Energy Poverty and Climate Change - Elements To Debate

Energy Poverty and Climate Change: Elements to Debate
Oxford Handbooks Online

Energy Poverty and Climate Change: Elements to
Debate
Marcio Giannini Pereira, Neilton Fidelis da Silva, and Marcos A.V. Freitas
Oxford Handbook of Energy and Society
Edited by Debra J. Davidson and Matthias Gross
Print Publication Date: Sep 2018 Subject: Sociology, Economic Sociology

Online Publication Date: Jul 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190633851.013.19
Abstract and Keywords
Energy is essential to human survival. Supplying energy to all citizens is a requirement

for social well-being and for a country’s economic development. The aim of this chapter is
to discuss the differences in the availability of electricity around the world, mainly in
Brazil, China, India, and South Africa, from a perspective of access as a human right. In
this context, the concept of energy poverty and its nexus to climate changes will be
discussed, considering the human dimension and equity. Moreover, this chapter presents
metrics and new metrics (energy/climate changes), emphasizing the need to promote a
program focused on access to electric power and to expand other basic services in
developing countries.
Keywords: energy poverty, climate changes, human dimension, equity, human rights, Brazil, China, India, South
Africa
Introduction
THE production and use of energy correspond to about 70% of the emissions of
greenhouse gases on the planet. As such, planning the expansion of access to electricity
and its use is intrinsically linked to poverty and equity, and also to global climate change.
Research shows that the effects of climate change are becoming more intense and
accelerated, thus global warming could be significantly greater than projected, with more
severe and irreversible consequences. Solomon and associates (2009) state that the
outcomes of global warming will still be felt a thousand years after the hypothetical
stabilization of emissions. They also affirm that the risks of slow processes such as
Page 1 of 28
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 16 July 2018

climate change should not be assumed to be limited, based on a “Promethean” concept

that a technological choice will rapidly stabilize emissions and revert all the damage
within years or decades. This statement is not valid in the context of carbon dioxide
emissions due to the inertia of atmospheric perturbations and ocean warming.
The use of fossil fuels allowed for a great leap of productivity in industry and agriculture
in the contemporary world, through the mechanization and substitution of the workforce.
This led to a reduction of the rural population, the migration of workers to the service
sector, and the growth of commercial and cultural exchanges in an increasingly
globalized society. Indubitably, all these advances allowed for great personal and
collective gains, such as the reduction and replacement of tiring work, an increase in
longevity and life expectancy, improvements in education, higher income, and the
(p. 318) expansion of individual freedoms (democracy). However, these advances did not
come about in an equitable way.
Globally today, 1.3 billion people do not have access to electric power (WEO, 2011).
According to data from the World Energy Outlook (WEO, 2002), if the major trend of
electrification rates stays the same, by 2030 a total of 1.4 billion people will still have no
access to electric power. To universalize access in South Asia and in Sub-Saharan Africa,
the WEO report estimates that more than 40 years and 80 years are needed, respectively.
The lack of access to energy in a society intensifies social asymmetries such as the
permanence/expansion of poverty, lack of opportunities for growth, migratory flow toward
large cities, and a disbelief in society’s future. With electric power, rural communities are
expected to reach a higher level of economic and energy sustainability. Energy is
essential to human survival; supplying energy to all citizens is also a requirement for
social well-being and for a country’s economic development. The traditional view of the
productive use of energy is that it is associated primarily with the provision of motive
power for agricultural and industrial or commercial uses. But access and quality of
energy can also help to reduce poverty in terms of income, and can help to improve
health, universal primary education, women’s empowerment, and gender equality.
If current trends describing access to electric power are maintained, the large social
inequality observed between urban areas and rural areas will escalate. Regular and safe
access to electricity brings about many social and environmental benefits to the
population, especially for communities in rural areas, particularly by improving the
quality of life for residents.
Casillas and Kammen (2010) highlight that the expansion of energy services per se will
not eradicate poverty, but it will immediately affect the daily life of a population. Energy
poverty results in unmet basic needs and depressed economic and educational
opportunities that are particularly pervasive among women, children, and minorities.
Regular and safe electricity access strengthens economic activities in rural areas,
improves the quality of services available to meet internal demands and the demands of
Page 2 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

small businesses through lighting, domestic appliances, more efficient electronic

appliances, and access to information through TV, radio, and cell phones.
Sovacool et al. (2016) state that energy poverty should be interpreted as a violation of
distributive justice; for instance, the state of New York (US), with an estimated population
of 19.5 million, has the same level of electric power consumption as Sub-Saharan Africa,
with a population of 791 million people. The theory of distributive justice affirms that
physical safety is a basic right; thus the conditions that guarantee it should be created
through jobs, access to food, dignified living conditions, and sustainable access to the
environment and its resources. In this context, therefore, people would have the right to a
minimum set of energy services, which would provide them with a minimum standard of
well-being, and one of these services is electric power.
Researchers have explored the notion of thresholds for basic energy needs (Casillas &
Kammen, 2010; Goldemberg et al., 1985; Pereira, Freitas, & Silva, 2011). Energy poverty
results in unmet basic needs and depressed economic and educational opportunities that
are particularly pervasive among women, children, and minorities. However, there
(p. 319) are no international norms for these indicators. Countries often define their own
lifeline energy entitlements. These typically fall in the range of 20–50 kilowatt hours
(kWh) for electricity to households and 6–15 kilograms of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
for cooking per month, and 10–30 kWh of useful energy per square meter of living space
for heating per year. Others institutions such as the United Nations Development
Programme and the World Health Organization (UNDP and WHO, 2009) consider energy
poverty as a metric of physical availability or access to energy carriers (household or
population access).
The traditional use of biomass is estimated to account for 10% of global energy
consumption. Its impacts are not insignificant in terms of emissions of pollutants from
combustion (CCCD, 2009). The International Energy Agency (2016) estimates that 2.7
billion people use firewood and other solid fuels for cooking and kerosene for lighting,
creating an environment contaminated by indoor emissions, which are linked to about 3.5
million deaths per year. This reality is observed particularly in the developing countries of
Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Burning generally takes place in enclosed spaces with little
ventilation, intensifying its harmful effects for human health. According to the
International Energy Agency (2016), indoor emissions may contain up to 100 times more
particulates than the acceptable level, due to poor ventilation and the use of
inappropriate technologies.
Since the 1980s, academic discussions have raised concerns related to the maintenance
of an energy-consumption profile based on fossil fuels and the consequences it entails for
society, one of these concerns is the climate change. The growing attention it has
received is related to the social, economic, and energy consequences of climate change;
thus it is necessary to analyze how it affects ecosystems that are more susceptible to
Page 3 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

