The Unassuming Economist

From VoxEU:

“The Industrial Revolution has been of vast benefit to humanity, but it came at the cost of a global explosion in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The UK was the first country into the Industrial Revolution. Now it is one of the first countries heading out, with annual CO2 emissions per capita back below the levels of the 1860s. This column presents an econometric model of UK emissions over the last 150 years to establish what has driven them down and reveal the impacts of important policies, especially the Climate Change Act of 2008. Even so, large reductions in all the UK’s CO₂ sources are still required to meet its 2050 target of an 80% reduction from 1970 levels.

The Industrial Revolution began in the UK in the mid-18th century for reasons well explained by Allen (2009). With antecedents in the scientific, technological, and medical knowledge revolutions from two centuries earlier across many countries, the UK was the first country to industrialise on a large scale. The consequences are startling: 250 years later, real income levels per capita are about seven-fold higher (https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth shows even greater changes in other countries), many killer diseases have been tamed, and longevity has approximately doubled. As Crafts (2002) showed, the average individual would be unwise to swap their life now for that of even one of the richest people several centuries ago; the Industrial Revolution and its successors have been of vast benefit to humanity.

An unintended consequence has been an explosion in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. These are by-products of energy production, manufacturing, and transport (all about a quarter of emissions), with agriculture, construction and waste removal creating most of the rest. Although the UK’s first electricity generating power station in 1868 was hydro driven, coal-fired steam-driven power stations were introduced by 1882 and have since produced most of its electricity. The paleo-record over the last 750,000 years of intermittent ice ages shows atmospheric CO₂ levels of between 180 parts per million (ppm) and 300ppm, but these levels now exceed 400ppm. The increases in atmospheric CO₂ recorded since 1958 at Mauna Loa (Sundquist and Keeling 2009) are clearly anthropogenic in origin (e.g. Hendry and Pretis 2013). The climate change induced by increased greenhouse gases has potentially dangerous implications, highlighted by Stern (2006) and recent IPCC reports, leading to the agreement in Paris at COP21 to seek to limit temperature increases to less than 2 Centigrade, and “to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C’’.  Much remains to reduce CO₂ emissions towards the net zero level that will be required to stabilize temperatures at any level. Meinshausen et al. (2009) analyse the difficulties of even achieving 2C, but renewable technologies offer hope of at least further large emission reductions.

However, there was a dramatic drop in the UK’s per capita emissions of CO₂ by 2017 to below the levels of the 1860s – the country first into the Industrial Revolution is one of the first out. On 22 April 2017, Britain went a full day without turning on its coal-fired power stations for the first time in more than 130 years, and on 26 May 2017 it generated almost 25% of its electrical energy from solar. The UK’s CO₂ emissions are now just half of their peak level in 1970. How was this reduction achieved?

UK CO₂ emissions

The data from 1860 on UK CO₂ emissions, fossil fuel volumes, and the ratio of CO₂ emissions to the capital stock are shown in Figure 1. While other greenhouse gas emissions matter, CO₂comprises about 80% of the UK total, with methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) making up most of the rest in CO₂ equivalents. However, various fossil fuels have different CO2 emissions per unit of energy produced and depend on how efficiently fuels are burnt, from an open fire through vehicles, to a gas-fired power station.”

 

Continue reading here.

From a VoxEU post by David Jacks, and Martin Stuermer:

“There is a lack of consensus on the importance of various drivers of long-run commodity prices. This column analyses a new dataset of prices and production for 15 commodities, including metals, agricultural goods, and soft commodities, between 1870 and 2015. Demand shocks due to rapid industrialisation and urbanisation have driven a substantial amount of variation in commodity price booms. While demand shocks have gained importance over time, commodity supply shocks have become less relevant. 

Understanding the drivers of commodity price booms and busts is of first-order importance for the global economy. A significant portion of real income and welfare in both commodity-consuming and commodity-producing nations hinges upon these prices (Bernanke 2006). They vitally affect the distribution of income within particular nations as the ownership of natural resources varies widely, potentially setting the stage for civil conflict (Dube and Vargas 2013). And the long-run drivers of commodity prices have serious implications for the formation and persistence of growth-detracting and growth-enhancing institutions (van der Ploeg 2011).

But for all this, outside spectators – whether they are academics, the general public, the investment community, or policymakers – remain divided in assigning the importance of various forces in the determination of commodity price booms and busts. Understanding which shocks drive these events and how long they persist is important for the conduct of macroeconomic policy, formulating environmental and resource policies, and, perhaps most importantly, investment decisions in the resource sectors of the global economy.

