmann H, Author, Factor X: Policy, Strategies and Instruments for a Sustainable Resource Use, 2 Eds., Netherlands: Springer, 19–38.
  • 10. Wang J, Feng L, Tang X, et al. (2017) The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-side analysis. Futures 86: 58–72.    
  • 11. Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, et al. (2015) Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes. PNAS 112:15060–15065.    
  • 12. Van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, Elzen MG, et al. (2011) RCP2.6: Exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2 °C. Clim Change 109: 95–116.
  • 13. Sanchez DL, Nelson JH, Johnston J, et al. (2015) Biomass enables the transition to a carbon negative power system across western North America. Nat Clim Change 5: 230–234.    
  • 14. Creutzig F, Agoston P, Goldschmidt JC, et al. (2017) The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nat Energy 2: 1–9.
  • 15. Miller LM, Kleidon A (2016) Wind speed reductions by large-scale wind turbine deployments lower turbine efficiencies and set low generation limits. PNAS 113: 13570–13575.    
  • 16. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2011) Is there an optimum level for renewable energy? Energ Policy 39: 2748–2753.
  • 17. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2012) What is the global potential for renewable energy? Renew Sust Energ Rev 16: 244–252.    
  • 18. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2017) Sustainable energy resources: Prospects and policy, In: Rasul MG, Author, Clean Energy For Sustainable Development, 1 Eds., London: Elsevier.
  • 19. Trainer T (2017) Can renewables meet total Australian energy demand: A "disaggregated" approach. Energ Policy 109: 539–544.    
  • 20. Clack CTM, Qvist SA, Apt J, et al. (2017) Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar. PNAS 114: 6722–6727.    
  • 21. de Castro C, Mediavilla M, Miguel LJ, et al. (2011) Global wind power potential: Physical and technological limits. Energ Policy 39: 6677–6682.    
  • 22. de Castro C, Mediavilla M, Miguel LJ, et al. (2013) Global solar electric potential: A review of their technical and sustainable limits. Renew Sust Energ Rev 28: 824–835.    
  • 23. de Castro C, Carpintero O, Frechoso F, et al. (2014) A top-down approach to assess physical and ecological limits of biofuels. Energy 64: 506–512.    
  • 24. Heard BP, Brook BW, Wigley TML, et al. (2017) Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 76: 1122–1133.    
  • 25. Espinosa N, Hosel M, Angmo D, et al. (2012) Solar cells with one-day energy payback for the factories of the future. Energy Environ Sci 5: 5117–5132.    
  • 26. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2016) Can renewable energy power the future? Energ Policy 93: 3–7.    
  • 27. Weißbach D, Ruprecht G, Huke A, et al. (2013) Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants. Energy 52: 210–221.    
  • 28. Ferroni F, Hopkirk RJ (2016) Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) for photovoltaic solar systems in regions of moderate insolation. Energ Policy 94: 336–344.    
  • 29. Dale M, Benson SM (2013) Energy balance of the global photovoltaic (PV) industry-Is the PV industry a net electricity producer? Environ Sci Technol 47: 3482−3489.
  • 30. Louwen A, van Sark WGJHM, Faaij APC, et al. (2016) Re-assessment of net energy production and greenhouse gas emissions avoidance after 40 years of photovoltaics development. Nat Commun 7: 13728.    
  • 31. Smil V (2012) A skeptic looks at alternative energy. IEEE Spectrum 49: 46–52.
  • 32. Smil V (2016) Examining energy transitions: A dozen insights based on performance. Energy Res Soc Sci 4: 194–197.
  • 33. Grubler A, Wilson C, Nemet G (2016) Apples, oranges, and consistent comparisons of the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 22: 18–25.    
  • 34. Pickard WF (2014) Smart grids versus the Achilles' Heel of renewable energy: Can the needed storage infrastructure be constructed before the fossil fuel runs out? Proc IEEE 102: 1094–1105.    
  • 35. Davidsson S, Grandell L, Wachtmeister H, et al. (2014) Growth curves and sustained commissioning modelling of renewable energy: Investigating resource constraints for wind energy. Energ Policy 73: 767–776.    
  • 36. Sovacool BK (2016) How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci 13: 202–215.