extreme weather events and its links to state-of-the-art access to energy on the planet.
Solutions should consider the particular context of each country.
At the meetings of the Conferences of the Parties (COP), participants have expressed
recognition of the need for a significant drop in the global emissions of greenhouse gases
in order to limit the increase of the global temperature to 2°C, and the need for measures
to reach this goal in accordance with science and based on equity. The COP-15, held in
2009, affirmed that signatories should cooperate to reduce global and national emissions
as soon as possible, while acknowledging that the reduction will take longer for
developing countries, and that social and economic development and the eradication of
poverty remain the fundamental and supreme priorities of developing countries.
Sustainable Development: Equity

The most important social outcomes of scientific and technological advances include the
increase in life expectancy and the consequent increase of the world population,
urbanization, and the production of goods and services, with a reduction of work hours,
especially over the last two centuries. Thus, it is possible to state that scientific and
technological development has been successful in terms of increasing average
(p. 320)
life expectancy and work productivity (Longo, 2007).
The majority of global energy resources available in nature is owned by the public
domain, and therefore must be managed according to constitutional principles. Hence,
public managers have a mandate to work toward making its appropriation socially fair,
improving the distribution of the benefits originating from energy resources, as a public
good. Some scholars consider energy access to be a basic human right, such as Campos
(1984, p. 8): “Isn’t there an essential right to energy for the citizen? If energy is such a
powerful and necessary factor with the ability to bring an individual out of poverty and to
provide access to the benefits brought by technology and culture, shouldn’t a right to
energy be created, similar to the right to life, to water, to air?”
The world’s poorest social stratum is found in developing countries, where public
services, such as treated water, health services, education, and electric supply, are
limited. As for energy acquisition and use, a significant part of the world population has
little or no income, thus energy acquisition through purchase is impossible for them. For
this marginalized group, informal access to the network of power supply is the only
alternative.
The development of technologies that transform primary energy resources into secondary
energy makes electricity a highly valuable tool for the socioeconomic development of a
region. Electric power is the basis for many productive activities and services, in addition
to bringing about many improvements in the quality of life, and is linked directly to the
promotion of health, education, and safety. According to Pope Paul VI (apud Campos,
Page 4 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

1984 pg. 65) electric power was included on the list of common goods, defined as “the
sum of those conditions of the social life whereby men, families and associations more
adequately and readily may attain their own perfection.”
The electricity used in the productive process and that consumed by the worker in his or
her household, although physically identical, assume different social roles. In the
production process, it is an auxiliary tool in the making of merchandise, representing a
basic input for any operation that transforms raw material into a finished product. In
residential consumption, it has a different meaning entirely.
Communities and families living in poverty are particularly vulnerable to energy poverty.
They tend to have a more limited capacity to adapt, and they rely to a greater degree on
resources that are climate sensitive, such as local supplies of water and food. In regions
in which extreme climate events become more intense and/or more frequent, the
economic and social costs of these events will rise, becoming substantial in the most
directly affected areas.
The impacts of climate change could create social, economic, and technological barriers
for most developing countries, adding to the current pressures on natural resources and
the environment. Moreover, they are associated with rapid and unplanned urbanization,
industrialization, and economic development. For example, the difficulty of populations in
areas most vulnerable to the effects of climate change will result in waves of migration to
urban centers, which in turn are not prepared for the phenomenon.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the discussion on development entered a new phase with
(p. 321)
Amartya Sen’s contributions from two of his most famous books, On Ethics and
Economics (1987) and Development as Freedom (1999). The author breaks with a
prevailing one-dimensional view of the economy by singling out the ethical and political
dimension of the pressing economic issues of our time, and by questioning the
perspective that the economy should be assessed only with respect to efficiency, for it
also encompasses justice and morality issues. By doing so, he also questions the
conventional concept of development. According to Sen (1999), development should be
interpreted as a process of expanding the real freedoms that the citizens of a country
enjoy, thus requiring first of all the removal of constraints to freedom, such as tyranny
and poverty, the lack of economic opportunities, systematic social deprivation, neglect of
public facilities, and social, political, and economic insecurity.
Hence, the aim of social equity is not limited to the promotion of economic growth. This
concept of economic growth, encompassing social factors including ethics, reveals the
flaws of a productive system that leads to the concentration of wealth and is
characterized by low economic dynamics; in other words, it does not generate wealth and
income redistribution. A system that knows how to produce but not to distribute is not
sufficient.1 The social dimension of development is no longer a complement, a
Page 5 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

humanitarian dimension that has been treated as external to central economic processes.
Rather, it becomes an essential component of social reproduction.
The world recognizes the importance of energy services to reach the UN Millennium
Goals. Energy was singled out in session nine of the Commission for Sustainable
Development (CSD-9) (UNDP, 2003): “To implement the millennium goals, the
international community must reduce to half the number of people living with less than
US$1/day by 2015, with the access to energy services being a pre-requisite. Increasing
access to safe and reliable energy induces the reduction of poverty. . . .”
The Millennium Goals were launched in September 2000, with eight goals measured by
indicators. The main objectives are to reduce poverty, to improve health, and to promote
peace, human rights, and environmental sustainability (UNDP, 2003). Olav Kjorven,
director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2011), proposed an
expansion of the Millennium Goals, including eight new goals that will last until 2030.
Among them, a 50% drop in the emissions of greenhouse gases stands out. The wish to
reassess the current modes of consumption and production lies behind the proposal, and
countries with economies strongly based in “gray” industries will have to seek other
paths of development to reach the established goals, including the eradication of poverty.
Simultaneously, other presented proposals were associated with goals to reduce
consumption and increase production efficiency, aiming at reducing losses and waste.
In pursuit of the Millennium Goals, many advances have been observed, such as a
reduction in the number of people who live in extreme poverty, which went from 1.9
billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015. Nonetheless, there is still a lot to be done to meet
humanity’s basic needs. In this sense, the new goals of the millennium were launched in
2014, with the aim of reinforcing the global effort toward social inclusion, associated with
development and aligned with universal peace and freedom. According to the (p. 322)
United Nations (2015), Goal 1 states: “By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people
everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than US$ 1.25 a day.”
A total of 1.3 billion people worldwide still do not have access to electric power, which is
vital for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and thus for
reduction of global poverty. According to data from the International Energy Agency
(2010), 85% of these people are located in rural areas. Casillas and Kammen (2010)
indicate that the environmental impacts caused by climate change will affect the poorest
populations first and more severely, particularly those who live in rural areas. Poor people
are the most vulnerable and the least resilient to the effects of climate change. Consider,
too, that the majority of the poorest among the poor live in the urban periphery and rural
areas. Expanding access to electricity at affordable prices and improving the quality of
the supply of energy services are essential for human and economic development to adapt
in the face of climate change.
Page 6 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

