Household Sharing for Carbon and Energy Reductions: The Case of EU Countries

As households get smaller worldwide, the extent of sharing within households reduces, resulting in rising per capita energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This article examines for the first time the differences in household economies of scale across EU countries as a way to support reductions in energy use and GHG emissions, while considering differences in effects across consumption domains and urban-rural typology. A country-comparative analysis is important to facilitate the formulation of context-specific initiatives and policies for resource sharing. We find that one-person households are most carbon- and energy-intensive per capita with an EU average of 9.2 tCO2eq/cap and 0.14 TJ/cap, and a total contribution of about 17% to the EU’s carbon and energy use. Two-person households contribute about 31% to the EU carbon and energy footprint, while those of five or more members add about 9%. The average carbon and energy footprints of an EU household of five or more is about half that of a one-person average household, amounting to 4.6 tCO2eq/cap and 0.07 TJ/cap. Household economies of scale vary substantially across consumption categories, urban-rural typology and EU countries. Substantial household economies of scale are noted for home energy, real estate services and miscellaneous services such as waste treatment and water supply; yet, some of the weakest household economies of scale occur in high carbon domains such as transport. Furthermore, Northern and Central European states are more likely to report strong household economies of scale—particularly in sparsely populated areas—compared to Southern and Eastern European countries. We discuss ways in which differences in household economies of scale may be linked to social, political and climatic conditions. We also provide policy recommendations for encouraging sharing within and between households as a contribution to climate change mitigation

Identifying and explaining framing strategies of low carbon lifestyle movement organisations

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record.Over the last decade we have seen the growth and development of low carbon lifestyle movement organisations, which seek to encourage members of the public to reduce their personal energy use and carbon emissions. As a first step to assess the transformational potential of such organisations, this paper examines the ways in which they frame their activities. This reveals an important challenge they face: in addressing the broader public, do they promote 'transformative' behaviours or do they limit themselves to encouraging 'easy changes' to maintain their appeal? We find evidence that many organisations within this movement avoid 'transformative' frames. The main reasons for this are organisers' perceptions that transformational frames lack resonance with broader audiences, as well as wider cultural contexts that caution against behavioural intervention. The analysis draws on interviews with key actors in the low carbon lifestyle movement and combines insights from the literatures on collective action framing and lifestyle movements.This research was supported by grant RES-628-25-0059 for the project “Community-based initiatives for energy saving” which is part of the RCUK Energy and Communities Programme and ESRC grant RES-595-28-0001 which funded the project “The Third Sector and the Environment” within the Third Sector Research Centre at the University of Southampton. We would like to thank Rebecca Edwards for collecting interview data on the “third sector” project, as well as our colleagues on the Energy and Communities project for their role in the wider project design, including Patrick James, Tom Rushby and Nicholas Woodman. We are also very grateful to our research participants without whom this research would not have been possible. All remaining weaknesses remain our responsibility

How socially just are taxes on air travel and ‘frequent flyer levies’?

Policies to reduce air travel demand, including in the tourism sector, are urgently required as air travel’s climate impact keeps growing while low-carbon aviation remains a distant perspective. Policy options include flat rate taxes per flight, taxes on flight miles or emissions, or frequent flyer levies, yet little is known about how their distributional impacts compare. This paper examines the distributional effects of various air travel tax options for the UK, informed by an analysis of the distribution of (frequent) flights and associated emissions over income and other social characteristics. We find that ‘frequent flights’ are even more unequally distributed than all flights and that all taxes on air travel are distributionally neutral or progressive. The most progressive option is a ‘frequent air miles tax’ based on both the number of flights and emissions. At the same time, some social groups like recent migrants are relatively likely to be ‘frequent flyers’ even on lower incomes. Overall however, our results show that taxing air travel is far less regressive than taxing home energy or motor fuels. Taxes on air travel, while often portrayed as unfair in public discourses, therefore raise fewer fairness concerns than other types of carbon taxes

