Abstract: The call for a decent life for all within planetary limits poses a dual challenge: Provide all people with the essential resources needed to live well and, collectively, to not exceed the source and sink capacity of the biosphere to sustain human societies. In this paper, we examine the corridor of possible distributions of household energy and carbon footprints for the populations of 28 European countries that satisfy both minimal energy requirements for a decent living and maximum supply of decarbonised energy to achieve the 1.5 degree target in 2050. We constructed energy and carbon footprints for harmonized European expenditure deciles in 2015 by combining data from national Household Budget Surveys (HBS) provided by EUROSTAT with the Environmentally-Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output (EE-MRIO) model EXIOBASE and aggregating the ranked national expenditure quintiles European deciles. Estimates for a range of minimum energy requirements for a decent life, as well as estimates for the maximum available energy supply, were taken from the 1.5 degree scenario literature. We found a top decile to bottom decile ratio of 7.2 for expenditure, 3.5 for energy and 2.6 for carbon, largely attributable to inefficient energy and heating technologies in the four bottom deciles that are predominantly located in Eastern European countries. Adopting best technology in all European deciles would safe 17EJ per year and equalize expenditure, energy and carbon inequality. At those inequality levels, the dual goal can only be achieved by heavy CCS deployment plus large and fast efficiency improvements plus extremely low minimum energy use requirements of 27GJ per adult equivalent (as compared to currently xx GJ/ae in the lowest decile). When around 50GJ/ae minimum energy requirements for a decent living and no CCS deployment is assumed, the mathematical possible inequality to also achieve the 1.5 degree target becomes practically zero. We conclude that for Europe combining the goals of providing enough energy for a decent living and achieving the Paris agreement poses an immense and widely underestimated challenge to which the current organization of the euro zone offers little monetary or fiscal leeway.
Abstract: The call for a decent life for all within planetary limits poses a dual challenge: Provide all people with the essential resources needed to live well and, collectively, to not exceed the source and sink capacity of the biosphere to sustain human societies. In this paper, we examine the corridor of possible distributions of household energy and carbon footprints for the populations of 28 European countries that satisfy both minimal energy requirements for a decent living and maximum supply of decarbonised energy to achieve the 1.5°C target in 2050. We constructed energy and carbon footprints for harmonized European expenditure deciles in 2015 by combining data from national Household Budget Surveys (HBS) provided by EUROSTAT with the Environmentally-Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output (EE-MRIO) model EXIOBASE and aggregating the ranked national expenditure quintiles European deciles. Estimates for a range of minimum energy requirements for a decent life, as well as estimates for the maximum available energy supply, were taken from the 1.5°C scenario literature. We found a top decile to bottom decile ratio of 7.2 for expenditure, 3.5 for energy and 2.6 for carbon, largely attributable to inefficient energy and heating technologies in the four bottom deciles that are predominantly located in Eastern European countries. Adopting best technology in all European deciles would safe 17EJ per year and equalize expenditure, energy and carbon inequality. At those inequality levels, the dual goal can only be achieved by CCS deployment plus large and fast efficiency improvements plus extremely low minimum energy use requirements of 27GJ per adult equivalent (as compared to currently xx GJ/ae in the lowest decile). When around 50GJ/ae minimum energy requirements for a decent living and no CCS deployment is assumed, the mathematical possible inequality to also achieve the 1.5°C target becomes practically zero. We conclude that for Europe combining the goals of providing enough energy for a decent living and achieving the Paris agreement poses an immense and widely underestimated challenge to which the current organization of the euro zone offers little monetary or fiscal leeway.
<!-- The following code chunk defines some general settings how code chunks should behave. -->
...
...
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ The average household energy footprint of European citizens was around 170 GJ pe
In this paper, we assess under what conditions European energy inequality is compatible with the achievement of global climate goals and a decent standard of living, taking both inequality within and between European countries into account. To this end, we first construct household energy and carbon footprints for harmonized European expenditure deciles in 2015, combining data from EUROSTAT's Household Budget Survey (HBS) with the Environmentally-Extended Multi-Regional Input-Output (EE-MRIO) model EXIOBASE. We analyze the distribution of energy and carbon intensities across European expenditure deciles and consumption categories, and compare this current structure to a hypothetical situation where all European deciles use the best technology available in Europe. Finally we examine how the energy inequality across European household expenditure deciles would need to change in order to achieve the dual goal of climate protection and a decent standard of living for all.
While the European Green Deal already recognizes that inequalities in income, energy infrastructure, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions lead to different responsibilities and capacities in achieving the emission savings targets, a quantification of the attainable corridor for a 1.5 degree compatible and just transition in Europe is missing in the literature.
While the European Green Deal already recognizes that inequalities in income, energy infrastructure, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions lead to different responsibilities and capacities in achieving the emission savings targets, a quantification of the attainable corridor for a 1.5°C compatible and just transition in Europe is missing in the literature.
# Materials and methods
...
...
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ To calculate European household expenditure deciles we first ranked the national
The unit of analysis for our energy and carbon footprint calculations is the household. We normalized our results to average adult equivalent per household and per national decile as this is how the EUROSTAT HBS publishes its data. The first adult in the household is given a weight of 1.0, each adult thereafter 0.5, and each child 0.3 [@eurostat_description_2016].
For our calculations of attainable corridors for achieving the dual goal of climate protection and a decent standard of living for all, we adjusted the total per capita results from published 1.5 degree scenarios to household adult equivalents in order to better compare them with our environmental footprint estimates. Estimates of minimum final energy for a decent living are from Grubler et al. (2018) [@grubler_low_2018] and Millward-Hopkins et al. (2020) [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020], while maximum final energy compatible with the 1.5 degree target is from the decarbonisation scenarios in the IIASA scenario database [@riahi_shared_2017 @gea_gea_nodate].
For our calculations of attainable corridors for achieving the dual goal of climate protection and a decent standard of living for all, we adjusted the total per capita results from published 1.5°C scenarios to household adult equivalents in order to better compare them with our environmental footprint estimates. Estimates of minimum final energy for a decent living are from Grubler et al. (2018) [@grubler_low_2018] and Millward-Hopkins et al. (2020) [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020], while maximum final energy compatible with the 1.5°C target is from the decarbonisation scenarios in the IIASA scenario database [@riahi_shared_2017 @gea_gea_nodate].
As inequality measure we use the 10:10 ratio, i.e. the expenditure or the environmental footprint of the top European expenditure decile divided by that of the bottom European expenditure decile. Thus, an expenditure 10:10 ratio of 5 means that one adult equivalent in the top decile spent 5 times more on average than one adult equivalent in the bottom decile.
The various global supply side scenarios (SSP1-1.9, SSP2-1.9, GEA efficiency, IEA ETP B2DS)[@riahi_shared_2017 @gea_gea_nodate @grubler_low_2018] thus envisage the household European energy footprint falling from the 2015 level of `r energy_total_hh` EJ to around 21-31 EJ by 2050, equivalent to a per adult equivalent reduction from a current average of `r energy_pae_mean` GJ to around 64-94 GJ. The differences in energy use in 2050 in the scenarios reflect different model assumptions about the rate of expansion of renewable energy and CCS capacity. These scenarios rely on substantial amounts of CCS, which is still a fairly speculative technology, and we therefore interpret them as ranges for the upper limits of 1.5°C-compatible energy supply [@riahi_shared_2017 @gea_gea_nodate].
The various global supply side scenarios (SSP1-1.9, SSP2-1.9, GEA efficiency, IEA ETP B2DS)[@riahi_shared_2017 @gea_gea_nodate @grubler_low_2018] thus envisage the household European energy footprint falling from the 2015 level of `r energy_total_hh` EJ to around 21-31 EJ by 2050, equivalent to a per adult equivalent reduction from a current average of `r energy_pae_mean` GJ to around 64-94 GJ. The differences in energy use in 2050 in the scenarios reflect different model assumptions about the rate of expansion of renewable energy, efficiency improvements and conservation, and CCS capacity. These scenarios rely on CCS, which is still a fairly speculative technology, and we therefore interpret them as ranges for the upper limits of 1.5°Ccompatible energy supply [@riahi_shared_2017 @gea_gea_nodate].
It is more difficult to determine a lower limit for the minimum amount of energy needed for a decent life. Such a lower limit depends strongly on the prevalent socio-cultural idea of what constitutes a decent life, and, perhaps even more strongly, on the physical infrastructure available to deliver this life. The two global demand side scenarios LED [@grubler_low_2018] and DLE [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020] that attempt to define such a limit conclude that, in principle, a very low energy footprint, between 16-53 GJ per household adult equivalent, could be sufficient. However, these scenarios rely on socio-technological transformations on a scale that, especially at the lower end, far exceed the current political discourse on the subject. These scenarios are 1.5°C compatible without resorting to any CCS but they all implicitly (LED) [@grubler_low_2018] or explicitly (DLE) [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020] assume near complete equality of consumption across the population. To put these low energy demand numbers in perspective, the average household energy footprint in our sample is `r energy_pae_mean` GJ per adult equivalent in 2015, about a factor 5 above the high estimate. Households in the bottom European expenditure decile, which almost entirely fell within the EUROSTAT definition of severe material deprivation [@eurostat_living_nodate], still had an energy footprint of 130 GJ per adult equivalent in 2015 (roughly 80 GJ/capita), a factor of 2.5 above the high estimate.