  • 37. Sioshansi FP (2009) De-carbonizing electricity generation: It won't be easy, cheap, nor enough. Util Policy 17: 217–224.    
  • 38. Ackerman F, Stanton EA (2012) Climate risks and carbon prices: revising the social cost of carbon. Economics 6: 1–25.
  • 39. Weitzman ML (2014) Fat tails and the social cost of carbon. Am Econ Rev 104: 544–546.    
  • 40. Nordhaus WD (2017) Revisiting the social cost of carbon. PNAS 114: 1518–1523.    
  • 41. Marshall M (2013) Transforming earth. New Sci 12: 10–11.
  • 42. Griscom BW, Adams J, Ellis PW, et al. (2017) Natural climate solutions. PNAS 114: 11645–11650.    
  • 43. Smith LJ, Torn MS (2013) Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal. Clim Change 118: 89–103.    
  • 44. Keller DP, Feng EY, Oschlies A (2014) Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario. Nat Commun 5: 3304.
  • 45. Arora VK, Montenegro A (2011) Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nat Geosci 4: 514–518.    
  • 46. Zoback MD, Gorelick SM (2012) Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Proc Nat Acad Sci 109: 10164–10168.    
  • 47. Socolow RH, Desmond MJ (2011) Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals: A Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs. Am Phys Soc.
  • 48. Honegger M, Reiner D (2017) The political economy of negative emissions technologies: Consequences for international policy design. Clim Policy 2017: 1–16.
  • 49. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2011) Rise and Fall of the Carbon Civilisation. London: Springer.
  • 50. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2010) A hydrogen standard for energy accounting? Int J Hydrogen Energy 35: 12374–12380.    
  • 51. BP (2017) BP Statistical Review of World Energy. London, BP. Available from: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2017/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017-full-report.pdf .
  • 52. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2017) Key World Energy Statistics 2017. Paris, IEA/OECD.
  • 53. Schaps C (2015) Royal Dutch Shell pulls plug on Arctic exploration. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-alaska/royal-dutch-shell-pulls-plug-on-arctic-exploration-idUSKCN0RS0EX20150928.
  • 54. Taylor LL, Quirk J, Thorley RMS, et al. (2016) Enhanced weathering strategies for stabilizing climate and averting ocean acidification. Nat Clim Change 6: 402–406.    
  • 55. Service RF (2016) Cost of carbon capture drops, but does anyone want it? Science 354: 1362–1363.    
  • 56. Birkholzer JT, Zhou Q (2009) Basin-scale hydrogeologic impacts of CO2 storage: Capacity and regulatory implications. Int J Greenh Gas Control 3: 745–756.    
  • 57. Elliot TR, Celia MA (2012) Potential restrictions for CO2 sequestration sites due to shale and tight gas production. Environ Sci Technol 46: 4223–4227.    
  • 58. Coady D, Parry I, Sears S, et al. (2015) How large are global energy subsidies? IMF Working Paper. Available from: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf.
  • 59. Baranzini A, van den Bergh JCJM, Carattini S, et al. (2017) Carbon pricing in climate policy: Seven reasons, complementary instruments, and political economy considerations. WIREs Clim Change 8: e462.    
  • 60. Eisenstein (2017) The needs of the many. Nature 551: 142–144.    
  • 61. United Nations (UN) (2017) World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision. Available from: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/.
  • 62. Lovins AB (2010) Profitable solutions to climate, oil, and proliferation. Ambio 39: 236–248.    
  • 63. Cullen JM, Allwood JM, Borgstein EH (2011) Reducing energy demand: What are the practical limits? Environ Sci Technol 45: 1711–1718.    
  • 64. Dray LM, Schafer A, Ben-Akiva ME (2012) Technology limits for reducing EU transport sector CO2 emissions. Environ Sci Technol 46: 4734–4741.    
  • 65. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) 2016 World Oil Outlook. Vienna, Austria, OPEC.
  • 66. Desroches LB, Garbesi K, Yang HC, et al. (2013) Trends in the cost of efficiency for appliances and consumer electronics. ECEEE Summer Study Proc 1751–1758.
  • 67. Weiss M, Patel MK, Junginger M, et al. (2010) Analyzing price and efficiency dynamics of large appliances with the experience curve approach. Energ Policy 38: 770–783.    
