Review on Energy Resilience

lable at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452

Contents lists avai

Renewable Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

The case for islands’ energy vulnerability: Electricity supply diversity in 44 global islands

Alexis Ioannidis a, b, Konstantinos J. Chalvatzis a, b, *, Xin Li a, b, Gilles Notton a, b, c, Phedeas Stephanides a, b

a Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK b Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK c University of Corsica Pasquale Paoli, Research Centre Georges Peri, UMR CNRS 6134, Route des Sanguinaires, 20000, Ajaccio, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 4 October 2018 Received in revised form 3 March 2019 Accepted 29 April 2019 Available online 12 May 2019

Keywords: Energy security Global islands Diversity Security Carbon emissions Benchmarking

* Corresponding author. Norwich Business Schoo Norwich, UK.

E-mail address: [email protected] (K.J. Chalv

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.155 0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Energy supply security is a multifaceted challenge for all countries and especially for small island nations that might have limited adaptive capacity. Previous studies showed that islands experience energy scarcity and isolation from energy markets due to their remote location making energy supply security a challenging issue. We estimate energy supply diversity and concentration for 44 islands in order to provide an island specific benchmark approach for energy supply security. We use established metrics Shannon-Wiener index (SWI), Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) with Energy Information Adminis- tration (EIA) fuel mix data. To confront the issues of supply security and sustainability we test energy diversity against energy and emissions intensity. The global character of the research along with the wide range of islands covered allows useful comparisons between countries and for a means of benchmarking against the indices while creating certain defined country clusters. Overall it is found that average island energy intensity increased by 23.4% with a corresponding increase of 12.4% on their emissions intensity for the period 2000e2015. On the other hand, diversity has improved by 21.3% (SWI) and by 2% (HHI) since 2000. We argue that fossil-fuel lock-in for islands must break in order to UN Sustainable Devel- opment Goal 7 to be achieved particularly for vulnerable island nations.

© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Energy is a key aspect of a country's economy and access to affordable energy is a prerequisite for growth and competitiveness [1]. Access to energy can be challenging and is considered as one of the main pillars of wellbeing and sustainable development of modern societies [2]. Economic activity requires mainstream commodities produced, delivered and used with energy while linked to the environmental and social development of a country [3,4].

Concerns about energy supply security along with climate change are shaping the global energy systems in ways that were never considered possible. Increased population in emerging economies has resulted in a drastic growth of global energy de- mand leading to disruptions of energy supply in not self-sufficient

l, University of East Anglia,

atzis).

countries [5]. Risks associated with energy supply extend beyond resource availability to its transportation and transformation into secondary commodities and distribution through the appropriate infrastructure to the end-user [6]. The close link of energy supply and climate change challenges the existing governance and policy bodies due to the multidimensional nature of the aforementioned issues.

Climate change amplifies risks associated with disruption in supply and demand and combined with infrastructure vulnerability it can create long-term energy security stresses or short-term episodic shocks affecting various types of consumers, including increasingly demanding households [7e9] and industrial users [10]. Beyond the consequent macroeconomic policy effects of climate change, there is also a significant shift on companies' managerial and marketing orientation, mainly driven by consumers green awareness [11e13] and their interplay with energy utilities [14]. While at corporate level there is flexibility for energy hedging against risk the same cannot be applied in national energy port- folios and indeed those of smaller island nations [15,16]

Abbrevations

Abbrevations AW Aruba BS Bahamas BH Bahrain KY Cayman Island CK Cook Islands CY Cyprus DM Dominica DO Dominica Rep FK Falkland Islands FO Faroe Islands GP Guadeloupe HT Haiti IS Iceland IE Ireland JM Jamaica MG Madagascar MV Maldives MT Malta MQ Martinique MU Mauritius MS Montserrat NR Nauru

ISO ALPHA-2 CODE Island Name NC New Caledonia NU Niue PG Papua New Guinea RE Reunion SH Saint Helena KN Saint Kitts LC Saint Lucia PM Saint Pierre VC Saint Vincent WS Samoa ST Sao Tome SC Seychelles SB Solomon Island LK Sri Lanka SR Suriname TW Taiwan TO Tonga TT Trinidad and Tobago TC Turks and Caicos VU Vanuatu VG Virgin Islands British VI Virgin Islands US

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452 441

Prioritisation of energy security against climate change mitigation policies and vice versa can have a direct impact on a country's energy roadmap and hence on large scale investment decisions [17]. In this context, it is necessary to evaluate the resilience of existing energy systems as availability of energy resources and their accessibility, are considered essential parameters to the sustain- ability of a country's economy.

Although there is broad agreement of the themes covered by energy security, no widely adopted definition exists. While, resource availability has been the most crucial element of energy supply security in past decades [18] a pattern that has gradually given space to diversity [19,20] and more recently to sustainability parameters of security is identified. The concept itself is context dependent, multidimensional and has been integrated and devel- oped through the years. The four main pillars are identified along the 4 A's namely 1) availability 2) accessibility 3) affordability and 4) acceptability. The specific dimensions are then incorporated into other dimensions including and not limited to infrastructure, governance and efficiency.

Most of those dimensions are interrelated and some are cause or effects of the interplay between them [21]. For example, low availability may be the leading cause of lack of affordability as scarcity can lead to higher price; equally, when affordability is low, accessibility might also be restricted to privileged users as it hap- pens in developing countries with lack of universal access to en- ergy. Technological advances, awareness of climate change effects and a turn to green sustainable practices changed the nature of the term of energy security to a multidimensional, dynamically evolving issue since core solutions of the past (e.g. abundant access to oil) do not fit with today's low carbon energy planning for the future. The existing literature on resilience establishes a quantita- tive or theoretical framework [22]. Energy security studies differ either on the regions examined or the methodology used over certain periods of time. The majority of those country-level specific studies focus either on Asian or European countries where the energy security issue is more profound. Furthermore, they look on

certain primary energy fuels examining the supply side of energy security [23e27].

