edit ms

analysis/paper/paper.Rmd

@@ -137,7 +137,9 @@ If this dual objective is taken seriously in European climate policy, then there
 
 The average energy footprint of EU citizens was X GJ per capita in 2011 [oswald_large_2020] and the carbon footprint 8.2 tonnes CO2e 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 tCO2e per capita [@akenji_1.5-degree_2019] by 2050, respectively.
 
-We assess under what conditions European energy inequality is compatible with the achievement of global climate goals and a decent standard of living following these steps. We first construct common European expenditure deciles based on national income stratified household expenditure data covering 28 European countries, further stratified by 5 consumption sectors. We then calculate average household GHG and energy footprints per European expenditure decile and consumption sector to explore the current structure of energy and carbon intensities across these categories. Based on these results, we use the current empirical per sector best technology to calculate a homogenized counterfactual European household energy demand distribution (and associated emissions) at current European consumption levels. We report energy and emissions savings per expenditure decile and country and relate the resulting energy demand to available supply across different global 1.5°C scenarios from the literature. Using assumptions on decent living energy demand and available energy supply from different 1.5°C scenarios show how the homogenized European energy demand distribution would need to be transformed (flattened) to conform to these constraints. We report exemplary implications for energy use in different expenditure deciles. Finally, we discuss implications for policy (GND, doughnut, carbon border adjustment mechanism for non-eu emissions).
+We assess under what conditions European energy inequality is compatible with the achievement of global climate goals and a decent standard of living following these steps. We first construct common European expenditure deciles based on national income stratified household expenditure data from EUROSTAT covering 28 European countries, further stratified by 5 consumption sectors. We then calculate average household GHG and energy footprints per European expenditure decile and consumption sector to explore the current structure of energy and carbon intensities across these categories. Based on these results, we use the current empirical per sector best technology to calculate a homogenized counterfactual European household energy demand distribution (and associated emissions) at current European consumption levels. We report energy and emissions savings per expenditure decile and country and relate the resulting energy demand to available supply across different global 1.5°C scenarios from the literature. Using assumptions on decent living energy demand and available energy supply from different 1.5°C scenarios show how the homogenized European energy demand distribution would need to be transformed (flattened) to conform to these constraints. We report exemplary implications for energy use in different expenditure deciles. Finally, we discuss implications for policy (GND, doughnut, carbon border adjustment mechanism for non-eu emissions).
+
+Our unit of analysis through the paper is households normalized by adult equivalent unit, following the income stratified households expenditure data from EUROSTAT. The adult equivalent units from EUROSTAT adjust for household size in different countries and income groups for comparability purposes. When we discuss our household GHG and energy footprints per European expenditure decile in the context of decarbonization scenarios, we adjust total final energy use per capita output from the scenarios to household final energy use per adult equivalent unit. As inequality measure through the study, we divide the average value of the population in the top decile by that of the bottom decile, a 10:10 ratio. For example, in expenditure, a 10:10 ratio of 5 means that adult equivalent units in the top decile spend 5 times more on average than those in the bottom decile.
 
 # Materials and methods
 
@@ -147,7 +149,7 @@ The energy footprint is the gross total energy use energy extension in EXIOBASE,
 
 Finally, we aggregated the data of 28 European countries with 5 income groups each into 10 European expenditure groups, to decompose the total European household energy and carbon footprint by European expenditure decile, ranking each national income group according to their mean consumption expenditure in PPS. We call these European expenditure deciles, although only countries with EUROSTAT data from 2005 to 2015 are included, which excludes Italy and Luxembourg, but includes the UK, Norway and Turkey.
 
-We use households normalized by adult equivalent unit as the unit of analysis, following the EUROSTAT HBS. The adult equivalent units from EUROSTAT adjust for household size in different countries and income groups. As inequality measure through the study, we divide the average value of the population in the top decile by that of the bottom decile, a 10:10 ratio. For example, in expenditure, a 10:10 ratio of 5 means that adult equivalent units in the top decile spend 5 times more on average than those in the bottom decile. The data and procedures are described in detail in the supplementary information (SI).
+The data and procedures are described in detail in the supplementary information (SI).
 
 *Still to add: Scenario sources we use. IIASA scenario database, IEA, DLE, maybe Boell.*