Emissions savings from equitable energy demand reduction
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Energy demand reduction (EDR) will be required to reach climate targets in the Global North. To be compatible with just transitions principles, EDR needs to be equitable. Equitable EDR may involve targeting high energy users while ensuring the satisfaction of needs for all, which could require increasing consumption of low users. Emissions impacts of equitable EDR approaches have not yet been assessed. This Article finds that capping energy use of the top quintile of consumers across 27 European countries can achieve considerable greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 11.4% from domestic energy, 16.8% from transport and 9.7% from total energy consumption. Increasing consumption of low energy users in poverty reduces these savings by only 1.2, 0.9 and 1.4 percentage points, respectively. Additional high annual emissions cuts of 7.3–24.0% would be required for Europe to meet globally equitable 2050 emissions budgets. Equitable EDR could make an important contribution to increasing public acceptance of such transformative action.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies · Energy and Environment Impacts · Climate Change Policy and Economics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (72)
Show source-provided references
1. Creutzig, F. et al. Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 36–46 (2021).10.1038/s41558-021-01219-y ↗
2. Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy 3, 515–527 (2018).10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6 ↗
3. Barrett, J. et al. Energy demand reduction options for meeting national zero-emission targets in the United Kingdom. Nat. Energy 7, 726–735 (2022).10.1038/s41560-022-01057-y ↗
4. IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P.R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
5. Schlosberg, D. & Collins, L. B. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5, 359–374 (2014).10.1002/wcc.275 ↗
6. McCauley, D. et al. Energy justice in the transition to low carbon energy systems: exploring key themes in interdisciplinary research. Appl. Energy 233-234, 916–921 (2019).10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.005 ↗
7. Jenkins, K. et al. Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Social Sci. 11, 174–182 (2016).10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004 ↗
8. Robiou du Pont, Y. et al. Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 38–43 (2017).10.1038/nclimate3186 ↗
9. Baer, P. et al. Greenhouse Development Rights: towards an equitable framework for global climate policy. Cambridge Rev. Int. Aff. 21, 649–669 (2008).10.1080/09557570802453050 ↗
10. Meyer, L. H. & Roser, D. Climate justice and historical emissions. Crit. Rev. Int. Social Polit. Philos. 13, 229–253 (2010).10.1080/13698230903326349 ↗
11. van den Berg, N. J. et al. Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets and emission pathways. Climatic Change 162, 1805–1822 (2020).10.1007/s10584-019-02368-y ↗
12. Okereke, C. Climate justice and the international regime. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1, 462–474 (2010).10.1002/wcc.52 ↗
13. Hickel, J. Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary. Lancet Planet. Health 4, e399–e404 (2020).10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0 ↗
14. Dobbins, A. et al. Strengthening the EU response to energy poverty. Nat. Energy 4, 2–5 (2019).10.1038/s41560-018-0316-8 ↗
15. Löfquist, L. Is there a universal human right to electricity? Int. J. Hum. Rights 24, 711–723 (2020).10.1080/13642987.2019.1671355 ↗
16. Gough, I. Universal basic services: a theoretical and moral framework. Political Q. 90, 534–542 (2019).10.1111/1467-923X.12706 ↗
17. Fuchs, D. et al. Consumption Corridors (Routledge, 2021).10.4324/9780367748746 ↗
18. Di Giulio, A. & Fuchs, D. Sustainable consumption corridors: concept, objections, and responses. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 23, 184–192 (2014).
19. Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-century Economist (Random House Business Books, 2017).
20. O’Neill, D. W. et al. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 1, 88–95 (2018).10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4 ↗
21. Fanning, A. L. et al. The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations. Nat. Sustain. 5, 26–36 (2021).10.1038/s41893-021-00799-z ↗
22. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 11 (2015).10.1126/science.1259855 ↗
23. Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).10.1038/461472a ↗
24. Doyal, L. & Gough, I. A Theory of Human Need (Palgrave Macmillan, 1991).10.1007/978-1-349-21500-3 ↗
25. Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A. & Hopenhayn, M. Human Scale Development. Conception, Application and Further Reflections (The Apex Press, 1991).
