diff --git a/analysis/figures/figure1-test.pdf b/analysis/figures/figure1-test.pdf
index 6943b703a8d6f89e0190bf09bb0b6f0f9604fd24..df4f9c447acf8577f53068073c451c00d77b0b76 100644
Binary files a/analysis/figures/figure1-test.pdf and b/analysis/figures/figure1-test.pdf differ
diff --git a/analysis/figures/figure2-test.pdf b/analysis/figures/figure2-test.pdf
index 1ca272a8032bd74bf62dbf9f3f2c0b5a201e8684..caae8791072dcd28aeb57205cefd436501c57f58 100644
Binary files a/analysis/figures/figure2-test.pdf and b/analysis/figures/figure2-test.pdf differ
diff --git a/analysis/figures/figure3-test.pdf b/analysis/figures/figure3-test.pdf
index fcbb6d574a7bcc8c6a3a8c8f97227fea1bbf53c3..dd90b637c6de46d7b9f4621a000485b6239cbf83 100644
Binary files a/analysis/figures/figure3-test.pdf and b/analysis/figures/figure3-test.pdf differ
diff --git a/analysis/figures/figure4-test.pdf b/analysis/figures/figure4-test.pdf
index d12a2b1b86d69496598d6c0a397f606d13cb9708..3480421508735560bf532b1ccb942265dbcd9a8d 100644
Binary files a/analysis/figures/figure4-test.pdf and b/analysis/figures/figure4-test.pdf differ
diff --git a/analysis/figures/figure5-test.pdf b/analysis/figures/figure5-test.pdf
index cf44afc0f2193711430271e3c78d53629eacb2d1..49d5c01f26bfcd9aba7ecc63f615bd1f9914ff80 100644
Binary files a/analysis/figures/figure5-test.pdf and b/analysis/figures/figure5-test.pdf differ
diff --git a/analysis/paper/.~lock.paper.docx# b/analysis/paper/.~lock.paper.docx#
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e2a7742105a062eaea09561fa95477e80357fa1b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/analysis/paper/.~lock.paper.docx#
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+,jaccard,jaccard-Latitude-E6440,14.01.2021 06:59,file:///home/jaccard/.config/libreoffice/4;
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd b/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
index 2f476fdf8e1f0d9a11c6368c95b8d5b4f9719dda..8613356ff4db6fe2e048b136829b0911c267f470 100644
--- a/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
+++ b/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
@@ -824,7 +824,7 @@ knitr::include_graphics(here::here("analysis", "figures", "figure5-test.pdf"))
 
 # Conclusions
 
-Estimates of carbon-energy footprint inequality are increasingly being used to assign responsibility for climate change. At a global [@piketty_carbon_2015 @kartha_carbon_2020 @gore_extreme_2015 @hubacek_global_2017-1 @oswald_large_2020], regional [@ivanova_unequal_2020], and within-country level [@wiedenhofer_unequal_2017 @golley_income_2012 @steenolsen_carbon_2016 @weber_quantifying_2008 @hardadi_implications_2020 @oswald_large_2020], energy use and carbon emissions are often highly unequal. The proposed solution is often a call to reduce the carbon-energy inequality by reducing over-consumption, especially by the richest at the top of the economic distribution, which would then also reduce the carbon-energy footprint, everything else held equal. Complicating this picture, however, is the fact that carbon-energy intensities of consumption usually differ between economic groups. This is due to different consumption baskets and different access to technology. That lower-income groups tend to have higher carbon-energy intensities is an important finding from the environmental Kuznet's curve literature [@berthe_mechanisms_2015 @scruggs_political_1998], but these findings are often not well integrated with the current carbon-energy footprint inequality literature, that focuses more on assigning responsibility based on aggregate carbon-energy footprint inequality. 
+Estimates of carbon-energy footprint inequality are increasingly being used to assign responsibility for climate change. At a global, regional, and within-country level, energy use and carbon emissions are often highly unequal [@piketty_carbon_2015 @kartha_carbon_2020 @gore_extreme_2015 @hubacek_global_2017-1 @ivanova_unequal_2020 @wiedenhofer_unequal_2017 @golley_income_2012 @steenolsen_carbon_2016 @weber_quantifying_2008 @hardadi_implications_2020 @oswald_large_2020]. The proposed solution is often a call to reduce the carbon-energy inequality by reducing over-consumption, especially by the richest at the top of the economic distribution, which would then also reduce the carbon-energy footprint, everything else held equal. Complicating this picture, however, is the fact that carbon-energy intensities of consumption usually differ between economic groups. This is due to different consumption baskets and different access to technology. That lower-income groups tend to have higher carbon-energy intensities is an important finding from the environmental Kuznet's curve literature [@berthe_mechanisms_2015 @scruggs_political_1998]. This finding has not yet been well integrated with the current carbon-energy footprint inequality literature, that focuses more on assigning responsibility based on aggregate carbon-energy footprint inequality. 
 
 In this study, we have found that, for Europe as a whole, lower-economic groups have higher carbon-energy intensities of consumption (although this is not necessarily true within each European country) [@sommer_carbon_2017 @kerkhof_determinants_200]. These higher intensities come almost entirely from domestic electricity production and heating/cooling for shelter, in a handful of Central and Eastern European countries. This is of course already an important focus of European climate policy, but reducing these intensities should be a major priority for investment fund allocation going forward, especially within a framework such as the EU's European Green Deal [@bianco_understanding_2019]. Efforts to break consumer lock-in to these high intensities must be occurring alongside any policies that seek to continue reducing intensities and aggregate consumption higher up the distribution. Bringing intensities of consumption for all economic groups in line with those of higher-economic groups in Europe with access to the cleanest and most efficient available technologies, would substantially reduce the European household carbon-energy footprint, everything else held equal. The unequal intensity structure hinders clear conclusions on carbon-energy footprint inequality. We have shown that in an important sector such as shelter, lower-economic groups have almost the same level of footprint as higher-economic groups despite a fraction of the expenditure, because of their higher intensities. This can then be misleading in terms of assigning responsibility for climate change. Bringing carbon-energy intensities of all economic groups in line with the top group, and thus removing the inequality in intensity structure, would reduce the carbon-energy footprint, all else held equal, but *increase* carbon-energy inequality. The reduction of carbon-energy inequality is not a meaningful goal by itself. 
 
diff --git a/analysis/paper/paper.docx b/analysis/paper/paper.docx
index f270bf13f0d3419dc19ce1fb1a8eafda9902d80a..21e975e6ab823dfaf742e740cdd5fae12e6c05e8 100644
Binary files a/analysis/paper/paper.docx and b/analysis/paper/paper.docx differ