The progress observed in increasing access to electric power has been slow, especially in
rural areas, due mostly to the high costs associated with the expansion of the electricity
grid and the development of systems of decentralized power supply. Two intrinsic
features of the rural electricity market are important here: in general, consumers are
scattered geographically, and they have a relatively low demand for electric power. These
factors limit the interest of electric utilities in supplying this market, especially when
investment decisions are strictly limited to financial opportunities.
Over the last 20 years, however, access to electricity in rural areas has expanded,
contributing to the social and economic development of populations that previously had
no access to electric power in China and Brazil. Table 17.1 shows the access to electric
power in Brazil, China, India, and South Africa, illustrating the successful efforts that
countries such as China and Brazil have been making to achieve universal access to
electric power. India and South Africa still have significant gaps, with the need to expand
access to about 268 million people.
Page 7 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Table 17.1 Access to Electric Power (Selected Countries)
Country Population with Urban Population Rural Population Rural Population

Access, % of total with Access, % of with Access, % of Without Access
total total
Brazil 99.5 100 97 1,050,000
China 100 100 100
India 78.7 98.2 69.7 261,762,791
South Africa 85.4 96.6 66.9 6,363,163
Source: Elaborated by the author based on United Nations Energy for All (2016).
Page 8 of 28
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 16 July 2018

Even though coming closer to universalization has its merits, issues related to the quality
of energy are generally underestimated, limiting the potential for growth and the social
inclusion of projects aimed at reducing energy poverty. While 1.3 billion people (p. 323)
worldwide live in un-electrified communities, as noted earlier, there are perhaps one
billion more who have poor-quality electricity services, with limited hours of availability,
regular blackouts, under-voltage, and poor frequency stability.
In spite of notable advances over the last decades in electricity access in Brazil, China,
India, and South Africa, development in these countries is still far from levels enjoyed in
developed countries. Table 17.2 shows additional information, such as the Human
Development Index (HDI), life expectancy, population, income concentration (Gini
coefficient), and others. These indicators do not directly capture the gains from access to
electricity. For countries in which the per capita consumption of electric energy is limited,
every increase in energy consumption allows for significant gains in quality of life for the
beneficiary communities (bottom of logistic curve). On the other hand, in countries with
more organized electricity distribution infrastructure in rural areas, which allows a
higher consumption per capita in which consumers already have access to sufficient
energy to meet daily needs, the gain in quality of life is less pronounced (top of logistic
curve). One alternative is to consolidate and improve indicators that can capture the
quality of life gains in these communities, such as the Indicator of Rural Development
developed by Pereira and colleagues (2009), and Centro de Pesquisas de Energia Elétrica
(CEPEL, 2003, 2006, 2007).
Income concentration still exists and is more intense in countries such as South Africa
(0.6338) and Brazil (0.5790). In this case, Stiglitz (2012, p. 60) states that “[i]nequality
has high costs. The price of inequality is the deterioration of economy, which becomes
less stable and efficient, with less growth, and the subversion of democracy. The
significant and increasing gap between the 1 per cent richest and ‘the other 99 per cent’
is not only one of many concerns, but the defining characteristic of a completely ill
society.”
Income inequality leads to unequal access to electric power and other modern energy
sources worldwide. According to Oxfam (2015), in 2015 the wealth of 80 individuals is
now equal to that owned by the bottom 50% of the global population: 3.5 billion people
share between them the same amount of wealth as that of the richest 80 people. It is
indubitably necessary to think about the historical process of wealth formation, which is
associated with the use of fossil fuels. The relevance of this history is not limited to the
issue of equity, as it includes the principle of justice as well.
Climate Change and Energy
Page 9 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

The processes of development are intrinsically related to climate change. Historically,

developed countries are the greatest contributors to the emission of greenhouse gases.
According to Hansen and colleagues (2013), from 1751 to 2012, the United States, the
United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan were responsible for 26%, 5.4%, 6%, and 4%,
respectively, of the historical accumulated emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), while
Central/South America and Africa accounted for 3.9% and 2.6%. (p. 324)
Page 10 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Table 17.2 Snapshot of Selected Countries
Country Rank in Populati Urban Populati Inequalit Gross Life Expected Gini
the HDI on Populati on y- National Expectan Years of Coefficie
(2014) (millions on (% of Living Adjusted Income cy at Schoolin nt
) total) below HDI per Birth g
Income Capita
Poverty PPP2011
Line, $
PPP
$1.25 a
day, %
Brazil 75 202 85.4 3.80 0.557 15,175 74.5 15.2 57.9

(2013)
China 90 1393.8 54.4 6.30 n.a 12,547 75.8 13.1 42.06

(2010)
India 130 1267.4 32.4 23.60 0.435 5,498 68 11.7 33.9

(2009)
South 116 53.1 63.3 9.40 0.428 12,122 57.4 13.6 63.38
Africa (2011)
Note: The closer the Gini coefficient is to 1, the higher is income concentration.
Page 11 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Source: Elaborated by the author based on UNDP (2016) and IndexMundi (2016).
Page 12 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