26. Rao, N. D. & Min, J. Decent living standards: material prerequisites for human wellbeing. Social Indic. Res. 138, 225–244 (2017).
27. Defila, R. & Di Giulio, A. The concept of ‘consumption corridors’ meets society: how an idea for fundamental changes in consumption is received. J. Consum. Policy 43, 315–344 (2020).10.1007/s10603-019-09437-w ↗
28. Hickel, J. & Slamersak, A. Existing climate mitigation scenarios perpetuate colonial inequalities. Lancet Planet. Health 6, e628–e631 (2022).10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00092-4 ↗
29. Bouzarovski, S., Thomson, H. & Cornelis, M. Confronting energy poverty in Europe: a research and policy agenda. Energies 14, 858 (2021).10.3390/en14040858 ↗
30. Sovacool, B. K. et al. Policy prescriptions to address energy and transport poverty in the United Kingdom. Nat. Energy 8, 273–283 (2023).10.1038/s41560-023-01196-w ↗
31. Fanning, A. L., O’Neill, D. W. & Büchs, M. Provisioning systems for a good life within planetary boundaries. Glob. Environ. Change 64, 102–135 (2020).10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102135 ↗
32. Millward-Hopkins, J. et al. Providing decent living with minimum energy: a global scenario. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102168 (2020).10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168 ↗
33. Lamb, W. F. & Rao, N. D. Human development in a climate-constrained world: what the past says about the future. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 14–22 (2015).10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.010 ↗
34. Rao, N. D., Min, J. & Mastrucci, A. Energy requirements for decent living in India, Brazil and South Africa. Nat. Energy 4, 1025–1032 (2019).10.1038/s41560-019-0497-9 ↗
35. Steinberger, J. K. & Roberts, J. T. From constraint to sufficiency: the decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecol. Econ. 70, 425–433 (2010).10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.014 ↗
36. Chakravarty, S. & Tavoni, M. Energy poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation: is there a trade off? Energy Econ. 40, S67–S73 (2013).10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.022 ↗
37. AuJenkins, S. P. & Van Kerm, P. in The Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality (eds Salverda, W. et al.) 40–68 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).
38. Haughton, J. Handbook on Poverty and Inequality (World Bank, 2009).
39. Stadler, K. et al. EXIOBASE 3: developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi-regional input–output tables. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 502–515 (2018).10.1111/jiec.12715 ↗
40. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source Sector (Source: EEA), Online Data Code: ENV_AIR_GGE (Eurostat, accessed 25 Feb 2023); https://bit.ly/3m54cCp
41. Williams, R. Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Stata J. 12, 308–331 (2012).10.1177/1536867X1201200209 ↗
42. Büchs, M. & Schnepf, S. V. Who emits most? Associations between socio-economic factors and UK households’ home energy, transport, indirect and total CO2 emissions. Ecol. Econ. 90, 114–123 (2013).10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.03.007 ↗
43. Lévay, P. Z. et al. The association between the carbon footprint and the socio-economic characteristics of Belgian households. Ecol. Econ. 186, 107065 (2021).10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107065 ↗
44. Ivanova, D. & Wood, R. The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to sustainability. Glob. Sustain. 3, e18 (2020).10.1017/sus.2020.12 ↗
45. Persson, M. From opinions to policies: examining the links between citizens, representatives, and policy change. Electoral Stud. 74, 102413 (2021).10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102413 ↗
46. Chambers, S. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6, 307–326 (2003).10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538 ↗