Grubb et al. (2006) [28]in order to represent an energy supply security metric, considered the diversity of fuel mix as used in the electricity sector and robustness, against interruption of other sources for the U.K electricity sector. Later, Chalvatzis and Rubel (2015) [24] accessed the Chinese electricity portfolio using a com- bination of Hirschman and Shannon concentration and diversity indices. Those studies along with the majority of other studies, do not consider any economic or political aspect that might have involved such as price volatility. Sovacool et al. (2011) [29], Kruyt et al. (2009) [30], proposed composite indicators concerning the availability, accessibility affordability and acceptability parameters of energy security applied on OECD Countries, using mainly in- dicators surrounding oil and fossil fuels.

While there is a body of literature examining energy security through various angles using different indices, there is also a lack of a clear benchmarking scale for different regions. That gap in benchmarking for resilience metrics has been first identified by Hickey et al. (2010) [31] who mention the lack of a particular range that would indicate satisfactory or insufficient fuel diversity. Chalvatzis and Ioannidis (2017) [32] initiate a benchmark metric for EU countries based on SWI and HHI energy supply diversity of primary fuels and import dependence. The authors conclude that while benchmarking for energy security metrics offers significant value in evaluative comparisons it does need to be used within a pre-specified context. That is to say, that since energy security is not in itself a commonly agreed dimension, it is proxied against lesser or more complex metrics. As such their explanatory references for benchmarking require a sensible common background. The classi- fication could be done based on resource endowment, joint up regulatory frameworks, geopolitical issues and other factors that could potentially shape the strategy followed by a group of compared countries. Therefore, a benchmarking heuristic for EU countries is useful for the EU context with its converging common energy and climate policy [33,34]despite the diverse endowment

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452442

background [35]. In this manuscript, we revisit energy security benchmarking, by looking into the geographic context, rather than policy convergence. We argue that island nations have received very little attention in the energy security literature despite their importance as case studies; hence the focus of this manuscript is on benchmarking energy security for global islands.

2. The case for global islands

Security, carbon neutrality and affordability are the parameters forming what is known as the energy trilemma; and nowhere is the energy trilemma more widely pronounced than in the confined space of remote and isolated islands [36,37]. Islands usually are locked into expensive fossil fuel imports, in isolated markets leading to low fuel mix diversity and high carbon and other emis- sions relatively to their economic growth [38] which make them perform worse than their inland counterparts [39]. In addition to that, their economy and lifelines are often dependent on tourism industry and connections with a mainland country. Geographical distance and geopolitical affairs with main distributing countries are crucial parameters for their accessibility to main energy sources.

Energy dependence is often extremely high because islands cannot take advantage of their renewable energy potential, espe- cially solar and wind, because of poor grid infrastructure [37,40]. However, islands lend themselves to excellent testing case studies for innovative energy solutions which could set the example for larger scale, on-grid applications [41]. Their remoteness, relative small size and flexible governance makes them potentially adapt- able to change and capable of significant shifts unlike large regions with monolithic energy governance [42].

Despite the existence of numerous studies concerning energy sustainability in national and regional levels the existing literature focusing on islands as case studies for energy security is very limited [43]. Zafirakis and Chalvatzis (2014) [40] examine the potential role of innovative energy storage technologies to facili- tate energy security improvements for Greek islands which are electrically isolated from the Greek mainland grid [44]. In another study, Chuang and Ma (2013) [45] quantify energy supply security using diversity indices to assess Taiwan's energy supply system. Gils and Simon (2017) [37] used a linear optimization approach to propose an ideal pathway for a 100% renewable energy system highlighting the required transition on storage systems and the required investment cost reduction needed for the scenario to be feasible. Within the islands energy supply security literature, we identify the following gaps which we address with this manuscript:

a No study focuses on a group of autonomous islands with different attributes in order to identify patterns concerning their economic and physical characteristics which lead to diversity metric benchmarking.

b No study focused on islands’ electricity sector supply security since the small number of studies carried out concern primary energy sources.

c Energy supply security and climate change parameters are not treated jointly as the latter is more often part of the adaptation literature.

For this research, we evaluate 44 global autonomous islands in different continents with a range of attributes. In this regard, we perform a security evaluation of their electricity sector fuel port- folio and contrast the results with their energy and carbon intensity as a measure of environmental sustainability for energy security.

3. Methodology

3.1. Approach and data

Most often policymakers and the research literature treat energy security and climate change as two distinct policy goals [46]. At the same time, complex optimisation modelling is frequently employed to support decision makers to adopt appropriate sustainable energy paradigms [47,48]. On one hand climate change policies aim to transform the global energy trade by transitioning from reliance on fossil fuels to low carbon en- ergy sources. Most studies find that climate stabilization policies will reduce energy imports by up to 75% by 2050 on average globally; however, this number varies on regional level, depending on whether the region is a net energy importer or exporter [49]. Nevertheless, renewable energy growth results in a larger share for indigenous energy and as a result imports reduction. Combining diversity and concentration indices to measure energy supply security along with emissions and en- ergy intensity, we identify sustainable roadmaps of development for international islands [50].

Conceptually, it can be argued that dependence has given way to diversity as the dominant security paradigm and that the latter is indeed more fitting for an increasingly interconnected world [51e53] [51,52,54]. Regarding sustainability two intensity metrics are considered to evaluate both efficiency using energy intensity, and carbon footprint using emissions intensity [55,56]. The two most widely used indices, Shannon-Wiener [57e59] and Herfindahl-Hirschmann [28,60]are evaluated alongside intensity metrics for the power sector of 44 global islands.

For this research, data was sourced from EIA [50] which provides the widest available coverage of global islands but limits fuel type disaggregation to seven. Specifically, coal, gas and oil are counted in a single fuel option and the other options are: nuclear; hydroelec- tric; geothermal; wind; solar; biomass and waste. Our choice of using the EIA database than, for example, the more detailed data provided by IEA [61] is compensated by the significantly higher number of islands (44 in EIA, versus 8 in IEA) and the more up to date data (2015 versus 2014) provided by EIA. Furthermore, since the scope of the research is to provide useful guidance on bench- marking, the actual disaggregation, for as long as it is consistent allows for useful comparisons which can be greatly benefitted by a large number of islands. Most importantly, bundling of fossil fuels in one fuel category is an issue of lesser importance for a study focused on islands, very few of which use coal, gas or any other fossil fuel than oil.