Based on this counterfactual distribution of the energy footprint using homogeneous supply technologies, we can now scale down energy use across European expenditure deciles to meet supply constraints and, where necessary, "squeeze" the distribution to not undershoot minimum energy use requirements in any decile (Figure 5).
Both the DLE and LED scenarios satisfy energy demand for decent living and are compatible with the 1.5 degree target without resorting to CCS technologies [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020 @grubler_low_2018]. The DLE scenario explicitly envisions absolute global equality (10:10 ratio of 1) in consumption, except for small differences in required energy consumption based on climatic and demographic factors, as well as differences in population density [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020]. The LED scenario does not explicitly discuss distributional aspects beyond giving different final energy values for the Global North (53 GJ/ae) and the Global South (27 GJ/ae) [@grubler_low_2018]. However, due to the bottom-up construction of this demand scenario, these values can be interpreted as estimates for the minimum required energy use. The energy supply scenarios achieve energy savings through the replacement of carbon-intensive fossil fuels by cleaner alternatives, efficiency improvements, including the electrification of energy demand, and measures towards energy conservation [@riahi_shared_2017].
Both the DLE and LED scenarios satisfy energy demand for decent living and are compatible with the 1.5°C target without resorting to CCS technologies [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020 @grubler_low_2018]. The DLE scenario explicitly envisions absolute global equality (10:10 ratio of 1) in consumption, except for small differences in required energy consumption based on climatic and demographic factors, as well as differences in population density [@millward-hopkins_providing_2020]. The LED scenario does not explicitly discuss distributional aspects beyond giving different final energy values for the Global North (53 GJ/ae) and the Global South (27 GJ/ae) [@grubler_low_2018]. However, due to the bottom-up construction of this demand scenario, these values can be interpreted as estimates for the minimum required energy use. The energy supply scenarios do not include specific details about how the energy footprints are distributed within countries [@riahi_shared_2017]. They achieve energy savings through the replacement of carbon-intensive fossil fuels by cleaner alternatives, efficiency improvements including the electrification of final energy, and measures towards energy conservation [@riahi_shared_2017].
```{r figure5, out.width="70%", fig.align="center", fig.cap="Mean energy available for Europe in decarbonisation scenarios, positioned in option space between a range of minimum energy requirements and range of associated maximum inequality. All expenditure deciles have 'best technology' already."}
The colored curves in Figure 5 represent constant average household energy footprints according to the different scenarios. The slopes of the curves connect different assumptions about minimal energy for a decent living (on the x-axis) to the corresponding energy inequality that is consistent with the average energy availability. It is clear from Figure 5 that at current inequality levels, only the two scenarios with heavy CCS deployment (SSP2-1.9, SSP1-1.9) and GEA efficiency are possible and only if we assume in addition an extremely low minimum energy use requirement below 27 GJ/ae, which is roughly the value the LED scenario gives for the Global South in 2050. If we use the value given for the Global North at 53 GJ/ae as minimum energy requirements, which still requires strong demand side measures, then inequality would need to be zero in the LED scenario and more than halved in all other scenarios.
The colored curves in Figure 5 represent constant average household energy footprints according to the different scenarios. The slopes of the curves connect different assumptions about minimal energy for a decent living (on the x-axis) to the corresponding energy inequality that is consistent with the average energy availability. It is clear from Figure 5 that at current inequality levels, only the two scenarios with heavier CCS deployment (SSP2-1.9, SSP1-1.9) and GEA efficiency are possible and only if we assume in addition an extremely low minimum energy use requirement below 27 GJ/ae, which is roughly the value the LED scenario gives for the Global South in 2050. If we use the value given for the Global North at 53 GJ/ae as minimum energy requirements, which still requires strong demand side measures, then inequality would need to be zero in the LED scenario and more than halved in all other scenarios.
- CBAM - remove last part ..., '..depending..' and citation above beside 'carbon border adjustment mechanism' (DONE)
- new IEA scenario - if it exists, include it
- new IEA scenario (net-zero emissions 2050 - 1.5°C) - if it exists, include it (can find the explanation of the scenario but having trouble accessing precise final energy in 2050 numbers)
- better discussion on scenarios: where to pick up CCS?