While the literature on modelling oil markets has examined a handful of booms and busts since the early 1970s (e.g. Kilian 2009, Kilian and Murphy 2014), our analysis of commodity markets is based on a new dataset of real prices and output for 15 grains, metals, and soft commodities from 1870 to 2015 (Jacks and Stuermer 2018). Unanticipated changes in world demand affect all commodity prices simultaneously. Throughout history, aggregate commodity demand shocks due to rapid industrialisation and urbanisation have driven commodity price booms. China’s recent effect on commodity markets is, thus, not a new phenomenon.

Commodities in the long run and identifying price shocks

A new dataset encompassing global output and real prices for 15 commodities – barley, coffee, copper, corn, cotton, cottonseed, lead, rice, rye, steel, sugar, tin, tobacco, wheat, and zinc – has been assembled covering the past 145 years (see Figure 1) and representing in excess of $2.5 trillion in annual gross value of production in 2015. The commodity markets selected exhibit characteristics that make such long-run analysis feasible: a high degree of product homogeneity, long-standing evidence of an integrated world market, and no indication of sudden changes in how the commodity is used. Thus, they have desirable characteristics that commodities such as crude oil or iron ore have only gained relatively recently.

 

Figure 1 Booms and busts are not new phenomena

Continue reading here.

From a new IMF working paper by Manoj Atolia, Prakash Loungani, Helmut Maurer, and Willi Semmler:

“The Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) has extensively treated the adverse effects of climate change and the appropriate mitigation policy. We extend such a model to include optimal policies for mitigation, adaptation and infrastructure investment studying the dynamics of the transition to a low fossil-fuel economy. We focus on the adverse effects of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration on households. Formally, the model gives rise to an optimal control problem of finite horizon consisting of a dynamic system with five-dimensional state vector consisting of stocks of private capital, green capital, public capital, stock of brown energy in the ground, and emissions. Given the numerous challenges to climate change policies the control vector is also five-dimensional. Our solutions are characterized by turnpike property and the optimal policy that accomplishes the objective of keeping the CO2 levels within bound is characterized by a significant proportion of investment in public capital going to mitigation in the initial periods. When initial levels of CO2 are high, adaptation efforts also start immediately, but during the initial period, they account for a smaller proportion of government’s public investment.”

From Bloomberg:

“America turned into a net oil exporter last week, breaking 75 years of continued dependence on foreign oil and marking a pivotal — even if likely brief — moment toward what U.S. President Donald Trump has branded as “energy independence.”

The shift to net exports is the dramatic result of an unprecedented boom in American oil production, with thousands of wells pumping from the Permian region of Texas and New Mexico to the Bakken in North Dakota to the Marcellus in Pennsylvania.

While the country has been heading in that direction for years, this week’s dramatic shift came as data showed a sharp drop in imports and a jump in exports to a record high. Given the volatility in weekly data, the U.S. will likely remain a small net importer most of the time.

“We are becoming the dominant energy power in the world,” said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research. “But, because the change is gradual over time, I don’t think it’s going to cause a huge revolution, but you do have to think that OPEC is going to have to take that into account when they think about cutting.”

The shale revolution has transformed oil wildcatters into billionaires and the U.S. into the world’s largest petroleum producer, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia. The power of OPEC has been diminished, undercutting one of the major geopolitical forces of the last half century. The cartel and its allies are meeting in Vienna this week, trying to make a tough choice to cut output and support prices, risking the loss of more market share to the U.S.”

 

Continue reading here.

From the Institute for New Economic Thinking:

“Obama is not the only optimist in town; others have highlighted similar trends:

• The International Energy Agency (IEA) argues that global carbon emissions have decoupled from economic growth from 2014-16 (IEA 2016); the IEA 66% below 2°Cpathways are based on steady-state rates of potential output growth from 2014-2050 of 2% for the U.S., 1% for the E.U. and .5% for Japan (OECD 2017, p. 171);
• The World Resources Institute reports that as many as 21 countries (mostly belonging to the OECD) managed to reduce their (territory-based) carbon emissions, while growing their GDP in the period 2000 to 2014 (Aden 2016);
• The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (2018) speaks about a “new era of economic growth” that is sustainable, zero-carbon and inclusive—and driven by rapid technological progress, sustainable infrastructure investment and drastically increased energy efficiency and radically reduced carbon intensity;
• International Monetary Fund economists Cohen, Tovar Jalles, Loungani and Marto (2018) find some evidence of decoupling for the period 1990-2014, particularly in European countries and especially when emissions measures are production-based; and finally
• The OECD argues, in its 2017 report “Investing in Climate, Investing in Growth,” that the G20 countries can achieve “strong” and “inclusive” economic growth at the same time they reorient their economies toward development pathways featuring substantially lower GHG emissions.

Continue reading here.