Barriers and enablers around radical sharing

Multiple social and ecological crises are currently unfolding, the tackling of which requires a thorough understanding of their interlinkages and root causes. More sharing of essential resources while increasing access to valuable goods and services, especially for the most vulnerable in society, has been proposed as an effective strategy to reduce environmental and social damage. However, a more reflective approach to sharing is needed to make sure that it does not worsen some of the issues that it aims to address. In this Personal View, we outline the principles of radical sharing, which highlight the salience of environmental limits, access to essential goods and services, and non-exploitative relationships. Furthermore, we discuss key enablers and barriers to radical sharing and a more successful integration into sharing practices that prioritise needs satisfaction for all within planetary boundaries. Critical perspectives on the sharing economy need to account for the role of power, politics, capitalism, and citizenship alongside the more widely discussed issues around exploitation, discrimination, and greenwashing

Barriers to adopting wellbeing-economy narratives: comparing the Wellbeing Economy Alliance and Wellbeing Economy Governments

The reliance of current economic systems on economic growth is increasingly being questioned by academics and environmental organizations in the context of the climate emergency and rising social inequalities and conflicts. While political backing for post-growth initiatives has been limited to date, advocacy work by the Wellbeing Economy Alliance (WEAll) aims to shift narratives around the purpose of the economy away from a focus on economic growth. WEAll also facilitated the formation of the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGos). Early research in the field indicates that while WEGos have made some steps toward adopting wellbeing economy narratives, limitations to full adoption remain. What these barriers consist of remains poorly understood by researchers. With the aim to contribute to research on understanding (barriers to) social transformation, this article compares the wellbeing economy narratives that WEAll and WEGos have adopted and then examines reasons for differences between them. We find that disparities in narratives exist: while WEAll promotes the deprioritization of economic growth as a policy objective and criticizes capitalism, WEGos remains more narrowly focused on complementing GDP as a measure of performance with other indicators. The dominance of neoclassical economics training within policymaking institutions, siloed and short-termist approaches to policymaking, and the role of vested interests emerged as the main barriers to the adoption of more radical wellbeing economy narratives among WEGos

Implications of shrinking household sizes for meeting the 1.5 °C climate targets

Understanding social trends such as shrinking household sizes plays an important role for designing effective policies to limit global warming to 1.5 °C and reach net-zero by 2050. Prior, cross-sectional work shows that larger households tend to have lower per capita carbon footprints and energy use due to sharing of living space and resources. However, we lack longitudinal studies that examine whether dwindling household sizes globally increase carbon footprints and create additional pressure for mitigation efforts in the future. We use data from 43 countries between 1995 and 2015, representative of 63% of the population and 80% of the carbon footprint globally in 2015. If household sizes had stayed at their 1995-levels, cumulative emissions between 1995 and 2015 would have been about 11.3 GtCO2eq lower. We project per capita total carbon footprints for 2030, showing that more household sharing could make a contribution to curbing emissions. This contribution, along other sustainable degrowth interventions, can produce substantial emission reductions necessary for achieving 1.5 °C compatible reduction targets for 2030. We further quantify some of the key socio-economic influences behind the household dynamics to discuss policy options for increased inter- and intra-household sharing

Wie viel verdient eine Meeresbiologin?

4560 Euro brutto für die promovierte Meeresbiologin - Julia, 29, war zuletzt auf einer Expedition auf dem Pazifik unterwegs und erzählt, welche Erfahrungen sie dabei gemacht hat

