Energy transition. What is it?

There is a broad scientific consensus that we are witnessing global warming forced by the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by human activity. Based on this evidence, young people worldwide have mobilised to demand more facts and less rhetoric and posturing from political leaders. They are not without reason, and their protest has gained a great deal of social support. The time for action has come, but are we aware of the nature and true scale of the challenge ahead?

The first step to solving a problem is to formulate it correctly. And to this end we must have present that the CO₂ emitted by human activity is related to four variables, considered on a global scale: 1) the population; 2) GDP per capita; 3) energy used per GDP unit (or energy intensity); and 4) the CO₂ emissions emitted per energy unit consumed (or carbon intensity). From the figure resulting from the multiplication of these four factors, we must subtract the amount of CO₂ that once emitted, we can remove from the air, either by natural means (for example, by avoiding deforestation and encouraging reforestation) or artificial means (using diverse engineering techniques, more or less developed and costly) that would allow CO₂ to be removed from the air and subsequently reused within the framework of a circular economy scheme. 

This leads us to recognise two major components, of a very disparate nature, in the phenomenon of global warming. On the one hand, the first two factors (population and GDP per capita) are related to the current socio-economic model, which postulates unlimited demographic and economic growth, while the last two (energy intensity and carbon intensity), together with the component of removal and use of CO₂ emitted, are related to a certain energy model and level of technological development that make the objectives of demographic and economic growth possible. 

We are, therefore, facing a systematic challenge, whose solution would require not only influencing (as is commonly believed) energy and technological aspects but also the current socio-economic model. A theoretical approximation that clashes with a harsh reality: the global demographic and economic trends point to continued growth in the next few decades. 

In demographics, the world population is expected to reach 9.144 billion people in 2040, compared to 7.421 billion in 2016. Another particularly striking figure of these forecasts is that in 2040 64% of the world population will be concentrated in urban areas, compared to 54% in 2016; a percentage, the former, which may exceed or approach 80% in regions such as North America, Central and South America, and the EU, as well as in countries such as the US, Brazil, Russia, and Japan. We find ourselves before a process that adds to the global urban population a city the size of Singapore every four months.

And in terms of global economic growth, an average compound annual GDP growth rate of around 3.4% is expected for the period 2016-2040, with the highest growth rates concentrated in Africa (4.3%) and above all in the Asia-Pacific region (4.5%), and the lowest in the industrialised OECD countries. Another interesting element linked to the global economic growth is the forecast that the middle class will expand globally, increasing around 80% by 2030 and surpassing 5 billion people, with the majority of said growth coming from countries not part of the OECD. 

Faced with the difficulty of reversing such trends, the international community has decided to focus on a new energy transition capable of decoupling economic and demographic growth from rising energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve it, we have three tools: efficiency, decarbonisation, and removal and use of CO₂. However, the global data in 2018 show that the sum of actions in these three areas has not even been able to stabilise emissions compared to 2017. The emissions continue to increase, driven by economic and demographic growth. And if that weren’t enough, in the absence of disruptive scientific and technological breakthroughs, the energy transition is unlikely to be as smooth and fast as would be desirable.

In relation to climate change forced by human activity, it is worth asking whether a slowdown in world population growth would mitigate the future impacts of this phenomenon. An affirmative answer seems obvious, especially if we consider that from 2015 to 2100 the forecasts are that the planet’s population will grow by around 4 billion people. On the other hand, the validity of said answer is backed up by rigorous studies and, in fact, many non-governmental organisations, which are carrying out activities related to the climate and population in less developed countries and with experience in the drafting of national adaptation plans, consider that demographic growth constitutes an important factor of vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

However, the main source of scientific information underpinning international policymaking, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is not explicit about the potential of demographic policies to reduce the risks associated with global warming. Thus, although the latest report from the IPCC includes a technical evaluation on the interaction between population and climate, it is silent on whether or not demographic planning should be included among the potential responses envisaged for climate change adaptation and mitigation.

In the opinion of some experts, there are at least four prejudices or misperceptions within part of the community that is aware of and committed to mitigation and adaptation, which lead to underestimating the demographic issue and the consequent absence of proposals for solutions in this area. 

The first of said perceptions is that the growth of the world population is no longer a problem. However, the latest demographic projection from the UN presents some figures that are the highest of all those estimated to date, with a global population that in 2100 would be around 11.2 billion people. 

The second misperception is the assumption that demographic policies are ineffective, which is an overgeneralisation since family planning programmes to limit or space births have worked successfully in many countries, although more effort and investment are still needed. 

A third error is to consider that demography doesn’t have a special influence on the climate. We know that the emissions that cause global warming result from a combination of several factors, such as economic growth and consumption, technological progress, and changes in economic structure and in the uses of the soil, amongst others. In the past and today, greenhouse gas emissions are mainly attributable to economic growth enabled by the massive use of fossil fuels in developed countries. However, many studies also conclude that demography plays an important role in the history of emissions and their projections.

And the fourth prejudice is the belief that demographic policies are too controversial to be successfully implemented. The strongest opposition to family planning programmes often comes from socially and religiously conservative groups. But there are also other reasons for objection, such as those put forward by human rights organisations denouncing the injustice of planning being applied mostly in the poorest countries (on occasions with coercive methods) when these aren’t responsible for climate change. Certainly, this objection reflects an objective reality, but that doesn’t change the fact that the growth of the population in developing countries represents a challenge for the global climate so that demographic inaction deprives the international community of an important tool for improving human well-being.

It is time for the IPCC to take action and for the scientific and environmental communities and international development institutions to carry out rigorous scientific analysis on demographic policies and reproductive health programmes based on the fullest respect for human rights.