1 1 ,. 1 1 1 76 MAKALE / ARTICLE Sam H. Schurr and his colleagues( 11 ı from Resources for the Future, ine. are among the fırst scientists, who noticed "the peak theory of energy intensity''.'12 ) The data provided by such pioneers show that the intensity peak of commercial energy consumption occurred in the USA in 1920. Figure 2 clearly shows that industrialized countries such as the USA happen to reach the same intensity values at least twice in her history.( 13 ) The USA was not the country which had the fırst intensity peak in the world. Actually, the fırst intensity peak occurred in England in 1880, forty years earlier than the United States.( 14 ) This is not surprising considering that the industrial revolution began in England in late 181h century. We can also deduct from this information that it took England to reach its peak about 100 years. Others followed these two English-speaking countries through a special kinci of evolutionary pattern. This fact has not been publicized until the well-known study by Jean-Marie Martin from Universite de Grenoble, appeared in the French literature in 1988.(15 ) His important article entitled "L'intensite energetique de l'activite economique dans /es pays industrialises" has been an important point of reference for inter-country comparisons of historical energy intensity trends. We learnt from Martin (1988) that the intensity peaks of Germany, France, and Japan occurred respectively in 1920, 1929, and 1970. Later, until the 1970's, countries such as Canada, ltaly, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands reached their intensity peaks. Energy Productivity The reason why energy intensity has been explained in such detail in this paper is its nature of being reciprocal to energy productivity. The energy productivity can thus be defineci as "the economic output produced per unit of energy" üne can easily expect that the graph of overall energy productivity to be just the opposite of energy intensity, which is an upside curved concave with minimum point at the bottom. Similarly, we can also conclude that on a country basis, energy productivity decreases until a minimum value is reached, and then increases depending on various factors, which will be discussed in following sections. The cross sectional analysis of energy productivity in 2001 made for 134 countries shows that these countries range from 1.05 to 15.73 US$ per koe. The frequency-histogram of these ENERJi & KOJENERASYON DÜNYASI values in Figure 3 depicts a typical unimodel curve skewed slightly to the left. The mean occurs in Category 4 but the median occurs in Category 2. The three minimum values occur in lraq as 1 .05 US$ per koe, in Nigeria as 1 .07 US$ per koe, and in Qataras 1.09 US$ per koe and the three maximum values occur in Costa Rica as 9.67 US$ per koe, in Namibia as 10.08 US$ per koe, and in Myanmar as 15.73 US$ per koe. The averages of the world, OECD, and EU are 4.23 US$ per koe, 4.65 US$ per koe, and 5.64 US$ per koe, respectively. in the ı• OECD countries, the highest values occur in Switzerland (7.12 US$ per koe), lreland (7.35 US$ per koe), and ltaly (7.48 US$ per koe) while the lowest values occur in lceland (2.29 US$ per koe), Slovakia (3.18 US$ per koe), and Canada (3.35 US$ per koe). The core European countries such as France (5.25 US$ per koe), Germany (5.47 US$ per koe) and the UK (5.50 US$ per koe) are located in the middle. On the other hand, among the latecomers, market-oriented countries such as Greece (5.76 US$ per koe) and Portugal (6.74 US$ per koe) have higher energy productivity averages than the EU countries and former centrallyplanned countries such as Slovakia (3.18 US$ per koe), the Czech Republic (3.39 US$ per koe), Poland (3.88 US$ per koe) and Hungary (4.63 US$ per koe) have lower energy productivity averages than the EU countries. , 1 The energy productivity of Turkey in 2001 is 5.39 US$ per koe, which is very close to the EU average. Turkey's having an energy productivity value around the EU average is not surprising since the same intensity and productivity values can be obtained on both sides of the curve as shown in Figure 2. Turkey is located on the left side of the curve, while the EU is on the right side. Therefore, we can conclude that the overall energy productivity of Turkey should decrease until a minimum point is reached before it begins to increase. The "per capita income versus energy productivity" diagram shown in Figure 4 also proves this conclusion. The reason why the correlation between these two parameters is weak, is directly related to the fact that the same productivity values might have been obtained at different development levels. For instance, the per capita GDP and the per capita energy consumption in 2000 are respectively 5,693 US$ at 1995 prices and PPPs and 1056 koe in Turkey whereas 22,219 US$ at 1995 prices and PPPs and 3940 koe in the European Union. Similarly, the per capita GDP and the per capita energy consumption are respectively 6,944 US$ at
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTcyMTY=