Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1905–1911

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Tel.: +411-6

E-mail addre

0301-4215/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.enp

Viewpoint

Distribution of energy consumption and the 2000W/capita target

Daniel Spreng*

Centre for Energy Policy and Economics, Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology, ETH Zentrum WEC C, Zurich CH-8092, Switzerland

Available online 24 June 2004

Abstract

This viewpoint discusses the intra- and international distribution of energy consumption and their implications for

intergenerational equity. For global development to be sustainable, the inequality of energy consumption must have an upper

limit. A graphic depiction of energy consumption distributions (intra- and international) shows that today’s inequalities are large

and it is argued that we may have already reached or perhaps even surpassed the sustainability limit of energy consumption

inequality.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Energy consumption; Inequality; Equity; Sustainable development

1. Introduction

In discussions on the sustainability of energy systemsmuch weight is placed on the supply side of the energysystem (e.g. Schenler et al. (2002) and other contribu-tions in the same special issue of The InternationalJournal of Sustainable Development). However, thesupply side view often reduces sustainability to ecolo-gical concerns and a sustainable energy system isequated with an environmentally friendly energy supplysystem. In emphasising energy demand we attempt to bebroader than that.All definitions of sustainability have two elements in

common: (1) the simultaneous consideration of ecolo-gical, economic and social aspects and (2) the con-sideration of the next generations. Open to debate iswhat we mean by ‘‘consideration’’. Should ecological,economic and social aspects be treated with equalweight, if so, how can this be achieved? Analogously,what weight should the consideration of the nextgeneration assume and how should well-being andopportunities of our generation be compared withwell-being and opportunities of future generations?In what follows, I will discuss how the undisputed

aspects of sustainability could be applied to energyconsumption. I argue that ecology dictates an upper

32-4189; fax: +411-632-1050.

ss: spreng@cepe.mavt.ethz.ch (D. Spreng).

front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ol.2004.03.023

limit to energy consumption, economic development alower limit and social considerations a limit to thespread of energy consumption per capita within society.I, therefore, propose the concept of a window for thesustainable development of the per capita energyconsumption.In the analysis of whether a particular development is

sustainable or not we are bound to accept today’s energyconsumption as a starting point and ask whether thenext generation’s situation might be tolerable or not. Aswe can make direct decisions only for our owngeneration, it does not make much sense to look intothe future beyond the next generation. Therefore, I willdiscuss the energy consumption of the next generation,let us say of the year 2050 and call a developmentsustainable that aims at a situation in 2050 that is notobviously unsustainable.

2. Upper limit for the sustainable per capita energy

consumption

Energy consumption per se does not have a relevantupper limit. Except for the situation in particular cities,waste heat is many orders of magnitudes below levelsthat affects the environment in a significant way.However, today’s energy consumption impacts theenvironment in many serious, unsustainable ways.Energy supply and consumption leads to a large fraction

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1Following Goldemberg, we use the unit of power (energy per unit

time) in W (=J/s), when referring to energy needs per person.

Obviously, 2000W=2kWh/h=2 � 8760 kWh/year.

D. Spreng / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1905–19111906

of environmental insults (see e.g. UNDP, 2000). How-ever, besides the emission of CO2, most of the otherpollutants can and are being reduced to tolerable levels.Indoor and outdoor air pollutions are being reduced byemission control equipment, fuel cleaning techniquesand by fuel switching. The cost of these measures are notdisrupting the economics of the system, the degree towhich they are implemented is a matter of choice bysociety, today and in years to come.CO2 emissions are different. There is no plausible

path of development in which they are eliminated by2050. In scenarios most aggressively limiting CO2

emissions the emission levels in 2050 are about whatthey are today (IPCC, 2000) and are decreasing onlyafter that time below today’s level. The reason for this isthat all three ways of drastically reducing CO2

emissions, the procurement of carbon-free primaryenergy resources, CO2 sequestering and the developmentand implementation of much more efficient technologiesand lifestyles take time. Let us look at these threeapproaches briefly.The development and installation of energy supply

systems based on carbon-free primary energy resourcesrequires large investments. In some cases, like the solarelectric systems, more development is needed, to reducecost before they can be installed on a massive scale.Wind energy farms are suitable if their contribution isnot too large a share of the energy input to the electricgrid, otherwise expensive back-up systems are necessary.In the case of nuclear systems, new generations have tobe developed, which may possibly win the public’s andinvestors’ approval.The technology and practice of sequestering CO2 is