3.2. Intensity metrics

Emissions intensity is an indicator of a country's carbon foot- print and a body of literature has examined the factors affecting it such as total emissions, economic structure and efficiency [62,63]. Emissions intensity is defined as the ratio between the total emissions over GDP of a country. Therefore, it shows the emissions a country emits to produce a unit of wealth. In a similar way, we define energy intensity as the ratio of the total energy consumed divided by the GDP of a country. Therefore, energy intensity shows the amount of energy a country consumes to produce a unit of wealth. Hence:

Emissions Intensity ¼ Total Emissions GDP

for which.

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452 443

Energy Intensity ¼ Energy Consumed GDP

for which.

3.3. Diversity indices

3.3.1. ShannoneWiener Index It is considered one of the 17 equations that changed the world,

developed by the engineer Claude Shannon at the era of post-World War 2 [64]. Its uses vary from statistical mechanics, information in cybernetics, entropy in thermodynamics, economics [65], ecology and genetics. Within energy studies it was introduced by Stirling (1994) [58] to evaluate the diversity of the UK electricity supply sector as a proxy of its energy supply security.

For n number of energy sources (options) available in the power sector fuel mix the ShannoneWiener Index (SWI) is:

swi ¼ � Xn

i¼1 Si � lnðSiÞ

where:

n is the number of options. Si is the proportional reliance on the ith option. ln is the natural logarithm used.

For the calculation of the SWI, each primary energy source available in the fuel mix represents one option. Each option is added as the percentile of the calculated number. For example, if an option accounts for 10% of the total energy mix then it will be treated as 0.10 in the index. The minimum value that the index can take is zero when the system relies on one option. Since the number of options n � 1, SWI cannot be negative. A system with two equally weighted options will have a diversity of 0.69 (2dp) and so on. A system can potentially take infinite options which give us an infinite SWI since lnð∞Þ ¼ ∞. Although the index increases with the number of options the increase rate declines gradually. Grubb et al. (2006) [28] in an attempt to provide a generic benchmarking for Shannon-Wiener index, indicated that a SWI value below 1 shows a less diverse system relying on 2 or 3 options, where energy supply is more vulnerable to possible destructions and a value above 2 indicates a system with multiple options, more secure to interruptions of particular supply components. The diversity can be used on the assumption that each different option is independent from each other and there is no interrelation between them.

3.3.2. HerfindahleHirschman index HHI index has a crucial role in competition economics where it

is used by the US Federal Trade Commission in the assessment of likely competitive effects of horizontal mergers [66]. Moreover, it has statutory role for the approval of bank mergers as the post market HHI index should not exceed 18% and the index increase, or decrease should not cause a change greater than 2% [62]. The index measures concentration of the individual market share of the par- ticipants. The higher the HHI, the higher the concertation so the less diverse is the system examined. Again, its origin is located in ecology where is known as “Simpson Index” [24].

For n number of energy sources (options) available in the energy fuel mix portfolio the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is:

HHI ¼ � Xn

i¼1 S2i

where: n is the number of options. Si is the proportion of option i expressed as a percentage. The sum of the squares of the share of each fuel entering the

power sector equals the HHI index of that particular electricity fuel mix portfolio. For example, an option contributing n% of the total fuel mix will be treated as n and in the index calculation it will become n2. The minimum value HHI can take is approaching 0 when the system relies on infinite options. In economic terms that will mean perfect competition. A system with two equal op- tions will have an index of 2500 and so on. The index takes its maximum value when there is only one option available and this is 10,000. This connotes that the index ranges between 0 � HHI�10,000. A suggestion from the US Department of Justice sets the benchmark of 1500 for a competitive marketplace and 2500 for a highly concentrated one [64]. Additionally, it illustrates that transactions that may disrupt HHI by more than 200 points in highly concentrated markets are more likely to increase market power. Similarly, with the SWI index, the assumption that each different option is independent from each other is necessary.

3.4. Parallel indices and sustainability through different angles

Although both diversity and concentration indices are widely used for estimating energy supply diversity most of the literature rules out one to be the “best” index to use to examine the energy supply security of a country. Stirling (1998) [65] favoured the SWI since he pointed out the disruption of the variety and balance with HHI. Cohen et al. (2011) [67] discussed the greater sensitivity of SWI on the contribution of each of the options in the total energy mix instead of focusing on the total number of options. Le Coq and Paltseva (2009) favoured HHI for EU energy security on the basis that EU countries have less diverse energy portfolios and HHI is better suited to capture those risks [68]. Other researchers preferred to use both indices complimentary as they tend to behave differently with certain triggers [28,32].

When plotted against the % change for every higher integer number of equally contributing options SWI and HHI provide an approximate “mirroring” image (Fig. 1). This reflects their inverse nature focusing on diversity and concentration respectively and also that they do not behave in exactly the same way. We can see that the absolute value of the differences is bigger for HHI with the exception of the first two cases which refer to low diversity mixes. Keeping the contribution of the options equal, we can conclude that HHI is more sensitive on the number of options. There is high correlation between the rate of change for the two indices as the number of options increases.

4. Results

In visualizing diversity, the 44 islands are grouped in those with higher diversity (Fig. 2), moderate diversity (Fig. 4), and lower di- versity (Fig. 6) as measured by SWI. Using the same structure, we illustrate HHI Figs. 3, 5 and 7 indicating any group changes to identify sensitivity of the indices.

Both indices show Faroe Islands and Sri-Lanka as the islands with higher diversity and lower concentration in their electricity sector. Faroe Islands experience a subsequent improvement of its diversity of 54.1% compared with 2000 by adding wind energy as an option to its electricity fuel mix. Particularly, in 2015 wind energy holds 18.2% of the total electricity fuel mix reducing fossil fuels’

Fig. 1. SWI and HHI % differences as number of equally contributing options grows.