47. Daly, H. & Farley, J. Ecological Economics. Principles and Applications 2nd edn (Island Press, 2011).
48. Kyprianou, I. et al. Energy poverty policies and measures in 5 EU countries: a comparative study. Energy Build. 196, 46–60 (2019).10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.003 ↗
49. Büchs, M., Ivanova, D. & Schnepf, S. V. Fairness, effectiveness and needs satisfaction: new options for designing climate policies. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 124026 (2021).10.1088/1748-9326/ac2cb1 ↗
50. Finn, O. & Brockway, P. E. Much broader than health: surveying the diverse co-benefits of energy demand reduction in Europe. Energy Res. Social Sci. 95, 102890 (2023).10.1016/j.erss.2022.102890 ↗
51. Oswald, Y., Owen, A. & Steinberger, J. K. Large inequality in international and intranational energy footprints between income groups and across consumption categories. Nat. Energy 5, 231–239 (2020).10.1038/s41560-020-0579-8 ↗
52. Gough, I. Defining floors and ceilings: the contribution of human needs theory. Sustainability: Sci. Pract. Policy 16, 208–219 (2020).
53. Key World Energy Statistics (International Energy Agency, 2021); https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2021
54. Rockström, J. et al. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355, 1269–1271 (2017).10.1126/science.aah3443 ↗
55. Rogelj, J. et al. Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 413–418 (2011).10.1038/nclimate1258 ↗
56. Global Energy Review 2019 (International Energy Agency, 2020); https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/dc48c054-9c96-4783-9ef7-462368d24397/Global_Energy_Review_2019.pdf
57. Haas, R. et al. Towards sustainability of energy systems: a primer on how to apply the concept of energy services to identify necessary trends and policies. Energy Policy 36, 4012–4021 (2008).10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.028 ↗
58. Jaccard, I. S. et al. The energy and carbon inequality corridor for a 1.5 °C compatible and just Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 064082 (2021).10.1088/1748-9326/abfb2f ↗
59. Karstensen, J., Peters, G. P. & Andrew, R. M. Trends of the EU’s territorial and consumption-based emissions from 1990 to 2016. Climatic Change 151, 131–142 (2018).10.1007/s10584-018-2296-x ↗
60. IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
61. Cass, N. & Mullen, C. High energy consumers, the excess project: qualitative data, 2018–2023. UK Data Service https://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-855789 (2023).10.5255/UKDA-SN-855789 ↗
62. Cass, N. Participatory-Deliberative Engagement: A Literature Review. Working Paper 49 (University of Lancaster, 2006).
63. Duvic-Paoli, L. A. Re-imagining the making of climate law and policy in citizens’ assemblies. Transnatl Environ. Law 11, 235–261 (2022).10.1017/S2047102521000339 ↗
64. Cattino, M. & Reckien, D. Does public participation lead to more ambitious and transformative local climate change planning? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 52, 100–110 (2021).10.1016/j.cosust.2021.08.004 ↗
65. Kakwani, N. et al. The Lorenz Curve and Its Variants. In Economic Inequality and Poverty: Facts, Methods, and Policies (eds Kakwani, N. & Son, H. H.) (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022).10.1093/oso/9780198852841.001.0001 ↗
66. Curbing Excess: High Energy Consumption and the Fair Energy Transition (Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions, 2022).
67. Getting the Measure of Fuel Poverty. Final Report of the Fuel Poverty Review. CASE report 72 (DECC & London School of Economics, 2012).
68. Mattioli, G., Lucas, K. & Marsden, G. Transport poverty and fuel poverty in the UK: from analogy to comparison. Transp. Policy 59, 93–105 (2017).10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.07.007 ↗
69. Flick, U. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (Sage Publications, 2014).10.4135/9781446282243 ↗
70. Bardsley, N., Büchs, M. & Schnepf, S. V. Something from nothing: estimating consumption rates using propensity scores, with application to emissions reduction policies. PLoS ONE 12, e0185538 (2017).10.1371/journal.pone.0185538 ↗
71. Girod, B. & De Haan, P. More or better? A model for changes in household greenhouse gas emissions due to higher income. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 31–49 (2010).10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00202.x ↗
72. Deeming, C. The lost and the new ‘liberal world’ of welfare capitalism: a critical assessment of Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism a quarter century later. Social Policy Soc. 16, 405–422 (2017).10.1017/S1474746415000676 ↗