Search

The UK has been one of the few countries that has successfully decoupled final energy consumption from economic growth over the past 15 years. This study investigates the drivers of final energy consumption in the UK productive sectors between 1997 and 2013 using a decomposition analysis that incorporates two novel features. Firstly, it investigates to what extent changes in thermodynamic efficiency have contributed to overall changes in sectoral energy intensities. Secondly, it analyses how much of the structural change in the UK economy is driven by the offshoring of energy-intensive production overseas. The results show that energy intensity reductions are the strongest factor reducing energy consumption. However, only a third of the energy savings from energy intensity reductions can be attributed to reductions in thermodynamic efficiency with reductions in the exergy intensity of production making up the reminder. In addition the majority of energy savings from structural change are a result of offshoring, which constitutes the second biggest factor reducing energy consumption. In recent years the contributions of all decomposition factors have been declining with very little change in energy consumption after 2009. This suggests that a return to the strong reductions in energy consumption observed between 2001 and 2009 in the UK productive sectors should not be taken for granted. Given that further reductions in UK final energy consumption are needed to achieve global targets for climate change mitigation, additional policy interventions are needed. Such policies should adopt a holistic approach, taking into account all sectors in the UK economy as well as the relationship between the structural change in the UK and in the global supply chains delivering the goods and service for consumption and investment in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Presents time series of embodied emissions in UK construction from 1997 to 2011. [•] Contends that mitigation requires greater focus on material efficiency. [•] Identifies barriers to uptake of alternative materials, technologies and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A comparative societal exergy analysis of Ghana and the United Kingdom is performed. • Ghana's projected 5 %/year economic growth requires primary energy growth of 2 %/year. • Energy efficiency measures are ineffective due to economy-wide feedbacks. • Energy intensity is not an appropriate metric for primary energy reduction goals. • Absolute decoupling of energy from gross domestic product appears mission impossible. To meet climate change mitigation objectives, international institutions have adopted targets aimed at reducing or ending growth of primary energy consumption. Simultaneously, continued economic growth is forecasted to meet human development goals. Together, declining energy consumption and rising gross domestic product (GDP) is called "absolute decoupling." However, absolute decoupling is unprecedented for the world economy as a whole (since at least 1971). Is absolute decoupling "Mission impossible?" Given the high stakes, we need a clearer understanding of the extent of future energy–GDP decoupling. To gain that understanding, we perform societal exergy analyses using a novel Physical Supply Use Table framework to assess historical and future trends of primary energy consumption and economic growth for one medium human development index country and one very high human development index country, Ghana and the United Kingdom (UK), respectively. Three key results are obtained. First, we find that it will be very difficult to absolutely decouple primary energy consumption from economic activity. This is particularly true for Ghana's rapidly growing economy, where projected economic growth of 5.0 %/year will require growth of primary energy consumption of around 2.0 %/year. It is also true for the UK, where at best primary energy consumption appears constant into the future to provide a projected GDP growth of 2.7 %/year. Second, we find that energy efficiency is not an effective means to reduce primary energy consumption and associated carbon dioxide emissions due to economy-wide feedback effects, placing greater importance on decarbonizing the primary energy supply. Third, we find primary energy intensity is not an appropriate metric to measure energy reduction progress, because meeting primary energy intensity targets does not ensure absolute decoupling will occur. At present, absolute decoupling appears to be mission impossible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]