Fig. 2. Power sector diversity measured with SWI for islands of the higher diversity group between 2000 and 2015. Data Source: EIA.

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452444

share by 24.4% compared with 2000. The aim of the island to cover 100% of its electricity needs by renewables seems to be feasible especially with the introduction of tidal power in its energy mix [69].

Sri-Lanka is one of the fastest growing economies especially after the end of the civil war in 2009 [70]. The increase of 45.24% at the country's purchasing power parity was linked to an energy demand increase by 3.1 TWh. The demand was met by fossil fuels in the fuel mix and particularly the opening of Lakvijaya Coal Plant in 2011 which resulted in diversity improvement and carbon emis- sions deterioration. Although it is one of the most diverse islands, high reliance on hydro and fossil fuels often disrupts the supply security of the country as both sources are associated with a wide range of weather and geopolitical vulnerabilities [1]. Potential in- crease of wind and solar energy could provide the power sector

with higher diversity and lower reliance on incumbent resources. Iceland and Ireland are the two main European countries

included in this group of islands. Iceland is a distinct case as its electricity supply in 2015 was renewable by 99.8%. In particular geothermal and hydropower comprise 100% of the renewable en- ergy produced in Iceland. Reliance on seasonally variable hydro- electric power is gradually being replaced by geothermal energy improving both diversity and concentration indices by129.85% and 31% respectively. In a previous study, examining the primary supply diversity of Iceland [71], it was found that the 250% increase on Iceland energy demand since 1990 was met by renewable energy. Additionally, imported fossil fuels are mainly used in transport and fishing industries where ambitious plans are in place to transform the transportation sector with wider use of electric vehicles [72] transforming Iceland to an almost zero emissions economy.

Fig. 3. Power sector concentration measured with HHI for islands of the lower concentration group between 2000 and 2015. Data Source: EIA.

Fig. 4. Power sector diversity measured with SWI for islands of the moderate diversity group between 2000 and 2015. Data Source: EIA.

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452 445

It is worth mentioning that the 3 most populous islands [73] are found to belong in the higher diversity group (Madagascar, Taiwan, Sri-Lanka with populations of 25, 054, 161; 23, 508, 428; 22, 409, 381 as estimated on 2017). Population impacts the power sector structure as it drives energy demand which subsequently opens more options for power supply including renewable energy.

In the moderate group, we can find mainly middle size islands including the European Union islands of Cyprus and Malta. Those islands along with Vanuatu and Aruba used to have 0 diversity until 2010 and 2008 respectively, relying exclusive on oil for power generation. In Vanuatu, and at larger scale in Aruba introduction of wind energy has boosted diversity. Malta and Cyprus are the EU's countries with the least diverse power sector as they rely exces- sively on imported oil. Recent solar energy growth in Malta

improved the electricity diversity which still relies only on 2 op- tions while Cyprus introduced 3 more options; wind, solar and biofuels, in its electricity fuel mix portfolio. Furthermore, some islands change groups depending on the index they are examined with (Table 1).

Cyprus and Malta managed to gradually improve their power sector diversity but several of the examined islands have zero di- versity or 100% concentration. Specifically, Barbados, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Nauru, Niue, Saint Helena Saint Lucia, Solomon Island, Tonga, Turks and Caicos and US Virgin Islands have zero power sector diversity as they rely only on oil. Moreover, the two fossil-fuel producing islands of Bahrain and Trinidad belong in the same group. Trinidad has zero diversity since 2009, when biomass ceased to exist as an electricity fuel mix option and Bahrain's use of

Fig. 5. Power sector concentration measured with HHI for islands of the moderate concentration group between 2000 and 2015. Data Source: EIA.

Fig. 6. Power sector diversity measured with SWI for islands of the lower diversity group between 2000-2015. Data Source: EIA.

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452446

wind power is as negligible as 0.0037%. As power production in Bahrain grows without any wind energy investment, the share of wind in power production has been in decline since 2008. The low diversity group contains the majority of the smallest islands glob- ally including Nauru the smallest, by surface, inhabited island in the world at 8 square miles and population of 9642 [74]. Any diversity appeared in their electricity generation is sourced mainly by wind or solar energy depending on the islands' natural endowment.

5. Discussion of the results

Complete reliance on any single energy source exposes energy supply to unsustainable risk [75] and our analysis indicates that several small islands are locked-in to unstainable power supply

systems. Overall, however, there is a gradual but significant in- crease of 35.2% of total island diversity since 1990 (Fig. 8). This improvement accelerates after 2002 alongside a concurrent in- crease in oil price between 2002 and 2014. Despite not dis- tinguishing among fossil fuels throughout our analysis, due to data limitations, it is worth mentioning that almost all fossil fuel energy used on islands is imported oil. Only few islands produce fossil fuels; therefore, oil price hikes hurt most islands’ economies severely.

Given that fossil fuels are examined as one option and that nuclear energy is not widespread in the island nations of this study, only renewables offer a realistic alternative that can alter diversity. Renewable energy often contributes more than one new option in islands’ fuel mix and its growth rate can be initially rapid. At the

Fig. 7. Power sector concentration measured with HHI for islands of the higher concentration group between 2000-2015. Data Source: EIA.

Table 1 Showing shifts between diversity and concentration groups for 2015. Source: EIA.

Country SWI Group HHI Group

Taiwan High Moderate Papua New Guinea Moderate Low

Fig. 8. Power sector average diversity and concentration measured with SWI and HHI between 2000 and 2015. Data Source: EIA.

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452 447

same time the indices used for measuring energy supply diversity and concentration are sensitive to the balance among the fuel op- tions and to their total number; therefore, they tend to show a disproportionately large diversity increase even when an option with relatively negligible contribution is introduced to the fuel mix. Most of the islands examined in this manuscript have a relatively low number of options in their fuel mix.