potentially expensive, has possibly some safety problemsand is only at the start of its development. Theprerequisite for this practice is an international bindingcommitment to limit CO2 emissions. Nobody will go tothe trouble and expense to sequester CO2, if noteverybody agrees to do it. Years will pass before anagreement of this kind is in place that includes mostnations.Similarly with today’s low-energy prices that do not

reflect their true cost to society, and with the low level ofattention to energy efficiency, new, highly efficienttechnologies and lifestyles will also take time to beintroduced. Of the three options to reduce CO2

emissions, energy conservation through increased effi-ciency is the most cost effective and could be introducedwithout delay, even though it will take a long time until,for instance, an entire building stock is renewed. Themassive consumption of carbon-free primary energyresources and the practice of sequestering CO2 will, inthe very long run, be solutions to the CO2 problem.However, without an energy efficiency crash pro-gramme, they will be too slow to meet the 2050 CO2-emission requirements. Furthermore, these solutions

will not be affordable to society, if the energy use isnot curbed, i.e. if their implementation is not precededby massive improvements in energy efficiency.Based on this discussion, the upper limit of global

average per capita energy consumption can readily becalculated from the climate models. For scenarios,which are on a path to a stabilisation of the climate inthe long run, CO2 emissions in 2050 are around or below8Gt/year. With a world population of approximately 8billion at that point, this corresponds to 1 t/year capitaand, further, with today’s average carbon content inprimary energy this translates to 2000W/capita. If thecarbon content in primary energy is by that timereduced to half of today’s average value, an extremelyambitious goal only conceivable in conjunction with amassive energy efficiency programme, 1 t/year capitawould correspond to 4000W/capita.1

3. Lower limit for the sustainable per capita energy

consumption

No development is sustainable, if it does not includeprogress towards the alleviation of poverty and theassociated, necessary economic development. Usually,poverty is measured in monetary terms. But mostlifestyles above the poverty level are associated witha certain minimum level of energy consumption. Thislevel has been discussed and determined by engineeringtype estimates of the direct energy required to satisfybasic needs. Such calculations are reported in earlystudies by Bravo (1979) cited in Krugman andGoldemberg (1983), Goldemberg et al. (1985, 1987),Goldemberg (1990) and Revelle (1976). Goldemberget al. estimated that the requirement of direct primaryenergy per time unit to satisfy basic needs is about500W per person. Including indirect energy consump-tion, i.e. the energy requirement for producing thegoods, such as food, clothing and shelter, forming partof basic needs, one has to double this number, thusarriving at 1000W/capita.This kind of a calculation rests on a number of

assumptions regarding the type of energy consumingequipment (stove, light bulbs, etc.), their sizes, efficien-cies and intensity of consumption. In addition, theapproach requires as a first normative step the definitionof a set of basic needs. This is a problematic endeavour.Obviously basic needs vary not only with climate,region, period in time, age and sex, but also withpersonal outlook and expectations.In addition, there is a question of the proper level in

the energy chain, from primary energy to energy

ARTICLE IN PRESSD. Spreng / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1905–1911 1907

services, at which the minimum level of energyconsumption should be determined.As this lower limit is at least partially normative, any

number can be disputed. I refer to a detailed discussionof this issue in respect to the case of India (Pachauri andSpreng, 2004) and pick half of the 1000W/capitanumber, i.e. 500W/capita (for the direct plus indirectenergy consumption). In India 500W/capita is abouttoday’s average and it affords in the average the energyservice of two cooked meals a day, some light from akerosene lamp and the indirect energy required toproduce food, necessary to not go hungry, simpleclothing and shelter. With improved efficiencies ofstoves, other equipment and production in industryand agriculture, 500W/capita will provide for moreenergy services, but with continued globalisation theperception of poverty will also change and thenormative determination is likely to increase rapidly.