A large segment of the population has no access to the most basic services.
(p. 325)
Climate negotiations, as well as their agreements, can only be effective if they take into
account the priorities of developing countries, as well as the responsibility for historical
emissions. In this sense, access to modern sources of energy is central to the discussion
of developing countries, whether in the expansion of electric service or in the substitution
of wood for LPG, particularly for use in cooking, among other issues associated with the
energy context.
As the basis of the world power supply is fossil fuels, access to electric power plays a
central role in disputes related to the mitigation of climate change. The supposed conflict
between the expansion of energy services and the mitigation of emissions exists partially
because the main reference point is the model of energy access adopted by developed
countries, with electrification associated with a centralized planning and supply based on
fossil fuels and characterized by low efficiency. If developing countries do indeed make
the same choices made previously by developed countries with respect to development,
based on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the emissions of greenhouse gases will grow
rapidly (Yadoo & Cruickshank, 2012). However, the options available today are quite
different. According to the International Energy Agency (2016), in 2012 renewable
energy accounted for almost 22% of global electricity generation. The generalized
adoption of the fossil-fuel model by developing countries becomes a clear barrier to
climate stabilization (Alstone, Gerhenson & Kammen, 2015). However, not all developing
countries follow this strategy. The electric power supply in Brazil, for instance, is mostly
composed of renewable energy, which accounted for 74.2% of its total in 2014.
Yadoo and Cruickshank (2012) state that the use of renewable energy sources to expand
access to electric power is an example of a potential strategy of synergy between
reducing energy poverty and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in addition to providing
more resilience, considering that access to electric power may improve the ability to
adapt to the impacts of climate change. There are many ways to reach this goal, in which
renewable energy sources can be integrated into the electrical grid in a centralized way,
and the grid can also be expanded to rural areas. Alternatively, off-grid solutions may be
encouraged with local small-scale installations, such as photovoltaic panels, small wind
turbines, gasifiers, and pico/micro/mini hydropower plants, among other strategies.2
Recognizing the differences between developed and developing countries in the context
of energy and climate change is important in establishing goals and responsibilities (the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities). The countries with more
technological and financial capabilities should also have a stronger commitment with
respect to their efforts in climate agreements. Additionally, as for the right to emit
(principle of contraction and convergence3), it is possible to establish different goals
converging to the same deadline (Figure 17.1). These goals categorize countries
according to level of development as industrialized countries (IC), advanced developing
countries (ADC), and least developed countries (LDC).
Page 13 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

A variant of the principle of contraction and convergence refers to common

responsibilities but with a differentiated convergence over time (common but
differentiated convergence). The central idea of the principle is to support equal per
capita emissions in the long term (Figure 17.2).4 (p. 326)
For the proposal of

contraction and
convergence, historical
emissions are more
important. Annex I
countries (the group of
nations referred to under
the Kyoto Protocol) could
reduce their emissions
following the proposal of
Click to view larger
contraction and
Figure 17.1 Contraction and convergence.
convergence, but many of
Source: Adapted from Höhne, Phylipsen, & them would have more
Moltmann (2007).
time for development
before they started
reducing their emissions.
The participation of Non-
Annex I countries is
conditioned on a gradual
reduction of the average
emissions of Annex I
countries to the average
threshold, and there are
Click to view larger still no licenses for
Figure 17.2 Common responsibilities with excessive emissions for
differentiated convergence.
less developed countries.
Source: Adapted from Höhne, Phylipsen & Moltmann
(2007). A relevant step in this
direction was the Paris
Agreement (COP-21) approved by 195 countries part of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the
context of sustainable development. The commitment is aimed at maintaining the
increase of the average global temperature below 2°C in comparison with pre-industrial
levels and aspirations to limit the increase of the temperature to 1.5°C above pre
industrial-levels. At COP-21, (p. 327) governments proposed to define their commitments
based on intended nationally determined contributions (INDC), in which each government
presented its goals according to its social and economic contexts. The role of rapidly
developing countries is particularly critical. China and India have committed to reducing
their “carbon intensity” per GDP, which still represents an emission increase in absolute
terms. Brazil, on the other hand, proposed the absolute goal to reduce its emissions with
Page 14 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

respect to a historical year, not to a path of reference or a decrease of emission intensity.

When compared with other large developing countries, the Brazilian goal restricts
emissions to a fixed level. Figure 17.3 shows the (absolute) historical emissions and
projections according to the INDCs of China, South Africa, Brazil, and India. Despite
Brazil’s intended hard limits, the cumulative global projections indicate a continuous
increase of absolute emissions.
When considering (absolute) historical emissions and projections according to the INDCs
for Japan, the United States, and the European Union (Figure 17.4), climate scenarios
show a continuous reduction over time. However, some considerations about scale and
metrics can be made:
1. Differences in scale among the analyzed countries are considerable and result
from the industrialization process and intensive use of fossil fuels for a long period.
For instance, while in 1990 the United States and the European Union had a
historical basis of accumulated emissions of about 6,000 Metric tons of carbon
dioxide (Mt CO2) equivalent, the value for Brazil and South Africa was 500 Mt CO2
equivalent. Additionally, the countries have different populations, as well as different
levels of technological development and basic services.
2. It is necessary to evaluate metrics beyond absolute measures, considering the
other proposed metrics that are based on intensity (such as per GDP) or that are
relative (such as per capita). It is important to acknowledge the social demands of
each developing country, in a context of limited resources and the need to expand
electric power supply and energy safety, all while ensuring climate justice.
Climate justice is understood as the set of principles that ensure that no group of people
(whether an ethnic, racial, or class group) will be allocated a disproportional share of our
global climate commons for their emissions, and no group will suffer disproportionally the
consequences of those emissions—consequences that may include severe declines in
quality of life, compromises to reproduction, and forced migration. Climate injustices
associated with our climate crisis are caused by situations of inequality that emerge in
many in regions and countries, a result of the pursuit of a development model premised
on continuous production and consumption growth and maximization of profits (FBOMS,
2007).
The size of the economy, population, and level of development are also important factors
for climate justice. It is argued that per capita consumption is the most appropriate
metric for this analysis, although admittedly it does not capture the emissions credited to
a country as a result of exports. (p. 328)
Page 15 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

(p. 329)
(p. 330)

Figure 17.3 Contribution goals for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions (South Africa, Brazil,
China and India) (INDC).
Source: Adaptation based on ClimaTracker, 2016; ©

2016 by Climate Analytics, Ecofys and New Climate
Institute.