Islands are usually small countries and their contribution to total global greenhouse emissions is negligible [76] ], however, their energy and emissions intensity reveals how they are locked into fossil fuels. The synergy between climate change mitigation and energy supply security policies for a sustainable global energy

system is imperative. In order to develop pathways to a sustainable, decarbonized energy future the potential trade-offs between those two issues require greater attention [77]. The energy strategy adopted by different countries is based on their own capabilities and priorities. For this study we examine emissions and energy intensities (Fig. 9) and we project them along energy supply se- curity for the latest year available (2015) to identify sustainable

Fig. 9. Average emissions and energy intensities between 2000e2015 measured in MM tones CO2/Billion $2010 GDP PPP and 1000 Btu/$2010 GDP PPP. Data Source: EIA.

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452448

paradigms for energy security risk policies. The trajectory between the two-intensity metrics is increasing in contrast to global energy and emissions intensity. Islands average energy intensity increased by 23.4% with a corresponding increase of 12.4% on their emissions intensity.

While the average islands’ energy and emissions intensity has been growing (Fig. 9), every individual island presents a different case. Fourteen islands have decreased their energy and emissions intensity during 2000e2015, indicating a trajectory of decarbon- isation and improved energy efficiency (Fig. 10). For almost all the islands of this study energy and emissions intensity have been moving in the same direction, apart from Iceland, Saint Vincent and Samoa. Both Iceland and St Vincent experienced a significant in- crease of their energy intensity which was met with a rapid renewable energy increase leading to lower emissions intensity. In

-60.0

-10.0

40.0

90.0

140.0

190.0

KN VG M

T V

I V

U KY HT A

W TO DM TT IS PG MV M

Q SC MG

Energy Intensity

Fig. 10. Energy and Emissions Intensities % difference between 2000 a

general, islands that reduced their energy intensity appear to reduce their emissions as a consequence of renewable energy sources introduction.

In further consideration for the increasing contribution of renewable energy generally and in islands specifically, we examine the dual role of renewable energy in island energy systems. The duality consists of increasing diversity and reducing emissions and even energy intensity. Using 2015 (most recent data available) as a snapshot, we plot diversity (as measured by SWI for all options) against energy intensity (Fig. 11) and emissions intensity (Fig. 12) for all islands. The plots indicate that higher diversity is linked with lower energy and emissions intensity. Increased renewable energy directly contributes to fuel mix diversity in the studied islands and on average reduces emissions intensity since there is a substitution of fossil fuels with zero-emissions energy.

V C

LC GP B

S B

H ST MU SR WS CY JM TW LK RE D

O SB IE

Emissions Intensity

nd 2015. For British Virgin Islands 2004e2015. Data Source: EIA.

Fig. 11. SWI index (horizontal axis) against Energy Intensity (vertical axis) for 2015. Data Source: EIA.

Fig. 12. SWI index (horizontal axis) against Emissions Intensity (vertical axis) for 2015. Data Source: EIA.

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452 449

At the same time, increased diversity is linked to reduced energy intensity, which is less straight-forward. Considering that the main driver for increased diversity is increased use of renewable energy, it can be assumed that there is a link between increased use of renewable energy and lower energy intensity which is not an intuitive outcome; arguably there is no direct causality between increased renewable energy and reduced energy intensity. How- ever, hypothesizing on this issue there are two other potentially explanatory factors; energy scarcity and the subsequently required energy awareness [78,79]. It can be argued that islands which

invest in renewable energy are those which do not have abundant access to fossil fuels, either by being fossil fuel producers or within a major fossil fuel supply chain or transport route. As a result, they are faster to introduce renewables as a competitive energy source to support them in reducing their reliance on imported expensive fossil fuels. Furthermore, islands that experience energy scarcity might be forced to adopt deeper energy efficiency.

With most islands appearing to follow the higher diversity e lower energy trajectory, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahrain and Iceland are the clear outliers. Trinidad & Tobago and Bahrain are the islands

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452450

with the highest energy and emissions intensity and zero diversity as they rely almost exclusively on natural gas and oil. Bahrain is a large oil producer in the Middle East and Trinidad & Tobago is the largest natural gas producer of the Caribbean. Bahrain subsidized oil prices encouraged over-consumption where Trinidad & Tobago's downstream petrochemical sector keeps both its emission and energy intensity at high levels. Iceland, is also an outlier but for diametrically different reasons, as it achieves almost zero emissions intensity with negligible use of fossil fuels. Its low emissions in- tensity is combined with high diversity making a paradigm for sustainable energy supply. The energy supply security and low emissions patterns of Iceland are more significant if we consider that hydro power and geothermal energy present lower variability and stochasticity in comparison to other renewables, such as wind or solar energy.

6. Conclusion

Fuel mix diversity is a prerequisite for a sustainable energy future and can be considered as a strategic response to energy scarcity and uncertainty that challenges most countries. Although most island nations are the countries least responsible for climate change, paradoxically, they are the first to experience its conse- quences [80]. Their narrow resource import and export base, vul- nerabilities to external economic shocks, and exposure to intense and frequent natural disasters facilitate the need for urgent trans- formations on the existing energy policy systems. Their remote- ness, relative small size and flexible governance makes them potentially adaptable to change and capable of significant shifts unlike large regions with monolithic energy governance [42]. Indeed, islands lend themselves to excellent testing case studies for innovative energy solutions which could set the example for larger scale, on-grid applications. Acknowledging their role Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are mentioned in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the recent UN framework to promote the sustainability agenda. SIDS are explicitly referred to in Goal 7 for Affordable and Clean Energy, and specifically in sub-Goal 7.B which requires sustainable energy services supported by infrastructure expansion and technology upgrade, for access to affordable, reli- able, sustainable and modern energy for all by 2030. Moreover, Goal 13 refers to promotion of mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change related planning [81,82] of which, sus- tainable energy is a key enabler.