2To calculate the energy consumption of the top and bottom decile

we assume that the total energy-income elasticity for all countries is the

same, namely 0.8. It is a rounded average number taken from the

literature. It has been studied in detail for the Netherlands by Vringer

and Blok (1995), their value is 0.83. The corresponding number for

Australia is 0.73 (Lenzen, 1998). For urban households in India a value

of 0.67 has been reported (Pachauri, 2004) and for urban households in

Brazil a value of 1.01 (Cohen et al., 2004). These numbers refer to the

dependence of the total commercial energy (both direct and indirect)

on income at a given time within one country. In Fig. 2 we use 0.8 also

for the world as a whole, which is as good an assumption as any. The

calculation of Podobnik (2002) addresses only the inequalities between

country averages.

The spread of energy consumption between the top and the bottom

decile, DE ¼ Etop2Ebottom; is calculated as follows from knowing the

averages for the per capita income and for the per capita energy

consumption, Iaverage and Eaverage and the income of the top and the

bottom decile, Itop and Ibottom:

Etop ¼ Eaverage þ ðDItopEaverage=Iaverage0:8Þ; ð1Þ

Ebottom ¼ Eaverage � ðDIbottomEaverage=Iaverage0:8Þ; ð2Þ

where DItop ¼ Itop � Iaverage and DIbottom ¼ Iaverage � Ibottom:For some cases the net import of embodied energy in goods and

services make a per capita comparison with other countries not very

meaningful. For Switzerland the per capita energy consumption has,

for that reason, been augmented by 25% to compensate for the large

net import of embodied energy. Luxembourg and Trinidad have been

eliminated from the list because the large exports of embodied energy

are unknown to the author.

4. Limit for the spread of sustainable per capita energy

consumption

There is wide acceptance of the idea, that there issome measure of inequality that leads to social conflict.There is also general agreement that people should haveequal opportunities. Slavery, the medieval class systemand Indian castes have been and are being abolished. Allmen (and women) are born equal, as the US declarationof independence says. However, what measure ofinequality is beneficial, or at least not harmful, is opento debate.An interesting debate on this issue is given in the

winter 2002 issue of DAEDALUS. Galbraith (2002)starts the discussion with a detailed analysis entitled ‘‘Aperfect crime: global inequality’’. The third article in theissue by Epstein (2002) also agrees that today’s inequal-ities, particularly those running along the US racialdivide, are ‘‘a sorry state of affairs’’, but his mainmessage is summarised in the last paragraph of hisarticle: ‘‘John F. Kennedy had it right when he said that a

rising tide lifts all the boats. And that tide will only rise

when we put aside our preoccupation with redress and

redistribution—and agree instead to unleash the produc-

tive capacities of all our citizens’’. Whereas in the lastcentury inequalities within nations have been the main,or one of the main topics of politics, in the comingcentury, politics most likely will be pre-occupied withinequalities between nations.Usually, inequality is discussed in terms of income or

some related monetary measure. I argue, that looking atthe per capita energy consumption—particularly if weagree that this measure does have an upper limit asdiscussed above enriches the discussion. The existence ofa lower limit is accepted both for monetary measuresand for the per capita energy consumption. However,

the upper, ecological limit to the average per capitaenergy consumption does not exist for monetarymeasures.If per capita energy consumption is used as the

surrogate measure of well-being, its upper limit makesthe concept of the rising tide inapplicable.The developments described in some of the stabilisa-

tion scenarios of IPCC’s Special Report on EnergyScenarios do not only include the stabilisation of CO2

output but also minor economic improvements fordeveloping countries. The overlooked question, how-ever, is whether the spread of energy consumption is notalso a serious issue in regard to sustainable develop-ment. For a development to be sustainable, free of largesocial conflicts, we must be on a path leading in 2050 toa situation with a limited spread in energy consumption.The continued large CO2 emission by rich countries robsthe poorer countries the possibility of rapid develop-ment and the use of the common, cheap CO2-sink.The following graph (Fig. 1) depicts the inequality in

today’s energy use (an older version of this graph wasconstructed in a diploma thesis (Schmieder and Taor-mina, 2001). It shows the energy consumption per capitaof 73 countries, wherever possible for the year 2000(IEA, 2003). This alone is not new. New is that we haveincluded for every country the estimated energyconsumption per capita of the richest 10% and thepoorest 10% of the population (decile)2 (CIA, 2003; The

ARTIC

LEIN

PRES

S

Fig. 1. Energy use per time and capita in various countries and within countries (average consumption as well as consumption of highest and lowest decile of users).

D.