Figure 17.4 Contribution goals for the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions (European Union, United
States, Russian Federation and Japan) (INDC).
Source: Adaptation based on ClimaTracker, 2016; ©

2016 by Climate Analytics, Ecofys and New Climate
Institute.
Table 17.3 Benefits and Costs Between Generations and Countries
Past Generations Present Future

Generations Generations
Developing Benefit from emission- Benefit from Suffer from

Countries generating activities emission-generating climate change
that cause climate activities that cause (on a high level)
change (on a low climate change
level)
Page 16 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Industrialised Benefit from emission- Benefit from Suffer from

Countries generating activities emission-generating climate change
that cause climate activities that cause (on a low level)
change (on a high climate change
level)
Source: Elaborated by the author based on Meyer & Roser (2006).
Researchers project an increase of emissions in developing countries in the coming years,

confirmed by the INDCs highlighted in Figures 17.3 and 17.4. Meyer and Roser (2006)
illustrate in an intuitive way the benefits and costs between generations, considering the
level of industrialization of the countries as well. The emission scenarios describe a
narrative that imposes precautionary actions based on their anticipated effects on the
average temperature increase of the planet. In this way, it is recognized that due to
differences between countries, given their stage of development, poorer countries will
suffer more from the consequences of climate change (Table 17.3).
Reduction of Inequalities
A reduction of greenhouse gas emissions may have no bearing on levels of inequality.
Despite reductions in some developed countries in recent years, the productive structure
remained almost unaltered, and technological advances were mostly restricted to
developed countries through investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy
sources, as exporting industries that pollute and require natural resources from
peripheral countries. According to Rawls (1993), the structurally fundamental idea of
justice as fairness is that of society as a fair system of cooperation. Sen (1999) states that
development should be interpreted as a process of expanding the real freedoms that the
citizens of a country enjoy, thus requiring first of all the removal of major impediments to
freedom, such as tyranny and poverty, the lack of economic opportunities, systematic
social deprivation, neglect of public facilities, and social, political, and economic
insecurity.
By contrast, the concept of economic efficiency has been a central theme of economic
theory, constituting a basic criterion used by economists to choose between alternative
allocations of resources within an economic system. In general terms, economic efficiency
means that the economic system is maximizing the use of scarce resources or minimizing
the costs of its activities. The multiple forms of utilitarianism based on (p. 331) market
mechanisms easily led to the idea that the actions of the dominant public and economic
powers have given an effective answer to the promotion of equity based on economic
efficiency (Queirós, 2000). The option to prioritize equity or efficiency is the central issue
of many public discussions, which are divided into two aspects. The first focuses on how
much efficiency should be given up to support equity. The second involves evaluation of
Page 17 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

how society perceives, commits itself, and is prepared to reduce differences. The decision
then is: Should we move toward a greater equality, giving up a certain level of efficiency,
or should efficiency come first?
Plato stated that no one should be four times richer than the poorest member of society.
In this egalitarian view, inequality matters in terms of the gap between the rich and the
poor, which can motivate action, even when the poor obtain no gain. A similar view can
be applied to equity and climate change, without aiming at encouraging an increase of
historically low-emitting countries, but instead at questioning those who have contributed
to global warming historically, especially with the goal of distinguishing luxury emissions
from subsistence emissions.
Discussion and Metrics

Table 17.4 shows the concentration of historical emissions, with 5% of countries
accounting for 67.74% of total emissions, and 50% of the lowest-emitting countries
representing 0.74% of historic emissions. Even if the uncertainties associated with
calculating historical emissions are taken into consideration, this discrepancy among
countries reveals in an objective manner the enormous discrepancies in responsibility;
the inevitable impacts of climate change due to historic emissions are attributable a small
number of countries.
Table 17.4 Accumulated Emissions: CO2 (Excluding Land Use and Forestry)
Total Accumulated Emissions % Number of Countries
5% of countries (top polluters) 67.74 9
50% of countries (lowest polluters) 0.74 92
Source: Author, based on CAIT Climate Data Explorer (2016); © 2016 by Climate
Analytics, Ecofys and New Climate Institute.
According to Atkinson (2015):“The proportion of differences has a profound effect on the

nature of our societies. The fact that some people can buy tickets to travel through space
while others make lines at food banks matters greatly.” The necessity to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions now represents a dominant position in climate policy
discourse. This mitigation discourse, however, implies that responsibility for the
reduction of emissions should be distributed equally regardless of historic emissions: a
proposition (p. 332) contrary to the pursuit of equity. Calculating mitigation responsibility
according to the amount of potentially fair historical emissions (PFHE) per country, on the
other hand, accommodates the needs of every country to meet the basic service needs of
Page 18 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