With this manuscript we provide for the first time a compre- hensive evaluation of energy supply for 44 global islands and we set the agenda for the interlinkage between energy supply diversity and intensity of energy use and emissions. This is as much an en- ergy issue as it is a development issue as energy is an undoubted contributor to economic development [83]. Within the UN Sus- tainable Development Goals and the UNFCCC Paris Agreement there is special care for SIDS as the first victims of climate change [84]. Our research confirms and further analyses the energy supply vulnerability assigned on SIDS and makes further links with their energy and emissions intensity as drivers for their environmental and economic sustainability agenda.

As with every piece of research, ours is not free of weaknesses. Firstly, the granularity of our data does not allow for a detailed break-down of fossil fuels, a trade-off we had to take in order to use the wide-coverage of the US Department for Energy database. Moreover, we argue that this choice has only limited impact on the overall results as most islands only use imported oil. Secondly, the technical focus of this manuscript did not allow for a thorough analysis in the context of the global sustainability agenda, of which the islands of the study are prime test case studies.

Further research should strengthen the connection of energy

supply security and the global sustainability agenda, particularly with focus on the increased attention on UN Sustainable Devel- opment Goals, the forthcoming reviews of the Nationally Deter- mined Contributions [85] under the Paris Agreement [86] and the forthcoming UN IPCC sixth assessment report in 2021 [87].

Acknowledgements

The specific study has been funded under the project TILOS (Horizon 2020 Low Carbon Energy Local/small-scale storage LCE- 08- 2014). This project has received funding from the European Union & Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No 646529.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.155.

References

[1] D. Pappas, K.J. Chalvatzis, Energy and industrial growth in India : the next emissions Superpower ? Energy Procedia 00 (2016) 3656e3662, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.842.

[2] J.K. Kaldellis, K. Chalvatzis, Environment and industrial development: sus- tainability and development, Air Pollution, Stamoulis Publications, Athens, 2005.

[3] J. Martchamadol, S. Kumar, Thailand ’ s energy security indicators, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (2012) 6103e6122, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2012.06.021.

[4] H. Malekpoor, K. Chalvatzis, N. Mishra, A. Ramudhin, A hybrid approach of vikor and bi-objective integer linear programming for electrification planning in a disaster relief camp, Ann. Oper. Res. 1e27 (2018).

[5] K. Matsumoto, M. Doumpos, K. Andriosopoulos, Historical energy security performance in EU countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 1737e1748, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.058.

[6] E. Bompard, A. Carpignano, M. Erriquez, D. Grosso, M. Pession, F. Profumo, National energy security assessment in a geopolitical perspective, Energy 130 (2017) 144e154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.04.108.

[7] European Commission, Member States' Energy Dependence: an Indicator- Based Assessment, 2013. Brussels.

[8] M. Pothitou, R.F. Hanna, K.J. Chalvatzis, Pothitou Mary, C.K. Hanna Richard, Environmental knowledge, pro-environmental behaviour and energy savings in households: an empirical study, Appl. Energy (2016), https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.017.

[9] M. Pothitou, R.F. Hanna, K.J. Chalvatzis, ICT entertainment appliances' impact on domestic electricity consumption, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69 (2017) 843e853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.100.

[10] D. Zafirakis, C. Elmasides, D. Uwe, M. Leuthold, The multiple role of energy storage in the industrial sector : evidence from a Greek industrial facility, Energy Procedia 46 (2014) 178e185, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.egypro.2014.01.171.

[11] L.C. Leonidou, C.N. Leonidou, D. Palihawadana, M. Hultman, Evaluating the green advertising practices of international firms: a trend analysis, Int. Mark. Rev. 28 (2011) 6e33, https://doi.org/10.1108/02651331111107080.

[12] L.C. Leonidou, C.N. Leonidou, T.A. Fotiadis, A. Zeriti, Resources and capabilities as drivers of hotel environmental marketing strategy: implications for competitive advantage and performance, Tourism Manag. 35 (2013) 94e110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.06.003.

[13] L.C. Leonidou, C.N. Leonidou, T.A. Fotiadis, B. Aykol, Dynamic capabilities driving an eco-based advantage and performance in global hotel chains: the moderating effect of international strategy, Tourism Manag. 50 (2015) 268e280.

[14] R. Rutter, K.J. Chalvatzis, S. Roper, F. Lettice, Branding instead of Product innovation: a study on the brand personalities of the UK's electricity market, Eur. Manag. Rev. (2017), https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12155.

[15] E. Symitsi, K.J. Chalvatzis, Return, volatility and shock spillovers of Bitcoin with energy and technology companies, Econ. Lett. 170 (2018) 127e130.

[16] E. Symitsi, K.J. Chalvatzis, The economic value of Bitcoin: a portfolio analysis of currencies, gold, oil and stocks, Res. Int. Bus. Finance 48 (2019) 97e110.

[17] M. Bazilian, B.F. Hobbs, W. Blyth, I. MacGill, M. Howells, Interactions between energy security and climate change: a focus on developing countries, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 3750e3756, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.003.

[18] K.J. Chalvatzis, E. Hooper, “Electricity Security vs Climate Change: Experiences from German and Greek Electricity Markets” OGEL 3, Gas Energy Law J, 2008.

[19] K.J. Chalvatzis, A. Ioannidis, Energy supply security in southern Europe and Ireland, Energy Procedia 105 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.egypro.2017.03.660.

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452 451

[20] D. García-Gusano, D. Iribarren, D. Garraín, Prospective analysis of energy se- curity: a practical life-cycle approach focused on renewable power generation and oriented towards policy-makers, Appl. Energy 190 (2017) 891e901, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.011.

[21] B.W. Ang, W.L. Choong, T.S. Ng, Energy security: definitions, dimensions and indexes, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 1077e1093, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.064.

[22] E. Jun, W. Kim, S. Heung, The analysis of security cost for different energy sources, Appl. Energy 86 (2009) 1894e1901, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apenergy.2008.11.028.

[23] L. Zhang, J. Yu, B.K. Sovacool, J. Ren, Measuring energy security performance within China: toward an inter-provincial prospective, Energy 125 (2017) 825e836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.12.030.

