رابطه امنیت انرژی ـ آب و هوا اروپا:یک تحلیل سناریو مبتنی بر مدل

In this research, we provide an overview of the climate-security nexus in the European energy sector, through a model based analysis of scenarios produced with the POLES model. The scenarios describe the consequences of different degrees of GHG emission constraint, at world level, but also for a case where Europe adopts an ambitious climate policy, while the rest of the world sticks to much more modest abatement policies. The analysis shows that under such stringent climate policies, Europe may benefit of a significant double dividend, first in its capacity to develop a new cleaner and climate-friendlier energy model, and second in a lower vulnerability to potential price or supply shocks on the international energy markets.

It is usually considered that the development of national or regional energy policies should be based on three pillars: energy security, environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness. This is particularly true for Europe, where each one of these pillars is brought forward by one dedicated institution, respectively, the Directorates General for Energy and Transport, for Environment and for Competition. But this is also true for other countries or regions of the world, as the development of sound energy policies is often considered as based on trade-offs, aiming at the right balance between potentially conflicting goals. The key argument of this paper is to demonstrate that these targets may be put into convergence, according to the taking into account of global constraints and to the policy hypotheses retained at the global and regional level. In particular, the adoption and implementation of strong climate change and greenhouse gases abatement policies may be considered as the most effective way to enhance energy security through a lower degree of dependence of the European energy system on fossil fuels (Zecca and Chiari, 2010). Energy security “is ubiquitous to contemporary discussion about energy issues and climate change. The term is commonly found embedded in discussions framed around a handful of notions, which denote unimpeded access or no planned interruptions to sources of energy, not relying on a limited number of energy sources, not being tied to a particular geographic region for energy sources, abundant energy resources, an energy supply which can withstand external shocks, and/or some form of energy self-sufficiency” (Chester, 2010). The 2001 European Commission Green Paper “Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply” claims: “The European Union's long-term strategy for energy supply security must be geared to ensuring, for the well-being of its citizens and the proper functioning of the economy, the un interrupted physical availability of energy products on the markets, at a price which is affordable for all consumers (private and industrial)” (European Commission, 2001, pp. 3). Vivoda (2010) shows how energy security cuts across different areas, involving geological, economic and environmental aspects. Increasing concerns over both energy security and the environmental impact of anthropogenic energy emissions feeds the necessity to enhance our understanding of the climate and energy security nexus. In this perspective, we explore the “energy security and climate policy nexus”, using the POLES world energy model, initially developed at EDDEN-LEPII.1 This model is a well established model of the world energy system and is commonly used by different European institutions. One of its characteristics is that it provides a detailed description of future energy demand and supply in more than fourteen countries. The consistency of the long term projections is ensured by the taking into account of the energy technologies that are available in the long term and of the future expected improvements in their costs and performances. Data on future technologies are gathered and updated in a dedicated database that is associated to the model (Knopf et al., 2010). The results for the energy sector in the medium term are comparable to those of other world energy models projections, such as those of International Energy Agency or Energy Information Administration. However, unlike the POLES model, these projections do not cover the 2050 horizon (International Energy Agency, 2010, US Energy Information Administration, 2010 and BP, 2011). The model's behavior for the long term has been studied and compared with the one of other large scale European world economy and energy models in preceding foresight exercises. These exercises aimed at studying the costs of mitigation strategies and low emission scenarios (Edenhofer et al., 2010). We describe here a family of scenarios based on consistent sets of exogenous hypotheses on economic growth, energy resources, technology performances and climate policies, with a particular focus on the “environment and energy security nexus”, according to the aims of the SECURE research project.2 The POLES model is not a General Equilibrium Model, but a Partial Equilibrium Model aimed at describing the energy sector, within a year by year dynamic recursive simulation framework. In this paper, we describe the results of four scenarios in order to illustrate the consequences of different settings concerning climate policies on the fundamentals of the energy markets, both at global and regional level. The first one is called Muddling Through and illustrates the consequences of relatively low intensity and non-coordinated climate policies in the different world regions. This scenario can be used as a reference case, to which stronger policy cases can be compared. The second case, Europe goes Alone, describe a situation in which Europe implements gradually stronger climate policies than in the mere Muddling Through case, while the rest of the world sticks to low intensity climate policies. Finally, the Global Regime scenario illustrates the consequences of coordinated and ambitious climate policy, shared at world level. The exercise shows that energy policies in the Muddling Through case result in a noticeable limitation of emissions compared to Business As Usual case. However the global emission level reached in 2050 far exceeds the one that is considered as reasonable in IPCC's AR4. 3 The Europe Alone scenario helps to show that in a world with low policy coordination there might still be strong advantages in pursuing an ambitious regional climate policy as it may considerably limit the vulnerability of Europe to events occurring in an otherwise very unstable energy world. The Global Regime case not only helps to constrain climate change in an acceptable range but also changes the whole picture of the world energy system in the first half of the century. In particular, the long term sustainability of the oil and gas production profile is significantly improved. Two variants are developed for this case: Global Regime with two carbon markets (GR-2M) and Global Regime with full trade for carbon (GR-FT) in order to test the consequences of a differentiated or a unified carbon emissions market. Section 1 of this paper briefly presents the POLES model and the Muddling Through scenario, which, although it contains some elements of emission reduction, represents a state of the world that is maybe probable, but surely not desirable from the climate change perspective. Section 2 is dedicated to the presentation of the climate policy alternative scenarios and to the comparative analysis of their results in terms of emission performances and impacts on the world and European energy system to 2050. Section 3 discusses the consequences for the international energy markets and for the energy import profiles of Europe. Section 4 translates the conclusions of this study in terms of risks and vulnerability; it also points to the double dividend that may be associated with a change in the European energy paradigm and the resulting reduced vulnerability.