its society. The definition of a potentially fair historical emission level is a complex and
polemic issue, and its analysis in literature is still in its initial stages.
Seventy-five percent of countries are below the historical average level of emissions. It
would be revealing to assess what would be a PFHE level for these countries, considering
their societal and energy demands, and the fact that the top-emitting countries benefited
from a lower cost of fuels during their development phase. One primary factor allowing
for such low fuel prices was the externalization of environmental impacts of fossil-fuel
production and consumption. Hence, “productivity” and the generation of wealth both
increased. The PFHE concept affirms that opportunities among countries have been
unequal historically, which in turn affects the equity of opportunities today. One means by
which inequity results is from an advantage or sacrifice credited to the current
generation as a result of the benefits or damages generated by previous generations. If
there is a global concern about the future equality of opportunities, it is necessary to
worry about the inequality of results today.
Hayward (2007) states that there is a strong and positive correlation between ecological
space and economic wealth that is more reliable than the correlation between emissions
and wealth, highlighting the extent to which all forms of natural resource exploitation
involve ecological disruption. Wealth is also determined by access to resources,
particularly natural resources. The assumption that there is a determined limit to the
ecological space—here referring to nature’s absorptive capacity5—that can be used by a
given country lies behind the definition of the amount of potentially fair historical
emissions, and it presumes that countries that surpass that limit will acquire an
“ecological debt” with respect to other nations. The consideration is not directed at those
countries that have not yet met their emission “quota,” but at those which have already
surpassed the quota, thereby imposing an ecological debt and its social and
environmental costs onto others. The idea is similar to that of a debt to be paid by present
and future generations of developing countries. Moreover, this debt should have a
discount rate, in which the urgency of short-term and medium-term measures are given
preferential status. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
(2014), the social discount rate is appropriate for mitigation projects financed by the
current reduction of consumption.
It is useful to estimate the amount of PFHE in light of the social and energy needs of
countries. In this context, the average emission level of the top 10% historic CO2 polluters
globally (excluding land-use and land-use change) is 60,099 MtCO2 (Table 17.5). The
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities recognized in the UNFCCC
acknowledges differences in historical emissions and consequent mitigation
responsibilities. The theme of intergenerational justice associated with climate change is
discussed by Meyer (2013), who concludes that developing countries should have more
per capita emission rights than developed countries. In addition, he argues that
developed countries should pay for the adaptation costs of the most vulnerable countries
as historical compensation, based on the idea of distributive justice. (p. 333)
Page 19 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Table 17.5 Accumulated Emissions from Top Polluters: CO2 (Excluding Land Use)
Country MtCO2
United States 366,421
China 150,109
Russian Federation 102,709
Germany 84,864
United Kingdom 70,473
Japan 51,005
India 37,976
France 34,457
Canada 28,317
World(total) 1,367,338
Average of top 5% CO2 polluters 102,926
Average of top 10% CO2 polluters 60,099
Source: Elaborated by the author based on CAIT Climate Data Explorer (2016); ©
2016 by Climate Analytics, Ecofys and New Climate Institute.
Table 17.6 Cumulative Debt of Historical CO2 Emissions per Country until 2012
(Excluding Land Use)
Country Debt (MtCO2)
United States (306,322)
China (90,010)
Russian Federation (42,610)
Page 20 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Germany (24,765)
United Kingdom (10,374)
Source: Elaborated by the author based on CAIT Climate Data Explorer (2016); ©
2016 by Climate Analytics, Ecofys and New Climate Institute.
Five countries can be seen to have an ecological debt: United States, China, the Russian
Federation, Germany, and the United Kingdom, while remaining countries have a credit
(Table 17.6). Hypothetically, the debt could be converted into financial resources,
considering not only carbon’s market value, but also its value for the survival of peoples
and ecosystems, with a remuneration for an annual premium rate over the (p. 334) stock
of debt. The level of 60,099 MtCO2 was determined as the amount of PFHE based on
statistical analyses of the distribution of cumulative historical emissions per country.
Countries above this value have a debt to other countries (Figure 17.5).
Ecological space refers to

the combined available
resources, considering
that the availability of
these resources is limited.
Ecological space is
relevant to ethics not in
Click to view larger virtue of being an
Figure 17.5 Accumulated emissions and potentially evaluative term or
fair historical emissions (PFHE) limit.
referring directly to any
Source: Elaborated by the author based on CAIT
determinate object of
Climate Data Explorer (2016); © 2016 by Climate
Analytics, Ecofys and New Climate Institute. evaluation. It is primarily a
descriptive term. Use of
the concept allows capturing, particularly well, something morally important about the
way humans’ moral relations with one another are mediated through multifarious natural
relations (Hayward, 2007).
Even within the top polluting countries, internal differences such as population size,
physical space (territory), access to natural resources, and level of technological and
social development also translate into inequalities in access to ecological space. The
acknowledgment of the debt to the ecological space is a great advance toward reducing
historical inequalities in opportunities among countries, but it does not solve the issue of
the limited stock of physical space (i.e., there is a physical limit for the amount of
greenhouse gases that can be emitted into the atmosphere). Historical emissions and the
future emissions projected for countries are two sides of the same coin. And if the
discussions are based on only one of these sides, outcomes will be inequitable.
Page 21 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Final Considerations
This chapter has two goals. The first is to reaffirm that the production, distribution, and
use of energy, in terms of economic and social benefits, is highly unequal. While many in
the Western world enjoy high rates of energy consumtion, currently 1.3 billion (p. 335)
people have no access to electric power. This number per se reveals the flaw of the
hegemonic economic model, and thus how expansion of the supply of electric power
services alone does not eradicate energy poverty. The second goal is to provide metrics
for climate change discussions from the perspective of climate justice, in regard to
developing countries. Regardless of technological advances, if a considerable part of the
world population does not have access to the most basic rights, proclaiming victory rings
false. A recurring strategy is to deny the problem or apply a reductionist approach to it,
characterized in the words of politics as “poverty relief.” It is a reduction to the absurd
(reductio ad absurdum). In the words of Marx (1984 [1852]): “Men make their own
history, but they do not make it as they please; under self-selected circumstances, but
under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”
Countries such as Brazil and China achieved significant results over the last few decades,
getting closer to the universalization of access to electric power, while 268 million people
still go without in just two countries—India and South Africa—combined. Even though
achieving universalization has its merits, issues related to the quality of energy in general
are underestimated, which limits the potential for growth and social inclusion of projects
aimed at reducing energy poverty.
The concentration of historical emissions is noticeable, with 5% of countries accounting

for 67.74% of the global total. It is also notable that 50% of countries with the lowest
emissions represent 0.74% of global historic emissions. Even if the uncertainties of the
calculations of historical emissions are taken into consideration, this discrepancy among
countries highlights the issue of responsibility, showing that while the effects of climate
change may be global, those responsible represent a small minority of countries.
The amount of PFHE accounts for the social and energy needs of countries. Even though
it is in preliminary stages of conceptual development, the premise is entirely valid,
acknowledging that the top 10% of emitters are responsible for 60,099 MtCO2 of
historical emissions.
The acknowledgment of the debt in the form of ecological space is a great advance
toward reducing the historical inequalities of opportunities among countries, but it does
not solve the issue of the limited stock of physical space (i.e., the physical limit to the
amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted into the atmosphere). Historical
emissions and the future emissions projected for countries are two sides of the same coin.
And if the discussions are based on only one of these sides, a global and effective solution
will not be attained.
Page 22 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