[24] K.J. Chalvatzis, K. Rubel, Technological Forecasting & Social Change Electricity portfolio innovation for energy security : the case of carbon constrained China, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 100 (2015) 267e276, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.012.

[25] A. Correlj�e, C. van der Linde, Energy supply security and geopolitics: a Euro- pean perspective, Energy Policy 34 (2006) 532e543, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.enpol.2005.11.008.

[26] M.C. Chuang, H.W. Ma, Energy security and improvements in the function of diversity indices-Taiwan energy supply structure case study, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.021.

[27] V. Costantini, F. Gracceva, A. Markandya, G. Vicini, Security of energy supply: comparing scenarios from a European perspective, Energy Policy 35 (2007) 210e226, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.11.002.

[28] M. Grubb, L. Butler, P. Twomey, Diversity and security in UK electricity gen- eration : the influence of low-carbon objectives, Energy Policy 34 (2006) 4050e4062, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.09.004.

[29] B.K. Sovacool, S. Victor, M. Jain, S. Nurbek, M.A. Brown, Fa T. De, et al., Exploring propositions about perceptions of energy security , An Int. Surv. 6 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.10.009.

[30] B. Kruyt, D.P. Van Vuuren, H.J.M. De Vries, H. Groenenberg, Indicat. Energy Secur. 37 (2009) 2166e2181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.006.

[31] E.A. Hickey, J.L. Carlson, D. Loomis, Issues in the determination of the optimal portfolio of electricity supply options, Energy Policy 38 (2010) 2198e2207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.006.

[32] K.J.K.J. Chalvatzis, A. Ioannidis, Energy supply security in the EU: bench- marking diversity and dependence of primary energy, Appl. Energy 207 (2017) 465e476, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.07.010.

[33] European Comission, Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning Measures to Safeguard the Security of Gas Supply and Repealing Regulation, 2016. Brussels.

[34] European Parliament, Directive 2009/28/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23 april 2009, Off J Eur Union, 2009, p. 31.

[35] J.R.C. Mitigating, Climate Change : Renewables in the EU, vol. 2, European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2760/6520.

[36] M. Radovanovi�c, S. Filipovi�c, D. Pavlovi�c, Energy security measurement - a sustainable approach, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. (2016), https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2016.02.010.

[37] H.C. Gils, S. Simon, Carbon neutral archipelago e 100% renewable energy supply for the Canary Islands, Appl. Energy 188 (2017) 342e355, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.023.

[38] G.C. Spyropoulos, K.J. Chalvatzis, A.G. Paliatsos, J.K. Kaldellis, Sulphur dioxide emissions due to electricity generation in the aegean Islands : real threat OR overestimated danger? 1e3 (2005).

[39] J.K. Kaldellis, G. Spyropoulos, K. Chalvatzis, A. Paliatsos, Minimum SO2 elec- tricity sector production using the most environmental friendly power sta- tions in Greece, Fresenius Environ. Bull. 15 (2006) 1394e1399.

[40] D. Zafirakis, K.J. Chalvatzis, Wind energy and natural gas-based energy storage to promote energy security and lower emissions in island regions, Fuel 115 (2014) 203e219, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.06.032.

[41] X. Li, K. Chalvatzis, P. Stephanides, Innovative energy islands: life-cycle cost- benefit analysis for battery energy storage, Sustainability 10 (2018) 3371.

[42] K.J. Chalvatzis, Electricity generation development of Eastern Europe: a carbon technology management case study for Poland, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 1606e1612, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.019.

[43] G. Notton, J.L. Duchaud, M.L. Nivet, C. Voyant, K. Chalvatzis, A. Fouilloy, The electrical energy situation of French islands and focus on the Corsican situa- tion, Renew. Energy 135 (2019) 1157e1165.

[44] J.K. Kaldellis, G. Spyropoulos, K. Chalvatzis, The impact of Greek electricity generation sector on the national air pollution problem, Fresenius Environ. Bull. 13 (2004) 647e656.

[45] M.C. Chuang, H. Wen, An assessment of Taiwan ’ s energy policy using multi- dimensional energy security indicators, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 17 (2013) 301e311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.09.034.

[46] V. Chaturvedi, Energy security and climate change: friends with asymmetric benefits, Nat Energy 1 (2016) 16075, https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016. 75.

[47] H. Malekpoor, K. Chalvatzis, N. Mishra, et al., Integrated grey relational analysis and multi objective grey linear programming for sustainable elec- tricity generation planning, Ann. Oper. Res. 269 (475) (2018), https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10479-017-2566-4.

[48] K.J. Chalvatzis, H. Malekpoor, N. Mishra, F. Lettice, S. Choudhary, Sustainable resource allocation for power generation: the role of big data in enabling

interindustry architectural innovation, Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2018. [49] J. Jewell, V. Vinichenko, D. McCollum, N. Bauer, K. Riahi, T. Aboumahboub, et

al., Comparison and interactions between the long-term pursuit of energy independence and climate policies, Nat Energy 1 (2016) 16073, https:// doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.73.

[50] E.I.A. International, Energy Statistics, n.d, https://www.eia.gov/beta/ international/data/browser/#/?pa¼0000002000002000020007vo70000fvu2 &c¼g00009002oc1000r040044i0o30621oh84000a0g1ha2gec15mg8&ct¼ 0&tl_id¼2. (Accessed 14 January 2018).

[51] W.J. Nuttall, D.L. Manz, A new energy security paradigm for the twenty-first century, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (2008) 1247e1259, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.02.007.

[52] N. Lefevre-Marton, W. Blyth, Energy security and climate change policy interactions-an assessment framework, Oil, Gas Energy Law J. 3 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2009.00625_2.x.

[53] B.K. Sovacool, I. Mukherjee, Conceptualizing and measuring energy security : a synthesized approach, Energy 36 (2011) 5343e5355, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.energy.2011.06.043.

