edit ms

analysis/paper/.~lock.paper.docx#

-,jaccard,jaccard-Latitude-E6440,08.12.2020 11:38,file:///home/jaccard/.config/libreoffice/4;
\ No newline at end of file

analysis/paper/paper.Rmd

@@ -565,6 +565,8 @@ Points to hit:
 
 Text: 
 
+Our European inequality results have shown the inequality in energy and carbon intensities between the deciles, and that the 10th decile has the best energy and GHG efficiency. Improving energy and GHG efficiency will lead to energy and emissions savings, especially in the lower deciles, an important step towards achieving mitigation targets for Europe as a whole. Figure 4 shows the energy footprint savings per decile (Fig. 4a) that would have occurred in 2015 if all deciles had the same efficiency per aggregated sector as the 10th decile. Around 17 EJ would have been saved in total, and the energy footprint of the first decile would have been nearly half its 2015 value. Fig. 4b shows saved energy per country, with Eastern European countries especially saving large proportions of their 2015 footprint, over 60 % for Bulgaria and Estonia for example. 
+
 ## Inequality in a 1.5°C compatible Europe
 
 ```{r}
@@ -645,11 +647,11 @@ Points to hit:
 
 Text: 
 
-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 transformation. All scenarios give average final energy use values but say little about distribution beyond different values for different world regions. Using our European inequality results, we see that at current distribution, achieving the average final energy use of a given scenario means achieving it at the mean, not equally per capita. The lower deciles would need to consume final energy below the mean, and the wealthier deciles could consume above the mean. Because of this, whichever mean energy level is achieved unequally, minimum energy for decent living in the lower deciles becomes an additional constraint. Minimum energy for decent living is estimated variously between 16 to 53 GJ/capita or higher, depending on different judgments about ‘decent living’ and assumptions about the infrastructural transformations underpinning the provision of energy services (ref). If a mean energy level is achieved while leaving perhaps multiple deciles below a minimum energy threshold, the only lever available to satisfy both constraints is a reduction in inequality.
+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 transformation. All scenarios give average final energy use values but say little about distribution beyond different values for different world regions. Using our European inequality results, we see that at current distribution, achieving the average final energy use of a given scenario means achieving it at the mean, not equally per capita. The lower deciles would need to consume final energy below the mean, and the wealthier deciles could consume above the mean. Because of this, whichever mean energy level is achieved unequally, minimum energy for decent living in the lower deciles becomes an additional constraint. Minimum energy for decent living is estimated variously between 16 to 53 GJ/capita or higher, depending on different judgments about ‘decent living’ and assumptions about the infrastructural transformations underpinning the provision of energy services (ref). If a mean energy level is achieved while leaving perhaps multiple deciles below a minimum energy threshold, the only lever available to satisfy both constraints is a reduction in inequality. 
 
-Fig. 5 shows this option space between achieving mean energy in five decarbonisation scenarios, and the trade-off between achieving minimum energy requirements as well (x-axis), and the level of inequality required to achieve both (y-axis). For example, to achieve mean energy of 87 GJ/cap (as in the SSP1-1.9 scenario) and minimum energy of 27 GJ/cap for all, inequality would need to decrease from the current 10:10 ratio around 7 to just over 6. At current inequality levels, only those scenarios with heavy CCS deployment and GEA efficiency are possible if we assume likely overly optimistic minimum energy requirements (below 27 GJ/cap). This 27 GJ/capita is the value the low-energy demand (LED) scenario (with strong demand-side effort) gives for the global South in 2050, with the global North at 53 GJ/cap. If we assumed minimum energy requirements to be 53 GJ/cap, then inequality would need to be drastically reduced, the 10:10 ratio more than halved, in all scenarios (including those with CCS deployment).
+Fig. 5 shows this option space between achieving mean energy in five decarbonisation scenarios, and the trade-off between achieving minimum energy requirements as well (x-axis), and the level of inequality required to achieve both (y-axis). In Figure 5, all deciles have the same technology as the tenth decile, as shown in Figure 4. For example, to achieve mean energy of 87 GJ/cap (as in the SSP1-1.9 scenario) and minimum energy of 27 GJ/cap for all, inequality would need to decrease from the current 10:10 ratio around 7 to just over 6. At current inequality levels, only those scenarios with heavy CCS deployment and GEA efficiency are possible if we assume likely overly optimistic minimum energy requirements (below 27 GJ/cap). This 27 GJ/capita is the value the low-energy demand (LED) scenario (with strong demand-side effort) gives for the global South in 2050, with the global North at 53 GJ/cap. If we assumed minimum energy requirements to be 53 GJ/cap, then inequality would need to be drastically reduced, the 10:10 ratio more than halved, in all scenarios (including those with CCS deployment).
 
-```{r figure5, out.width="70%", fig.align="center", fig.cap="Dings"}
+```{r figure5, out.width="70%", fig.align="center", fig.cap="Dings. in Figure 5, all deciles have 'best technology' already"}
 knitr::include_graphics(here::here("analysis", "figures", "figure5.pdf"))
 ```