Sp

reng

/E

nerg

yP

olicy

33

(2

00

5)

19

05

–1

91

11908

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. The energy consumption window. The upper, ecological boundary refers to the global average and is drawn between 2 and 4 kW/capita

depending carbon content of the total primary energy used in 2050. The lower boundary is chosen at 600W/capita and refers to the poorest decile of

the global society in 2050. The distribution ‘‘World tomorrow without social boundaries’’ is calculated assuming the average to increase to 3 kW/

capita and the proportional distance between the average and the lowest and top decile to remain constant. Solidarity is the principle idea of the

2000W/capita society. The social boundaries and the energy distribution in the 2000W society are drawn in an exemplary way. More conventional

stabilisation scenarios possibly over-step social boundaries to a not sustainable degree.

D. Spreng / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1905–1911 1909

World Bank Group, 2003). Furthermore, a 2000W/capita line is drawn. 2000W/capita is both not far fromtoday’s world average and can, as we have seen, beconsidered an average compatible with sustainabledevelopment in the long run.3 With these two additions,the graph presents not only international inequalitiesbut also, at one glance, intra-national and inter-generational inequalities.The graph shows a troubling situation regarding

inequality in present energy consumption, withincountries, and across countries.

4Resolution adopted by the General Assembly (A/RES/55/2),

5. Equity: Rawls’ two considerations

From the vast spectrum of literature on inequalityand inequity I pick one philosopher who has thoughtabout intra- and international inequity: Rawls (1971)suggests in A Theory of Justice that the correct judgmentabout the distribution of goods (material and other) insociety is to look at the disadvantaged members. Hedoes not argue that everybody should ideally have thesame, or, that the image of the rising tide is wrong, butthat the proof of the pudding was the state of affairs ofthe poorest. If, over the course of time the plight of the

3The term 2000W/capita society was chosen a few years ago, when

the world average energy use was in fact 2000W/capita.

poor improves in a nation, the distribution of wealthbecomes more just.Can we apply the same criterion when comparing

poverty in different countries? Rawls (1997) discussesthis question in his last book, The Law of Peoples. Thisbook is less well known, but is of particular interest forthe assessment of international inequalities and inequi-ties. Rawls comes to the conclusion, that there is nosimilar equity criteria between peoples as within onepeople: Each one of us does have some responsibility forhis neighbours and for fairness within his and hersociety, such that we share a responsibility for the plightof the poor in our society. However, other people havedifferent traditions and rules. We can and may not beresponsible for how other people distribute their wealth.An important matter for which we do share respon-

sibility, Rawls writes, are, however, internationaltreaties, conventions and dealings. If they lead toinjustice and contribute to keeping people in less well-of countries poor, we, in the richer countries areresponsible for the contribution of these internationaltreaties, conventions and dealings to global inequity.Rawls values national sovereignty highly. Younger,

human rights-scholars and politicians4 would argue that

United Nations Millennium Declaration, I. Values and Principles,

para. 2: ‘‘We recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities

to our individual societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold

ARTICLE IN PRESSD. Spreng / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1905–19111910

in our global society solidarity should go beyondinternational treaties and conventions. However, eventaking fairness more seriously in respect of these treaties,conventions and dealings, would go a long way towardsmore global justice.

6. Utopia, novatlantis and the 2000W/capita society

Assuming the spread of energy consumption will leadto global, social unrest, some scientists in Switzerlandand elsewhere have began thinking about the feasibilityof drastically reducing per capita energy consumption inpost-industrial societies (see description of projectnovatlantis, 2004).Utopia is the title of a book by Sir Thomas More,

which was published in Latin in 1516. The workdescribes the ideal state, in which everything is organisedrationally for the equal good of everyone, where allscourges of society, such as poverty and distress areeliminated. Solidarity, central to the idea of the 2000W/capita society, is utopian in its original meaning.Sir Francis Bacon, English thinker and writer of the

early 17th century, propagated both scientific methodand the value of science to society. In ‘‘The NewAtlantis’’ (1627) he describes a happy—although notegalitarian—nation that considered the ‘‘light’’ ofknowledge and the careful attention to the adherenceto law its most precious goods.5

Today like at the beginning of the renaissance, someanalysts see the dawn of an age of information. It is notscientific method that lies at the root of today’s possiblerenaissance, but technological capabilities. Informationtechnology makes it possible for information to beomnipresent, in technical processes and for decisionseverywhere (Spreng, 1993). This, in principle, can lead tomassive improvements of energy efficiency and reduc-tions of waste. Information technology provides thepossibility for a resource-efficient new Atlantis. How-ever without a conscious effort by society, information

(footnote continued)

the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level.