According to Pereira and colleagues (2010), public policies designed to reduce poverty
and inequality necessarily permeate education and health matters. Both are directly
related to the availability of electricity, mainly insofar as the rural environment is
concerned. Electricity is one of the pillars on which education and health lean. As such,
the universalization of access to electric energy globally is of fundamental importance for
the eradication of poverty and the reduction of social inequality.
The concept of access to energy as a public good to which everyone has a right needs to
be adopted urgently and without restrictions. The suppliers’ aim of maximizing profit
should not be put before collective values based on the maximization of well-being.
(p. 336) Without energy, there is no development and no democracy. Hence, energy
should be interpreted as a right and as a fundamental element in the edification of a new

humanism that guarantees a dignified life for all human beings.
References
Alstone, P., Gershenson, D., & Kammen, D.M. (2015). Decentralized energy systems for
clean electricity access. Nature Climate Change, 5: 305–314.
Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Desigualdade: O que pode ser feito? São Paulo: Editora Leya.
Campos, J. H. (1984). Eletrificação rural: Economia e tecnologia. Texto apresentado no

curso de eletrificação rural ministrado pela Energética—Energia, ecologia e informática
(mimeo) (p. 36). Rio de Janeiro.
Casillas, C. E., & Kammen, D. M. (2010). The energy-poverty-climate nexus. Science, 330:
1181–1182.
Centro de Pesquisas de Energia Elétrica (CEPEL). (2003). Desenvolvimento e Análise do

Indicador de Desenvolvimento Rural (IDR—Qualitativo) para apoio aos estudos de
impactos sócio-econômicos do programa de eletrificação rural “Luz no Campo”: Fase Ex-
Ante—Brasil. Relatório Técnico CEPEL no. 37.845, Projeto 1437.
Centro de Pesquisas de Energia Elétrica (CEPEL). (2006). Indicador de

(p. 337)
Desenvolvimento Rural (IDR): Metodologia e resultados. Relatório Técnico CEPEL no.

14.601, Projeto 1437.
Centro de Pesquisas de Energia Elétrica (CEPEL). (2007). Sistema de Impactos Rurais

(IMPAR). Versão 2.3, Rio de Janeiro, No. 1, CD-ROM.
ClimaTracker. (2016). Climate Action Tracker. Retrieved from http://

climateactiontracker.org/countries/brazil.html.
Commission on Climate Change and Development (CCCD). (2009, May). Energy access,
climate and development. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI).
Page 23 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Fórum Brasileiro de Organizações Não Governamentais e Movimentos Sociais para o

Meio Ambiente e o Desenvolvimento (FBOMS). (2007). Mudanças Climáticas e o Brasil:
Contribuições e diretrizes para incorporar questões de mudanças de clima em políticas
públicas. Brasília: FBOMS.
IndexMundi. (2016). Data: Income distribution. Retrieved from http://

www.indexmundi.com/facts/south-africa#Poverty-Income distribution
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2014). Technical summary—Climate

Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer,
O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S.
Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel & J. C. Minx (Eds.)]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2010). Energy poverty: How to make modern energy
access universal? Special Early Excerpt of the World Energy Outlook 2010 for the UN
General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals. Paris: International Energy
Agency.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2016). World energy outlook special report 2016:
Energy and air pollution. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Goldemberg, J., Johansson, T. B., Reddy, A. K. N., & Williams, R. H. (1985). Basic needs
and much more with one kilowatt per capita. Ambio, 14(4–5), 190–200.
Hansen, J., Kharecha, P., Sato, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Ackerman, F., Beerling, D. J., . . .
Zachos, J. C. (2013). Assessing “dangerous climate change”: Required reduction of carbon
emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature. PLoS ONE, 8(12):
e81648.
Hayward, T. (2007). Human rights versus emissions rights: Climate justice and the
equitable distribution of ecological space. Center for Global Ethics, George Mason
University, Virginia. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/
academia.edu.documents/31542026/eia_117.pdf?
AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA&Expires=1474396858&Signature=tzl10mNsf
content-
disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DHuman_Rights_Versus_Emissions_Rights_Cli.pdf
Höhne, N., Phylipsen, D., & Moltmann, S. (2007, May). Factors underpinning future action
2007 update. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom.
Longo, W. P. (2007). Alguns impactos sociais do desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico.

Revista de Ciência da Informação, 8(1): 1–31.
Page 24 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Marx, K. (1984 [1852]). O 18 de Brumário de Louis Bonaparte (2nd ed.). Avante.

Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/portugues/marx/1852/brumario/
cap01.htm# per cent28N8 per cent29
Meyer, L. H. (2013). Why historical emissions should count (draft). Chicago Journal of
International Law, 13(2), Article 15. Retrieved from http://
chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=cjil
Meyer, L. H., & Roser, D. (2006, December). Distributive justice and climate
(p. 338)
change: The allocation of emission rights. Analyse und Kritik, 28, 223–249.
Oxfam. (2015, January). Wealth: Having it all and wanting more. Oxfam Issue Briefing.
Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/doc/252395424/Wealth-Having-it-all-and-
wanting more?
secret_password=Yb8jp7fmNtWbPScAlyVc#fullscreen&from_embed
Pereira, M. G., Camacho, C. F., Paz, L. R. L., & Rodrigues, A. F. (2009). Indicator of Rural
Development (IRD): An instrument for monitoring and evaluation of socio-energy results
on public policies for rural electrification in Brazil. Proceedings of SEEP 2009, August 12–
15, Dublin, Ireland.
Pereira, M. G., Freitas, M. A. V., & Silva, N. F. (2010). Rural electrification and energy
poverty: Empirical evidences from Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
14(4), 1229–1240.
Pereira, M. G., Freitas, M. A. V., & Silva, N. F. (2011). The challenge of energy poverty:
Brazilian case study. Energy Policy, 39, 167–175.
Queirós, M. (2000). Utilitarismo ou Equidade? Dilemas para o ambiente e ordenamento.