These long term energy scenarios, illustrate the complex interactions of climate policies and energy security issues. They show in particular that the Muddling Through scenario, with low intensity and non-coordinated climate policy does not represent a really sustainable energy future. This is because of the double constraint that impends on the world energy system: upstream through the limitations in conventional oil and gas availability and downstream, by the limited storage capacity of the atmosphere for GHGs. The carbon price, although it remains low, already changes quite significantly the level of emissions through reduced demand, accelerated development of non-fossil energy sources and some development of Carbon Capture and Storage. But this is not sufficient to meet the emission targets that are considered as desirable in IPCC AR2 in order to limit average temperature increase at level of 2 °C compared to the pre-industrial situation. Moreover, this scenario neither significantly alters the balance of demand or supply on the international energy markets, although it alleviates somewhat the potential tensions. The Global Regime scenario clearly allows a radical change of perspective, by simultaneously reducing GHG emissions and the intensity of tension on international hydrocarbon markets, through lower oil and gas production. This is a potential double dividend situation, probably the most important one to be derived from ambitious climate policies. Finally, the Europe Alone scenario does not meet the climate target as the impacts of ambitious policies in Europe are not sufficient to compensate for the massive global emission increases in the rest of the world. However, in this scenario setting, there is still an element that is strongly beneficial for Europe. While it is supposed in this scenario that other countries adopt a free-riding behavior in climate policies and do not engage in the necessary restructuring, tensions on the oil and gas market would remain high, with risks of repeated shocks in the near- and long-term future. But imposing strong emission reduction domestically results in a thorough restructuring of the European energy system. In that case, Europe would be protected from these external shocks by lower energy demand, higher contribution of domestic non-fossil fuels (renewable and nuclear), and a much lower level of fossil fuel imports. Would this reward of ambitious climate policies fully compensate for the extra costs of the energy system restructuring? This question remains open today. Table 4 intends to illustrate the fundamentals of the risks associated for a country (c) to a negative event (e) and develops the risks in the three archetypal scenarios examined in this study. It comes out of this study that an ambitious policy would bring to Europe a double dividend in its capacity to develop a new energy model − adjusted to sound climate policies − and in the resulting lower vulnerability to potential shocks on the international energy markets. Hence, it appears that it would probably be in the interest of Europe to implement the ambitious policy that is part of the Climate and Energy Package of 2008. Of course, this raises the issue of how to develop cooperative relations with oil- and gas-exporting countries, who on their part may wish to benefit from a certain degree of security of demand. Exchanges and discussions on long-term energy scenarios − however fragile and uncertain these scenarios remain − may help in an improved mutual understanding of the goals that are pursued by both categories of countries in the development of their energy policies. In that way, scenarios can be useful tools to develop a somewhat stabilized framework for the investment decisions that in any case will be necessary to ensure the long-term energy supply of the different world regions.