Decarbonizing the energy system in accordance with the Paris Accord requires a deep transformation of both the supply and the demand side (ref). On both sides, however, necessary transformation is restricted by different factors. On the supply side, there exist economic and physical upper limits of how much energy can be provided from renewable sources on the one hand, and how much CO2 removal infrastructure is used to compensate for remaining emissions from fossil fuels on the other. On the demand side [@creutzig_towards_2018], by contrast, there are lower limits to how much energy is minimally required for a decent life [@grubler_low_2018 @millward-hopkins_providing_2020], depending on different assumptions about the coupled production-consumption energy infrastructures and systems [@creutzig_towards_2019], as well as the prevalent social ideas about what constitutes decent living [@rao_energy_2019 @millward-hopkins_providing_2020]. Maximum possible energy supply and minimum necessary energy demand describe the corridor in which the simultaneous achievement of climate targets and a decent living for all is possible and, at the same time, restricts the distribution of available energy services among the population. If this dual objective is taken seriously in European climate policy, then there are practical limits to how unequal the society of the future can be, which go beyond the purely political. In fact, a limited energy supply creates an obvious, if rarely acknowledged, zero-sum game where energetic over-consumption by some has to be compensated by less consumption by others.
Decarbonizing the energy system in accordance with the Paris Accord requires a deep transformation of both the supply and the demand side [@grubler_low_2018]. On both sides, however, necessary transformation is restricted by different factors. On the supply side, there exist economic and physical upper limits of how much energy can be provided from renewable sources on the one hand, and how much CO2 removal infrastructure is used to compensate for remaining emissions from fossil fuels on the other. On the demand side [@creutzig_towards_2018], by contrast, there are lower limits to how much energy is minimally required for a decent life [@grubler_low_2018 @millward-hopkins_providing_2020], depending on different assumptions about the coupled production-consumption energy infrastructures and systems [@creutzig_towards_2019], as well as the prevalent social ideas about what constitutes decent living [@rao_energy_2019 @millward-hopkins_providing_2020]. Maximum possible energy supply and minimum necessary energy demand describe the corridor in which the simultaneous achievement of climate targets and a decent living for all is possible and, at the same time, restricts the distribution of available energy services among the population. If this dual objective is taken seriously in European climate policy, then there are practical limits to how unequal the society of the future can be, which go beyond the purely political. In fact, a limited energy supply creates an obvious, if rarely acknowledged, zero-sum game where energetic over-consumption by some has to be compensated by less consumption by others.
The average energy footprint of EU citizens was X GJ per capita in 2011 [@oswald_large_2020] and the carbon footprint 8.2 tonnes CO2eq per capita in 2007 [@ivanova_environmental_2016]. However, the differences in average energy and carbon footprints are large within and between different regions in the EU. Energy footprints ranged from X to Y GJ per capita in 2011 [@oswald_large_2020] and carbon footprints from below 2.5 tonnes CO2eq per capita to 55 tonnes CO2eq per capita in 2010 [@ivanova_unequal_2020]. Depending on the assumptions of different global mitigation scenarios, the average footprints need to be reduced to between 15.7 and 100 GJ per capita [@grubler_low_2018 @millward-hopkins_providing_2020] or 0.7 and 2.1 tCO2eq per capita [@akenji_1.5-degree_2019] by 2050, respectively.