Finisterra, XXXV, 103–114.
Rawls, J. (1993). Uma teoria da justiça. Lisboa: Editorial Presença.
Sen, A. K. (1987). On ethics and economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R., & Friedlingstein, P. (2009). Irreversible climate
change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 106(6), 1704–1709.
Sovacool, B., Heffron, R., McCauley, D., & Goldthau, A. (2016). Energy decisions reframed
as justice and ethical concerns. Nature Energy, 1: 16024. Retrieved from https://
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cb91/edc8420fd56a0d058bece081af3344ac62af.pdf
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). O preço da desigualdade. Lisboa, Portugal: Bertand Editora.
Page 25 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

United Nations. (2015). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September

2015 – transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development pg. 15.
Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/
70/1&Lang=E
United Nations. (2016). United Nations Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All). SE4All
database. Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2003). Millennium Development

Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty. Human Development Report,
UNDP. New York: EUA.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2006). Beyond scarcity: Power,

poverty and global water crisis. Human Development Report. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2011). Millennium Development Goal

8, The global partnership for development: Time to deliver. MDG Gap Task Force Report
2011. New York: United Nations.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2016). Trends in the Human

Development Index, 1990–2014. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/trends
United Nations Development Programme and World Health Organization (UNDP &
WHO). (2009). The energy access situation in developing countries: A review focusing on
the least developed countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. New York: United Nations.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2007). United

Framework Convention on Climate Change—Additional proposals from Parties—
UNFCCC, (p. 339) elements of a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change, presented by Brazil in response to the Berlin Mandate. Retrieved
from http://unfccc.int/cop5/resource/docs/1997/agbm/misc01a3.htm
World Energy Outlook (WEO). (2002). World energy outlook. Retrieved from http://
www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/weo2011_energy_for_all.pdf
World Energy Outlook (WEO). (2011, October). Energy for all: Financing access for the
poor. Oslo: World Energy Outlook.
World Resources Institute. (2016). CAIT climate data explorer,. Retrieved from http://
cait.wri.org/
Yadoo, A., & Cruickshank, H. (2012). The role for low carbon electrification technologies
in poverty reduction and climate change strategies: A focus on renewable energy mini-
grids with case studies in Nepal, Peru and Kenya. Energy Policy, 42, 591–602. (p. 340)
Page 26 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Notes:
(1.) According to the Human Development Report (UNDP, 2006), about four hundred
people have a personal wealth equal to half of the poorest population of mankind. This
income concentration is undignified and brings humanity closer to the time when slavery
was economically justified.
(2.) It is necessary to promote studies on future scenarios that reveal which are the
impacts of climate change on the potential of renewable energy sources. These potentials
may have a regional behavior of intense modifications over time, making it possible or
impossible to use a specific source and/or technology.
(3.) Under contraction and convergence, all countries participate in a global emission
reduction with quantified emission targets. As a first step, all countries agree on a path of
future global emissions that leads to an agreed long-term stabilization level for
greenhouse gas concentrations (“contraction”). As a second step, the targets for
individual countries are set in such a way that per capita emissions converge from the
countries’ current levels to a level equal for all countries within a given period
(“convergence”).
(4.) Conceptually, the Brazilian Proposal was built on the “common but differentiated
responsibilities” and “polluter pays” principles. These are important principles enshrined
in the 1992 UNFCCC. Although these principles are widely accepted, the Brazilian
Proposal is not without controversy. The Brazilian Proposal addressed two key issues that
pre-Kyoto negotiations were attempting to address (UNFCCC, 1997). First, it addressed
the issue of “the future level of emissions to be tolerated from the Annex I Parties” (i.e.,
the “cap”). Second, the Proposal suggested a “criterion for the sharing of the burden”
among industrialized countries (i.e., by historical responsibility for temperature increase).
(5.) This value is not absolute, which creates space for new discussions and metrics to
improve this debate.
Marcio Giannini Pereira
Marcio Giannini Pereira, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Neilton Fidelis da Silva
Neilton Fidelis da Silva, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Marcos A.V. Freitas
Marcos A. V. Freitas, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Page 27 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Page 28 of 28
date: 16 July 2018

Energy Poverty and Climate Change - Elements To Debate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Poverty and Climate Change - Elements To Debate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Poverty and Climate Change: Elements to Debate

Oxford Handbooks Online

Print Publication Date: Sep 2018 Subject: Sociology, Economic Sociology

Abstract and Keywords

Energy is essential to human survival. Supplying energy to all citizens is a requirement

date: 16 July 2018

climate change should not be assumed to be limited, based on a “Promethean” concept

come about in an equitable way.

date: 16 July 2018

small businesses through lighting, domestic appliances, more efficient electronic

date: 16 July 2018

Sustainable Development: Equity

life expectancy and work productivity (Longo, 2007).

date: 16 July 2018

date: 16 July 2018

date: 16 July 2018

date: 16 July 2018

Table 17.1 Access to Electric Power (Selected Countries)

Country Population with Urban Population Rural Population Rural Population

Brazil 99.5 100 97 1,050,000

China 100 100 100

India 78.7 98.2 69.7 261,762,791

South Africa 85.4 96.6 66.9 6,363,163

date: 16 July 2018

Climate Change and Energy

date: 16 July 2018

The processes of development are intrinsically related to climate change. Historically,

date: 16 July 2018

Table 17.2 Snapshot of Selected Countries

Brazil 75 202 85.4 3.80 0.557 15,175 74.5 15.2 57.9

China 90 1393.8 54.4 6.30 n.a 12,547 75.8 13.1 42.06

India 130 1267.4 32.4 23.60 0.435 5,498 68 11.7 33.9

date: 16 July 2018

date: 16 July 2018

date: 16 July 2018

A variant of the principle of contraction and convergence refers to common

For the proposal of

date: 16 July 2018

respect to a historical year, not to a path of reference or a decrease of emission intensity.

date: 16 July 2018

Click to view larger

Source: Adaptation based on ClimaTracker, 2016; ©

Click to view larger

Source: Adaptation based on ClimaTracker, 2016; ©

Table 17.3 Benefits and Costs Between Generations and Countries

Past Generations Present Future

Developing Benefit from emission- Benefit from Suffer from

date: 16 July 2018

Industrialised Benefit from emission- Benefit from Suffer from

Source: Elaborated by the author based on Meyer & Roser (2006).

Researchers project an increase of emissions in developing countries in the coming years,

date: 16 July 2018

Discussion and Metrics

Total Accumulated Emissions % Number of Countries

5% of countries (top polluters) 67.74 9

50% of countries (lowest polluters) 0.74 92

According to Atkinson (2015):“The proportion of differences has a profound effect on the

date: 16 July 2018

date: 16 July 2018

United States 366,421

Russian Federation 102,709

United Kingdom 70,473

Average of top 5% CO2 polluters 102,926