@@ -456,9 +456,7 @@ Our data show that both of these factors play a role \@ref(fig:figure2). Poorer
The tendency that the emission intensity for direct energy consumption decreases with increasing affluence can be observed at the global level (XXX) between countries and also applies within Europe. In some of the Eastern European countries, between 80% and 100% of the population belong to the four lowest European expenditure deciles. This compares to less than 20% of the population in the richer European countries (Scandinavia, Germany, France, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, and Ireland). Note here that our analysis is based on average expenditure data from five income groups at the national level. This aggregation cuts off the lower and upper ends of the respective national expenditure distributions (Supplementary Note and Map).
The high intensities in the bottom four European expenditure deciles can be attributed in large part to inefficient domestic energy supplies for heating and electricity generation in Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Romania. Poland alone was responsible for about 40% of total coal combustion for heat production in Europe in 2015 and had a higher average GHG intensity per MJ of heat delivered than both Europe and the world (XXX). These differences in specific energy and GHG intensities in basic services sectors (especially shelter) account for the smaller inequality between expenditure deciles in terms of carbon-energy footprints compared to raw expenditures [*do we need to mention subsidies also?*].
*The consumption basket aspect has been extensively studied and mostly found to be intuitively true. This is a line of inquiry we do not currently pursue but I just remembered the analysis we did on this which is actually quite interesting: This common sense knowledge could be challenged because it is true mostly in western countries with high demand for heating and cooling and mobility both mostly fossil based and subsidized. In this case, necessities especially shelter (maybe and car based mobility (accessible to most)) have a higher intensity compared to "luxury spending" ie the average intensity of the international supply chain for manufactured goods etc.. It is not true in rich countries with high renewable energy shares (e.g. Norway) where the domestic energy system is more resource efficient than the international supply chain. It is possibly also not true in countries with low heating/cooling demand. We may want to check if that flips after applying the best technology transformation.*
The high intensities in the bottom four European expenditure deciles can be attributed in large part to inefficient domestic energy supplies for heating and electricity generation in Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Romania. Poland alone was responsible for about 40% of total coal combustion for heat production in Europe in 2015 and had a higher average GHG intensity per MJ of heat delivered than both Europe and the world (XXX). These differences in specific energy and GHG intensities in basic services sectors (especially shelter) account for the smaller inequality between expenditure deciles in terms of carbon-energy footprints compared to raw expenditures.
Global 1.5°C compatible decarbonisation scenarios achieve a similar climate outcome with different assumptions about the transformation of energy supply and demand, from renewable capacity, deployment of carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS), and socio-technological demand transformation.
[*Alternative to converting in the following text between per capita and per adult, we could convert scenarios to rough per adult equvialents and discuss differences across deciles in supplement*]
[*maybe table with scenario properties*]
The various global supply side scenarios (SSP1-1.9, SSP2-1.9, GEA efficiency) envisage total EU (*or our sample*) energy consumption falling from the current X EJ to X-Y EJ by 2030 (or 2050), equivalent to a per household reduction from a current average of 250 GJ to X-Y GJ per adult equivalent. The differences in energy consumption in 2050 in the scenarios reflect different model assumptions about the rate of expansion of renewable energy and CCS capacity. Most/all of these scenarios rely on substantial amounts of CCS (*starting from when?*) 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.
It is even more difficult to determine a lower limit for the minimum amount of energy needed for a decent life. This depends strongly on the one hand on the prevalent socio-cultural idea of what constitutes a decent life, and on the other hand, perhaps even more strongly, on the physical infrastructure available to satisfy human needs/to deliver on this life [*dont want a 'needs' debate with you Helga, just didnt know how to say this differently.*]. The two (*or three with Boell*) global demand side scenarios (LED, DLE) that attempt to define such a limit conclude that, in principle, a very low energy footprint (between 16-53 GJ per capita, or X-Y, translated to household adult equivalents) could be sufficient. However, these scenarios rely on socio-technological transformations on a scale that, especially at the lower end, far exceeds the current political discourse on the subject. All two/three scenarios are 1.5°C compatible without resorting to any CCS but they all implicitly (LED) or explicitly (DLE) assume near complete equality of consumption across the population. To put these low energy demand numbers in perspective, the average energy footprint in our sample is about a factor 5 above the high estimate (250 MJ/aeq). Households in the first European expenditure decile had an energy footprint of 130 GJ per adult equivalent (*give rough per capita*) in 2015 even though they fell almost entirely within the Eurostat definition of severe material deprivation.
It is even more difficult to determine a lower limit for the minimum amount of energy needed for a decent life. This depends strongly on the one hand on the prevalent socio-cultural idea of what constitutes a decent life, and on the other hand, perhaps even more strongly, on the physical infrastructure available to satisfy human needs/to deliver on this life [*dont want a 'needs' debate with you Helga, just didnt know how to say this differently.*]. The two (*or three with Boell*) global demand side scenarios (LED, DLE) 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 exceeds the current political discourse on the subject. All two/three scenarios are 1.5°C compatible without resorting to any CCS but they all implicitly (LED) or explicitly (DLE) assume near complete equality of consumption across the population. To put these low energy demand numbers in perspective, the average energy footprint in our sample is about a factor 5 above the high estimate (250 MJ/aeq). Households in the first European expenditure decile had an energy footprint of 130 GJ per adult equivalent (*give rough per capita*) in 2015 even though they fell almost entirely within the Eurostat definition of severe material deprivation.
[*I struggle to separate between energy efficiency in purely technological terms, and energy efficiency of the energy service. This is relevant for the transformation we apply. Do we assume the efficiency differences are only due to inefficient energy carriers and transformation losses, or do we assume this is also due to differences in the demand/provision of energy services, e.g. more rural and car dependent. It would be easier if we could argue the former, which I will do for now.*]
