@@ -1004,13 +1004,14 @@ The colored curves in Figure 5 represent constant average household energy footp
# Conclusions
To achieve the aggregated energy use targeted in the different 1.5°C compatible scenarios, the energy footprint needs to be reduced in all European countries, as well as almost all expenditure groups. The total energy footprint of households in the studied region must be reduced by 40% from 300 TJ (2015) to 200 TJ (2050). The GHG intensity of energy services needs to be reduced across all expenditure groups. The focus in the lower deciles should be on efficiency improvements and on absolute reductions in energy consumption in the upper deciles. Even under our bold assumption that the energy and emission efficiencies of the ten expenditure quantiles converge and demand develops as in the 1.5°C scenarios, our results show that a drastic reduction in the inequality of energy footprints is needed to secure decent living standards for all Europeans.
To achieve the aggregated energy use targeted in the different 1.5°C compatible scenarios, the energy footprint needs to be reduced in all European countries, as well as almost all expenditure groups. The total energy footprint of households in the studied region must be reduced by 40% from 300 TJ (2015) to 200 TJ (2050). The GHG intensity of energy services needs to be reduced across all expenditure groups. The focus in the lower deciles should be on efficiency improvements, and on absolute reductions in energy consumption in the upper deciles. Even under our bold assumption that the energy and emission efficiencies of the ten expenditure quantiles converge and demand develops as in the 1.5°C scenarios, our results show that a drastic reduction in the inequality of energy footprints is needed to secure decent living standards for all Europeans.
This illustrates an immense political challenge: ensuring a decent life for all at the targeted energy level of the minimum consumption scenarios (X GJ per adult equivalent, down from an average of X GJ) requires a fundamental reorganization of almost all areas of life and economy. It seems hard to imagine how, for example, the living space per capita can be reduced from about 40m² to 15m², or the number of private cars can be reduced from X to X which are the assumption behind the [xxx] scenario. However, each increase in the minimum energy consumption for a decent life also increases the need to redistribute the energy footprint between countries and expenditure groups, i.e. to reduce energy inequality ever more drastically. Achieving this seems at least as difficult politically. This shows that, in addition to measures to reduce average energy consumption and emissions, instruments to reduce inequality in energy consumption must be developed to ensure a just transition that "leaves no body behind", as the European Green Deal promises.
Particularly in the coming phase of necessary restructuring of the European economy, a social protection mechanism of whatever kind assuring a decent life will play a central role. However, the current organization of the euro zone offers little monetary or fiscal leeway to member states, especially the less wealthy where this would be particularly important, to strengthen or introduce such measures. At the European level, implementation fails due to the lack of a common economic policy, as well as the fact that the ECB (unlike other central banks) only has a mandate to stabilize prices, but not to provide full employment or other effective means of social protection for European citizens. At least in the Eurozone, there is a great need for action to increase the scope for national and/or EU-wide policy making; both to ensure the social protection of citizens and to enable the necessary investments to restructure infrastructure and the economy.
Strong progressive carbon pricing could have a positive distributional effect besides its effect on absolute emission reduction (MCC/Edenhofer). In addition, other distribution instruments such as a wealth tax, income tax or inheritance tax will have to be discussed in order to reduce the large differences in purchasing power within and between the countries of the EU, at least as long as expenditure remains coupled to environmental footprints.
Strong progressive carbon pricing could have a positive distributional effect besides its effect on absolute emission reduction (MCC/Edenhofer). In addition, other distribution instruments such as wealth and inheritance taxes, more progressive income tax, or progressive consumption taxes [@gough_recomposing_2017], will have to be discussed in order to reduce the large differences in purchasing power within and between the countries of the EU, at least as long as expenditure remains coupled to environmental footprints.
Our study highlights the challenges largely implicit in the 1.5°C scenarios with respect to securing a decent standard of living for all, and provides further evidence that achieving this dual objective likely requires a shift in the current policy focus on growth in favor of decreasing environmental impacts and increasing social equity (Haberl, 2020, D’Alessandro 2020). Although our empirical investigation is limited to countries in Europe, we contend that our main conclusions apply in a similar or stronger form to the global achievement of climate and equity goals as articulated in the SDGs.
to add?: 'For example, we adjust a total final energy use of 53 GJ per capita from the LED scenario (Grubler et al. (2018) [@grubler_low_2018]), first by the household share of the total European energy footprint in 2015 (around 0.62, calculated in EXIOBASE), and then the share of total adult equivalents in the total European population in 2015 (also around 0.62, calculated using the EUROSTAT HBS, number of households per country, and population data per country): a total final energy use of 53 GJ/capita is therefore adjusted to a household final energy use of 53 GJ/adult equivalent in Europe ((53 total GJ/capita * 0.62 household share of total footprint)/0.62 adult equivalent share of population = 53 household GJ/adult equivalent).'
to add?: 'For example, we adjust a total final energy use of 53 GJ per capita from the LED scenario (Grubler et al. (2018) [@grubler_low_2018]), first by the household share of the total European energy footprint in 2015 (around 0.62, calculated in EXIOBASE), and then the share of total adult equivalents in the total European population in 2015 (also around 0.62, calculated using the EUROSTAT HBS, number of households per country, and population data per country): a total final energy use of 53 GJ/capita is therefore adjusted to a household final energy use of 53 GJ/adult equivalent in Europe ((53 total GJ/capita * 0.62 household share of total footprint)/0.62 adult equivalent share of population = 53 household GJ/adult equivalent).'