[54] B.K. Sovacool, I. Mukherjee, I.M. Drupady, A.L. D'Agostino, Evaluating energy security performance from 1990 to 2010 for eighteen countries, Energy 36 (2011) 5846e5853, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.08.040.

[55] D. Pappas, K.J. Chalvatzis, D. Guan, A. Ioannidis, Energy and carbon intensity: a study on the cross-country industrial shift from China to India and SE Asia, Appl. Energy 225 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.132.

[56] X. Li, K.J. Chalvatzis, D. Pappas, China's electricity emission intensity in 2020ean analysis at provincial level, Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 2779e2785.

[57] A. Stirling, Diversity and ignorance in electricity supply investment Addressing the solution rather than the problem, Energy Policy (1994) 195e216.

[58] A. Stirling, Diversity in electricity supply: a response to the reply of Lucas et al, Energy Policy 22 (1994) 987e990, https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(94) 90011-6.

[59] A. Stirling, The Dynamics of Security Stability , Durability , Resilience , Robustness, 2009.

[60] X. Li, K.J. Chalvatzis, D. Pappas, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from power generation in China's provinces in 2020, Appl. Energy 223 (2018) 93e102.

[61] International Energy Agency, World Energy Balances Documentation for beyond 2020 Files, 2014.

[62] J. Wang, S. He, Y. Qiu, N. Liu, Y. Li, Z. Dong, Investigating driving forces of aggregate carbon intensity of electricity generation in China, Energy Policy 113 (2018) 249e257, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.009.

[63] D. Pappas, K.J. Chalvatzis, D. Guan, X. Li, Industrial relocation and CO2 emis- sion intensity: focus on the potential cross-country shift from China to India and SE Asia, Energy Procedia 142 (2017) 2898e2904.

[64] I. Stewart, J. Davey, Seventeen Equations that Changed the World. Profile, 2012.

[65] A. Stirling, On the Economics and Analysis of Diversity. Sci Policy Res Unit (SPRU), Electron …, 1998, p. 141.

[66] Horizontal Merger Guidelines (08/19/2010, ATR j Department of Justice 2010, https://www.justice.gov/atr/horizontal-merger-guidelines-08192010#5c.

[67] G. Cohen, F. Joutz, P. Loungani, Measuring energy security : trends in the diversification of oil and natural gas supplies $, Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4860e4869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.034.

[68] C. Le Coq, E. Paltseva, Measuring the Security of External Energy Supply in the European Union, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.069.

[69] INFAROE, 100 Percent Renewable Energy in Faroe Islands, n.d, http://www. infaroe.com/faroe-islands-go-for-100-percent-renewable-energy/. (Accessed 17 January 2018).

[70] World Bank, Sri Lanka Overview, 2017. http://www.worldbank.org/en/ country/srilanka/overview. (Accessed 17 January 2018).

[71] A. Ioannidis, K.K.J. Chalvatzis, Energy supply sustainability for island nations: a study on 8 global islands, Energy Procedia 0 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.egypro.2017.12.440.

[72] R.E.U.K. Renewable, Energy in Iceland j REUK.co.uk, n.d, http://www.reuk.co. uk/wordpress/geothermal/renewable-energy-in-iceland/. (Accessed 30 April 2017).

[73] Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook n.D.. https://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/profileguide.html. (Accessed 22 January 2018).

[74] World Bank, CountryProfilejWorld Development Indicators, n.d, http:// databank.worldbank.org/data/Views/Reports/ReportWidgetCustom.aspx? Report_Name¼CountryProfile&Id¼b450fd57&tbar¼y&dd¼y&inf¼n&zm¼ n&country¼NRU. (Accessed 18 January 2018).

[75] J.D.K. Bishop, G.A.J. Amaratunga, C. Rodriguez, Using strong sustainability to optimize electricity generation fuel mixes, IEEE Int. Conf. Sustain. Energy Technol. ICSET 36 (2008) 502e507, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSET. 2008.4747060, 2008 2008.

[76] J. Hills, E. Michalena, K. Chalvatzis, Innovative technology in the pacific: building resilience for vulnerable communities, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 129 (2018) 16e26.

[77] H. Turton, L. Barreto, Long-term security of energy supply and climate change, Energy Policy 34 (2006) 2232e2250, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. 2005.03.016.

[78] S. Rafiq, R. Salim, I. Nielsen, Urbanization, openness, emissions, and energy

A. Ioannidis et al. / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 440e452452

intensity: a study of increasingly urbanized emerging economies, Energy Econ. 56 (2016) 20e28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.02.007.

[79] H. Schandl, S. Hatfield-Dodds, T. Wiedmann, A. Geschke, Y. Cai, J. West, et al., Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth: scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions, J. Clean. Prod. 132 (2016) 45e56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.100.

[80] Sustainable Development Organization, Small island developing states…Sus- tainable Development Knowledge Platform n.D.. https://sustainable development.un.org/topics/sids. (Accessed 15 January 2018).

[81] United Nations, Climate Change - United Nations Sustainable Development, n.d. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change-2/. (Accessed 22 January 2018).

[82] United Nations, Energy - United Nations Sustainable Development, n.d. http:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/energy/. (Accessed 22 January 2018).

[83] H. Hu, N. Xie, D. Fang, X. Zhang, The role of renewable energy consumption and commercial services trade in carbon dioxide reduction: evidence from 25 developing countries, Appl. Energy 211 (2018) 1229e1244, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.019.

[84] D. Hoad, The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement: Outcomes and Their Impacts on Small Island States, vol. 11, 2016.

[85] A. Thomas, L. Benjamin, Management of loss and damage in small island developing states: implications for a 1.5 �C or warmer world, Reg. Environ. Change (2017), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1184-7.

[86] C.-F. Schleussner, J. Rogelj, M. Schaeffer, T. Lissner, R. Licker, E.M. Fischer, et al., Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal, Nat. Clim. Change 6 (2016) 827.

[87] IPCC, IPCC Agrees Outlines of Sixth Assessment Report, IPCC Press Release, 2017.