  • 68. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2017) Non-technical factors in household energy conservation, In: Chen WY, Suzuki T, Lackner T, Authors, Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, 2Eds., New York: Springer.
  • 69. Sorrell S (2015) Reducing energy demand: A review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 47: 74–82.    
  • 70. Breukers S, Mourik R, Heiskanen E (2013) Changing energy demand behavior: Potential of demand-side management, In: Kauffman L, Lee KM, Handbook of Sustainable Engineering, Eds., Netherlands: Springer, 773–792.
  • 71. Akerlind I, Freed J (2014) Nuclear energy renaissance set to move ahead without U.S. Third Way Clean Energy Program. Available from: https://www.thirdway.org/report/nuclear-energy-renaissance-set-to-move-ahead-without-u-s.
  • 72. Rogner M, Riahi K (2013) Future nuclear perspectives based on MESSAGE integrated assessment modeling. Energy Strategy Rev 1: 223–232.    
  • 73. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2017) International Energy Outlook 2017. US Dept. of Energy. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2017).pdf.
  • 74. BP (2017) BP Energy Outlook 2035. London, BP.
  • 75. Anonymous (2017) France could close "up to 17" nuclear reactors by 2025. Available from: http://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plantshttp://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants.
  • 76. Normile D (2017) South Korea's nuclear U-turn draws praise and darts. Science 356: 15.    
  • 77. Grossman L (2017) Nuclear holiday. New Sci 20 May: 20–21.
  • 78. Koomey J, Hultman NE, Grubler A (2017) A reply to "Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors". Energ Policy 102: 640–643.    
  • 79. Hoogwijk M, Faaij A, van den Broek R, et al. (2003) Exploration of the ranges of the global potential of biomass for energy. Biomass Bioenerg 25: 119–133.    
  • 80. Abbasi T, Abbasi SA (2012) Is the use of renewable energy sources an answer to the problems of global warming and pollution? Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 42: 99–154.    
  • 81. Smith P, Davis SJ, Creutzig F, et al. (2016) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Change 6: 42–50.    
  • 82. Weißbach D, Ruprecht G, Huke A, et al. (2014) Reply on "Comments on 'Energy intensities, EROEIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants'-Making clear of quite some confusion". Energy 68: 1004–1006.    
  • 83. Raugei M (2013) Comments on "Energy intensities, EROEIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants"-Making clear of quite some confusion. Energy 59: 781–782.    
  • 84. Raugei M, Carbajales-Dale M, Barnhart CJ, et al. (2015) Rebuttal: "Comments on 'Energy intensities, EROEIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants'-Making clear of quite some confusion". Energy 82: 1088–1091.    
  • 85. McGlade C, Ekins P (2015) The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517: 187–190.    
  • 86. Höök M, Li J, Johansson K, et al. (2012) Growth rates of global energy systems and future outlooks. Nat Resour Res 21: 23–41.    
  • 87. Le Page M (2017) The green revolution is stalling. New Sci 5: 22–23.
  • 88. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2011) Energy availability problems with rapid deployment of wind-hydrogen systems. Int J Hydrog Energy 36: 3283–3289.    
  • 89. Smith KA, Mosier AR, Crutzen PJ, et al. (2012) The role of N2O derived from crop-based biofuels, and from agriculture in general, in Earth's climate. Phil Trans Roy Soc B 367: 1169–1174.    
  • 90. Battye W, Aneja VP, Schlesinger WH (2017) Is nitrogen the next carbon? Earth's Future 5: 894–904.    
  • 91. Davis SC, Anderson-Teixeira KJ, DeLucia EH (2009) Life-cycle analysis and the ecology of biofuels. Trends Plant Sci 14: 140–146.    
  • 92. Searchinger TD, Estes L, Thornton PK, et al. (2015) High carbon and biodiversity costs from converting Africa's wet savannahs to cropland. Nat Clim Change 5: 481–486.
  • 93. Hein L, Leemans R (2012) The impact of first-generation biofuels on the depletion of the global phosphorus reserve. Ambio 41: 341–349.    
  • 94. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2017) Assessing the climate mitigation potential of biomass. AIMS Energy 5: 20–38.