Biomass pretreatment affects Ustilago maydis in producing itaconic acid

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the last years, the biotechnological production of platform chemicals for fuel components has become a major focus of interest. Although ligno-cellulosic material is considered as suitable feedstock, the almost inevitable pretreatment of this recalcitrant material may interfere with the subsequent fermentation steps. In this study, the fungus <it>Ustilago maydis </it>was used to produce itaconic acid as platform chemical for the synthesis of potential biofuels such as 3-methyltetrahydrofuran. No studies, however, have investigated how pretreatment of ligno-cellulosic biomass precisely influences the subsequent fermentation by <it>U. maydis</it>. Thus, this current study aims to first characterize <it>U. maydis </it>in shake flasks and then to evaluate the influence of three exemplary pretreatment methods on the cultivation and itaconic acid production of this fungus. Cellulose enzymatically hydrolysed in seawater and salt-assisted organic-acid catalysed cellulose were investigated as substrates. Lastly, hydrolysed hemicellulose from fractionated beech wood was applied as substrate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p><it>U. maydis </it>was characterized on shake flask level regarding its itaconic acid production on glucose. Nitrogen limitation was shown to be a crucial condition for the production of itaconic acid. For itaconic acid concentrations above 25 g/L, a significant product inhibition was observed. Performing experiments that simulated influences of possible pretreatment methods, <it>U. maydis </it>was only slightly affected by high osmolarities up to 3.5 osmol/L as well as of 0.1 M oxalic acid. The production of itaconic acid was achieved on pretreated cellulose in seawater and on the hydrolysed hemicellulosic fraction of pretreated beech wood.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The fungus <it>U. maydis </it>is a promising producer of itaconic acid, since it grows as single cells (yeast-like) in submerged cultivations and it is extremely robust in high osmotic media and real seawater. Moreover, <it>U. maydis </it>can grow on the hemicellulosic fraction of pretreated beech wood. Thereby, this fungus combines important advantages of yeasts and filamentous fungi. Nevertheless, the biomass pretreatment does indeed affect the subsequent itaconic acid production. Although <it>U. maydis </it>is insusceptible to most possible impurities from pretreatment, high amounts of salts or residues of organic acids can slow microbial growth and decrease the production. Consequently, the pretreatment step needs to fit the prerequisites defined by the actual microorganisms applied for fermentation.</p

A “spatially just” transition? A critical review of regional equity in decarbonisation pathways

Spatial justice is a theoretical framework that is increasingly used to examine questions of equity in the low carbon transition (LCT) from a geographical perspective. We conducted a semi-systematic review to define a ‘spatially just’ low carbon transition, considering how spatial dimensions are explicitly or implicitly presented in assessments of the LCT, and the policy and governance approaches that could embed spatial justice. A sample of 75 academic articles was thematically coded. Spatial justice involves the fair distribution of both benefits and burdens associated with LCTs, and this often creates problems of equity given the geographic gap between regions that ‘win and lose’. The studies point to a research gap in exploring fairness implications that go beyond the employment impacts of transition. Acceptance of the LCT is shown to be contingent on perceptions of justice, particularly whether the most responsible and capable actors are taking action. There is similar concern that the LCT may not address, or may reproduce, existing patterns of injustice. This is particularly the case in terms of spatially inequitable land uses and where historic planning policy has had lasting socioeconomic impacts. Policy challenges to making LCTs more spatially just included administrative fragmentation across spatial scales and the lack of coordination in net zero policy. We identify that future transition policymaking could benefit from using spatially targeted interventions, and in adopting a whole systems approach. In this recognition of the multiple economic vulnerabilities of different regions, LCT policymaking can become both more effective and, critically, more just

Climate Crisis and Social Protection - From Worker Protection to Post-growth Transformation?

The article discusses five literature strands’ approaches towards social protection systems in the context of climate crisis: Adaptive Social Protection, Just Transition, Green New Deal, Post-growth, and Eco-feminism. As we argue, these five strands are located on a spectrum between a green growth orientation and a green anti-capitalist orientation. Furthermore, they differ in terms of their problematisation of the climate crisis and have different perspectives on relevant actors, on world regions, and – most relevant in the context of social welfare – their conceptualisation of social protection. While Adaptive Social Protection emphasizes cash transfers and insurances, Green New Deal and Just Transition approaches focus more on redistribution and labour market policies, and Post-growth and Eco-feminist approaches more on universalist policies and systems. We argue that these literatures each have their weaknesses, but also offer urgent questions, concepts, and insights for further social policy research