Study shows that low carbon energy transition can increase inequality

Recently published research supports previous claims by researchers who argue that renewable energy consumption may be indirectly driving energy poverty. Sandra Handy explains in an article on the Science Times website.  Is this your experience?

 

Shifting to Renewable Energy Can Drive up Energy Poverty, Study Says

In a new study from Portland State University, efforts to shift away from fossil fuels and replace oil and coal with renewable energy sources can help reduce carbon emissions but do so at the expense of increased inequality.

The co-author of the study and assistant professor of sociology in PSU’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Julius McGee, and an assistant professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University, Patrick Greiner, discovered in a study of 175 nations from 1990 that renewable energy consumption reduces carbon emission more effectively when it occurs in a context of increasing inequality. Conversely, it reduces emissions to a lesser degree when occurring in a context of decreasing bias.

The researchers published their findings in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, and they support previous claims by researchers who argue that renewable energy consumption may be indirectly driving energy poverty. Energy poverty happens when a household has no or inadequate access to energy services such as heating, cooling, lighting, and use of appliances due to a combination of factors: low income, increasing utility rates, and inefficient buildings and appliances.

According to McGee, in nations like the United States where fossil fuel energy is substituted for renewable energy as a way to reduce carbon emissions, it comes at the cost of increased inequality. That is because the shift to renewable energy is done through incentives such as tax subsidies. This situation reduces energy costs for homeowners who can afford to install solar panels or energy-efficient appliances, but it also serves to drive up the prices of fossil fuel energy as utility companies seek to replace losses. That means increased utility bills for the rest of the customers, and for many low-income families, increased financial pressure, which creates energy poverty.

McGee further noted that people who are just making ends meet and can barely afford their energy bills would choose between food and their energy. We don’t think of energy as a human right when it is. The things that consume the most energy in your household, heating, cooling, refrigeration, are the things you need.

McGee said that optionally, in poorer nations, renewable sources of electricity have been used to alleviate energy poverty. In rural areas in southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, a solar farm can give agrarian community access to electricity that historically never had access to energy. He said that’s not having any impact on carbon dioxide emissions because those rural communities never used fossil fuels in the first place.

McGee concluded that there is a need to think more holistically about how we address renewable energy. There is a need to focus on addressing concerns around housing and energy poverty before we think about addressing climate change within the confines of consumer sovereignty models.

External link

7 thoughts on “Study shows that low carbon energy transition can increase inequality

  1. The key paragraph, Para4, contains a fundamental fallacy, based on far too historic data . It presumes that fossil fuel electricity is always a cheaper option than renewable electricity. This is simply no longer true.

      • So, I am inclined to ask, knowing this why did you give this eccentric theory greater currency by omitting any such commentary in your introduction to it?

      • You’ll never understand the frenzy putting all of this together on the weekend for EiD. You are right that the introduction should have better reflected this but . . .

      • I genuinely do appreciate what an excellent facility In Demand is.
        But I remain concerned that “maverick” theories like this one can and will be used to damage the sustainable energy cause. So if you are determined to provide them with greater publiclity, then please do use your own introduction to point out the most obvious fallacies in the arguments espoused.

  2. Supplying renewable solar energy to rural areas in sub-Saharan Africa has at least two climate-change benefits. Firstly, most of those communities so far rely on the forest for their livelihood, especially they use firewood as cooking fuel. So, shifting to solar energy implies less deforestation, and therefore more carbon sinks available globally. Secondly, the combustion of firewood also emits dioxide carbon. Though its impact at the global level is marginal, it does contribute to global warming.

  3. Supplying renewable solar energy to rural areas in sub-Saharan Africa has at least two climate-change benefits. Firstly, most of those communities so far rely on the forest for their livelihood, especially they use firewood as cooking fuel. So, shifting to solar energy implies less deforestation, and therefore more carbon sinks available. Secondly, the combustion of firewood also emits dioxide carbon, though its impact at the global level is marginal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.