  • 95. Liska AJ, Yang H, Milner M, et al. (2014) Biofuels from crop residue can reduce soil carbon and increase CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Change 4: 398–401.
  • 96. Zhao G, Bryan BA, King D, et al. (2015) Sustainable limits to crop residue harvest for bioenergy: Maintaining soil carbon in Australia's agricultural lands. Glob Change Biol Bioenerg 7: 479–487.    
  • 97. Searle SY, Malins CJ (2014) Will energy crop yields meet expectations? Bioenergy Conf 65: 3–12.
  • 98. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, et al. (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge UK, CUP.
  • 99. Schramski JR, Gattie DK, Brown JH (2015) Human domination of the biosphere: Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind. PNAS 112: 9511–9517.    
  • 100. Capellán-Pérez I, de Castro C, Arto I (2017) Assessing vulnerabilities and limits in the transition to renewable energies: Land requirements under 100% solar energy scenarios. Renew Sust Energ Rev 77: 760–782.
  • 101. Hanning C, Evans A (2012) Wind Turbine noise: Seems to affect health adversely and an independent review of evidence is needed. BMJ 344: e1527.    
  • 102. Barros JJC, Coira ML, Pilar de la Cruz Lopez M, et al. (2015) Assessing the global sustainability of different electricity generation systems. Energy 89: 473–489.    
  • 103. Campbell JE, Lobell DB, Field CB (2009) Greater transportation energy and GHG offsets from bioelectricity than ethanol. Science 324: 1055–1057.    
  • 104. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, et al. (2015) Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347: 1259855.    
  • 105. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2015) Reliance on technical solutions to environmental problems: Caution is needed. Environ Sci Technol 49: 5255−5256.
  • 106. Li X, Wagner F, Peng W, et al. (2017) Reduction of solar photovoltaic resources due to air pollution in China. PNAS 114: 11867–11872.    
  • 107. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, et al. (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. J Chem Inf Model 53: 1689–1699.    
  • 108. van den Bergh J, Folke C, Polasky S, et al. (2015) What if solar energy becomes really cheap? A thought experiment on environmental problem shifting. Curr Opin Env Sust 14: 170–179.
  • 109. Andersen O (2013) Unintended consequences of renewable energy: Problems to be solved. London: Springer.
  • 110. Moriarty P, Honnery D (2018) Three futures: Nightmare, diversion, vision. World Futures 74: 51–67.    
  • 111. Kallis G (2017) Radical dematerialization and degrowth. Phil Trans R Soc A 375: 20160383.    
  • 112. Schindler DE, Hilborn R (2015) Prediction, precaution, and policy under global change. Science 347: 953–954.    
  • 113. Taleb NN, Bar-Yam Y, Douady R, et al. (2014) The precautionary principle: Fragility and black swans from policy actions. NYU Extreme Risk Initiative Working Paper, 1–24.


This article has been cited by

  • 1. E. J. Anthony, P. T. Clough, , CO2 Separation, Purification and Conversion to Chemicals and Fuels, 2019, Chapter 4, 39, 10.1007/978-981-13-3296-8_4
  • 2. Patrick Moriarty, Damon Honnery, Ecosystem maintenance energy and the need for a green EROI, Energy Policy, 2019, 131, 229, 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.05.006
  • 3. Patrick Moriarty, Damon Honnery, , Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, 2019, 273, 10.1016/B978-0-12-816229-3.00014-4
  • 4. Joshua Floyd, Samuel Alexander, Manfred Lenzen, Patrick Moriarty, Graham Palmer, Sangeetha Chandra-Shekeran, Barney Foran, Lorenz Keyßer, Energy descent as a post-carbon transition scenario: How ‘knowledge humility’ reshapes energy futures for post-normal times, Futures, 2020, 122, 102565, 10.1016/j.futures.2020.102565
  • 5. Claudio Adragna, Giovanni Gritti, Angelo Raciti, Santi Agatino Rizzo, Giovanni Susinni, Analysis of the Input Current Distortion and Guidelines for Designing High Power Factor Quasi-Resonant Flyback LED Drivers, Energies, 2020, 13, 11, 2989, 10.3390/en13112989

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved