Reducing the energy demand has become a key mechanism for limiting climate change, but there are practical limitations associated with large energy savings in a growing global economy and, importantly, its lower-income parts. Using new data on energy and GDP, we show that adopting the same near-term low-energy growth trajectory in all regions in IPCC scenarios limiting global warming to 1.5 °C presents an unresolved policy challenge. We discuss this challenge of combining energy demand reductions with robust income growth for the 6.4 billion people in middle- and low-income countries in light of the reliance of economic development on industrialization. Our results highlight the importance of addressing limits to energy demand reduction in integrated assessment modelling when regional economic development is powered by industrialization and of instead exploring faster energy supply decarbonization. Insights from development economics and other disciplines could help generate plausible assumptions given the financial, investment and stability issues involved.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 per month
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The data that support the national and regional historical energy series are from the UN and the IEA, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under licence for the current study and so are not publicly available. The national historical data are, however, deposited with the UK Data Service67, with access conditional on case-by-case permission by the IEA: https://www.ukdataservice.ac.uk/get-data.aspx. All other historical data are publicly available from the Penn World Table, the Maddison Project, the World Bank and the PFU database. The data that support the future scenarios are derived exclusively from the IAMC 1.5 °C Scenario Explorer and Data and are available for free at https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-explorer/.
The code for curating the future scenario data (once downloaded) and for generating all the figures in the paper is available from the authors on reasonable request. It is coded in R.
Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).
Vuuren, D. P. Van et al. Carbon budgets and energy transition pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 075002 (2016).
Rogelj, J. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, WMO, 2018).
Akizu-Gardoki, O. et al. Hidden Energy Flow indicator to reflect the outsourced energy requirements of countries. J. Clean. Prod. 278, 123827 (2021).
Taylor, L. in Twenty-First Century Macroeconomics: Responding to the Climate Challenge (eds Harris, J. & Goodwin, N.) Ch. 6 (Elgar, 2009).
IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (eds Nakićenović, N. & Swart, R.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
Koomey, J., Schmidt, Z., Hummel, H. & Weyant, J. Inside the black box: understanding key drivers of global emission scenarios. Environ. Model. Softw. 111, 268–281 (2019).
Cullen, J. M., Allwood, J. M. & Borgstein, E. H. Reducing energy demand: what are the practical limits? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1711–1718 (2011).
Nakićenović, N., Gilli, P. V. & Kurz, R. Regional and global exergy and energy efficiencies. Energy 21, 223–237 (1996).
Serrenho, A. C., Warr, B., Sousa, T. & Ayres, R. U. Structure and dynamics of useful work along the agriculture-industry-services transition: Portugal from 1856 to 2009. Struct. Change Econ. Dyn. 36, 1–21 (2016).
Smil, V. Energy in World History (Westview, 1994).
Crosby, A. W. Children of the Sun: A History of Humanity’s Unappeasable Appetite for Energy (W. W. Norton, 2006).
Fouquet, R. in International Handbook of the Economics of Energy (eds Evans, J. & Hunt, L. C.) Ch. 1 (Edward Elgar, 2009).
O’Connor, P. A. & Cleveland, C. J. U.S. energy transitions 1780–2010. Energies 7, 7955–7993 (2014).
Wrigley, E. A. Energy and the English Industrial Revolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010); https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779619
Kander, A., Malanima, P. & Warde, P. Power to the People: Energy in Europe over the Last Five Centuries (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).
Maddison, A. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (OECD, 2001).
Fouquet, R. Heat, Power and Light: Revolutions in Energy Services (Edward Elgar, 2008).
De Stercke, S. Dynamics of Energy Systems: A Useful Perspective Interim Report No. IR-14-013 (IIASA, 2014).
Csereklyei, Z., Rubio-Varas, M. d. M. & Stern, D. I. Energy and economic growth: the stylized facts. Energy J. 37, 223–255 (2016).
UN ECAFE Rural Electrification Publication No. E/CN.11/39 (UN, 1954).
Fouquet, R. Historical energy transitions: speed, prices and system transformation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22, 7–12 (2016).
Semieniuk, G. Energy in Economic Growth: Is Faster Growth Greener? Working Papers 208 (Department of Economics, SOAS, 2018).
Dienes, L., Dobozi, I. & Radetzki, M. Energy and Economic Reform in the Former Soviet Union (Macmillan, 1994).
Zhang, Z. X. Why did the energy intensity fall in China’s industrial sector in the 1990s? The relative importance of structural change and intensity change. Energy Econ. 25, 625–638 (2003).
Kriegler, E. et al. Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): an energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 297–315 (2017).
Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).
Vuuren, D. P. Van et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 237–250 (2017).
Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3, 515–527 (2018).
Vita, G., Hertwich, E. G., Stadler, K. & Wood, R. Connecting global emissions to fundamental human needs and their satisfaction. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 014002 (2019).
Bauer, N. et al. Shared Socio-Economic Pathways of the energy sector—quantifying the narratives. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 316–330 (2017).
Schwanitz, V. J. Evaluating integrated assessment models of global climate change. Environ. Model. Softw. 50, 120–131 (2013).
Nielsen, H., Warde, P. & Kander, A. East versus West: energy intensity in coal-rich Europe, 1800–2000. Energy Policy 122, 75–83 (2018).
Appleby, P., Fennema, J., Naumov, A., Schaffer, M. & Christof, R. Economic development and the demand for energy: a historical perspective on the next 20 years. Energy Policy 50, 109–116 (2012).
Ocampo, J. A., Rada, C. & Taylor, L. Growth and Policy in Developing Countries (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).
Taylor, L. Gap models. J. Dev. Econ. 45, 17–34 (1994).
Fouquet, R. Path dependence in energy systems and economic development. Nat. Energy 1, 16098 (2016).
Lovins, A. B. How big is the energy efficiency resource? Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 090401 (2018).
Fowlie, M., Greenstone, M. & Wolfram, C. Do energy efficiency investments deliver? Evidence from the Weatherization Assistance Program. Q. J. Econ. 133, 1597–1644 (2018).
Rozenberg, J., Davis, S. J., Narloch, U. & Hallegatte, S. Climate constraints on the carbon intensity of economic growth. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 095006 (2015).
Trade and Development Report 2019: Financing a Global Green New Deal (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2019).
Bresser-Pereira, L., Oreiro, J. & Marconi, N. Developmental Macroeconomics (Routledge, 2014); https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203583500
Semieniuk, G., Campiglio, E., Mercure, J.-F., Volz, U. & Edwards, N. Low-carbon transition risks for finance. WIREs Clim. Change 12, e678 (2021).
Battiston, S., Mandel, A., Monasterolo, I., Schütze, F. & Visentin, G. A climate stress-test of the financial system. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 283–288 (2017).
Kriegler, E. et al. Short term policies to keep the door open for Paris climate goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074022 (2018).
McCollum, D. L. et al. Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 589–599 (2018).
Foley, D. K. Dilemmas of economic growth. East. Econ. J. 38, 283–295 (2012).
Solow, R. M. Is the end of the world at hand? Challenge 16, 39–50 (1973).
van Benthem, A. A. Energy leapfrogging. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2, 93–132 (2015).
Wolfram, C., Shelef, O. & Gertler, P. How will energy demand develop in the developing world? J. Econ. Perspect. 26, 119–138 (2012).
Davis, L. W. & Gertler, P. J. Contribution of air conditioning adoption to future energy use under global warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5962–5967 (2015).
Anderson, K. & Jewell, J. Debating the bedrock of climate-change mitigation scenarios. Nature 573, 348–349 (2019).
Steckel, J. C., Brecha, R. J., Jakob, M., Strefler, J. & Luderer, G. Development without energy? Assessing future scenarios of energy consumption. Ecol. Econ. 90, 53–67 (2013).
Nagy, B., Farmer, J. D., Bui, Q. M. & Trancik, J. E. Statistical basis for predicting technological progress. PLoS ONE 8, e52669 (2013).
Wilson, C., Grubler, A., Bauer, N., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence? Clim. Change 118, 381–395 (2013).
Creutzig, F. et al. The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change. Nat. Energy 2, 17140 (2017).
Mohn, K. The gravity of status quo: a review of IEA’s World Energy Outlook. Econ. Energy Environ. Policy 9, 63–81 (2020).
Rezai, A., Taylor, L. & Foley, D. K. Economic growth, income distribution, and climate change. Ecol. Econ. 146, 164–172 (2018).
Pollin, R. Greening the Global Economy (MIT Press, 2015).
Patt, A., van Vliet, O., Lilliestam, J. & Pfenninger, S. Will policies to promote energy efficiency help or hinder achieving a 1.5 °C climate target? Energy Effic. 12, 551–565 (2019).
Jewell, J. & Cherp, A. On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: is it too late to keep warming below 1.5 °C? WIREs Clim. Change 11, e621 (2020).
Word Energy Balances 2018 (International Energy Agency, 2018); https://doi.org/10.15713/ins.mmj.3
The United Nations Energy Statistics Database (United Nations Energy Statistics Division, 2016).
World Energy Supplies in Selected Years, 1929–1950 Statistical Papers Series J No. 1 (United Nations, 1952).
Feenstra, R. C., Inklaar, R. & Timmer, M. P. The next generation of the Penn World Table. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 3150–3182 (2015).
Bolt, J., Inklaar, R., de Jong, H. & van Zanden, J. L. Rebasing ‘Maddison’: New Income Comparisons and the Shape of Long-Run Economic Development Working Paper No. 10 (Maddison Project, 2018).
Semieniuk, G. Primary Energy Demand and GDP per Capita for Most Countries of the World, 1950–2014 [Data Collection] (UK Data Service, 2020).
Krey, V. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Annex II (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
World Energy Outlook 2019 (International Energy Agency, 2019).
Cleveland, W. S. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74, 829–836 (1979).
Chambers, J. M. & Hastie, T. J. Statistical Models in S (Chapman and Hall, 1993).
Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 °C Scenario Explorer and Data Hosted by IIASA (IIASA, 2018); https://doi.org/10.22022/SR15/08-2018.15429
Forster, P. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 2 Supplementary Material (IPCC, WMO, 2018).
L.T. and D.F. acknowledge support from the Institute for New Economic Thinking.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Mariësse van Sluisveld, Charlie Wilson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Output per capita and primary energy per capita country time series for varying data definitions.
(a) National accounts GDP (rgdpna in the Penn World Table), (b) terms-of-trade adjusted PPP GDP (rgdpo in the Penn World Table), (c) employment instead of population and (d) only G20 member states. Sources: see Methods.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Difference of the annual global final minus primary energy demand growth rate.
Disks represent annual global observations connected by lines. Source: see Methods.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Levels and growth rate projections for primary energy and 2 °C scenarios.
(a) Global income per capita and primary energy per capita projections of 1.5 °C scenarios to 2050 in grey. Archetype scenarios are in blue. Scenario values have been normalised to start at the same historical level in 2010. Markers indicate decades. The historical trajectory is in black and the red lines extrapolate 1950–73 (Gold), 1973–2000 (Slow) and 2000–18 (Millennium) growth rates. The Gold extrapolation is truncated after 2030 to avoid extending the y-axis. (b) Same as a but for Middle East & Africa region. (c) Same as a but with final energy and 2 °C scenarios. The LED scenario does not exist for 2 °C mitigation. (d) Same as b but with final energy and 2 °C scenarios. Sources: see Methods.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Final energy levels projections for other regions.
Income per capita and final energy per capita projections of 1.5 °C scenarios to 2050 in grey for regions not shown in main text Fig. 2. Archetype scenarios are in blue. Scenario values have been normalised to start at the same historical level in 2010. Markers indicate decades. Black is the historical trajectory and the red lines extrapolate 1950–73 (Gold), 1973–2000 (Slow) and 2000–18 (Millennium) growth rates. Some extrapolations are truncated to avoid extending the y-axis. (a) Asia, (b) Latin America, (c) Transition Economies, (d) OECD. Sources: see Methods.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Scenario growth rate deviations from historical rates by region and scenario type.
(a) Annual growth rate deviation in percentage points in scenarios for 2020–30 relative to the 1970–2015 historical average for the World and five regions in baselines (disks), 1.5 °C (squares, upper panel) and 2 °C (triangles, lower panel). GDP/capita deviation is on the x-axis, FE/capita is on the yaxis. The aspect ratio is one. (b) As a for 2030–40. (c) As a for 2040–2100. Sources: see Methods.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Policy scenario growth rate deviations from baseline scenario by model type.
(a) Deviations in percentage points from BAU growth rates in scenarios mitigating to 1.5 °C conditional on whether GDP growth is endogenous (left three columns) or exogenous (right three columns). Boxes encompass the interquartile range and have no whiskers. The horizontal line in the box shows the median scenario. (b) Same as a but with 2 °C scenarios (y-scale the same in a and b).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Semieniuk, G., Taylor, L., Rezai, A. et al. Plausible energy demand patterns in a growing global economy with climate policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 313–318 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00975-7
This article is cited by
Decoupling of land-use net carbon flux, economic growth, and population change in China
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023)
Do pilot free trade zones improve the green total factor productivity? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022)
High performance solid-state thermoelectric energy conversion via inorganic metal halide perovskites under tailored mechanical deformation
Frontiers in Energy (2022)
Urgent need for post-growth climate mitigation scenarios
Nature Energy (2021)
Roadmap to sustainable carbon-neutral energy and environment: can we cross the barrier of biomass productivity?
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021)