As leaders we have a duty therefore to all the world’s people, especially

the most vulnerable and, in particular, the children of the world, to

whom the future belongs’’.5Novatlantis was constructed as a haven for information. I quote

from Bacon (1627): ‘‘When the King had forbidden to all his people

navigation into any part that was not under his crown, he made

nevertheless this ordinance; that every twelve years there should be set

forth out of this kingdom, two ships, appointed to several voyages;y.

whose errand was only to give us knowledge of the affairs and state of

those countries to which they were designed; and especially of the

sciences, arts, manufactures, and inventions of all the world; and

withal to bring unto us books, instruments, and patterns in every kind:

y rewarding y. [the owners], as they should think fit’’. On their

voyages the ships should sail under flags of foreign nations and make

use of the people that had previously stranded and then treated as

guests on the island.

technology is more likely used to greatly increasewasteful automated mass production.

7. Concluding remarks

The 2000W/capita society can be seen as combinationof Utopia, in its original, egalitarian meaning, and NewAtlantis; as happy, science-based society. But it can alsobe viewed much more pragmatically. There is no waythat OECD countries can keep increasing their CO2

emissions without contributing to a large and mostlikely catastrophic climate change. Even keeping theirCO2 emissions constant, i.e. limiting their per capitaenergy consumption to a very moderate increase,commensurate with the increase of non-fossil fuel energyuse, would either leave the inequity in terms of CO2

emissions at today’s high, potentially explosive level or,if, as we hope, developing countries develop sufficientlyto reduce poverty on a large scale, global CO2 emissionswould still lead to a considerable change of climate.As the energy consumption in 2050 will have to be not

much more than 2000W/capita on the global average inorder to be ecologically sustainable, technologies andlifestyles compatible with that energy consumption willbe needed. An economy such as Switzerland and otherOECD countries that live on creating and exportingtechnology, will be in a good position, if their exportsserve the needs of the time. It is only wise for technologyproducing countries to aim at the future market of the2000W/capita society in terms of their technologypolicy. This is a matter of good business strategy.Energy policy, in turn, should be directed at reducingper capita energy consumption. By how much we reduceour own energy consumption is a question of solidarity(cf. Fig. 2). Massive reductions in OECD countrieswould perhaps even leave room in the global CO2-emission budget to allow poverty eradication asstipulated in the UN millennium goals without trigger-ing catastrophic climate change.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Andr!e Kemmler for re-calculatingand re-drawing Fig. 1. The financial help of novatlantis(www.novatlantis.ch) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Bacon, F., 1627. The New Atlantis. The short full text is available on

http://www.constitution.org/bacon/new atlantis.htm.

CIA, 2003. The World Factbook. http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/

factbook/fields/2047.html.

Cohen, C.A.M.J., Lenzen, M., 2004. Energy requirements of house-

holds in Brazil. Energy Policy, in press.

ARTICLE IN PRESSD. Spreng / Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1905–1911 1911

Epstein, R.A., 2002. Against redress. Daedalus—Journal of the

American Academy of Arts and Sciences Winter 39–48.

Galbraith, J.K., 2002. A perfect crime: inequality in the age of

globalization. Daedalus—Journal of the American Academy of

Arts and Sciences Winter 11–25.

Goldemberg, J., 1990. One kilowatt per capita. Bulletin of the Atomic

Scientists 46(1).

Goldemberg, J., Johansson, T.B., et al., 1985. Basic needs and much

more with one kilowatt per capita. Ambio, 14 (4–5), 190–200.

Goldemberg, J., Johansson, T.B., et al., 1987. Energy for a Sustainable

World. Wiley-Eastern Limited, New Delhi.

IEA, 2003. Key Energy Indicators per Country. http://www.iea.org/

stats/files/selstats/keyindic/keyindic.htm.

IPCC, 2000. Emission scenarios. IPCC Special Report, Cambridge

University Press.

Krugman, H., Goldemberg, J., 1983. The energy cost of satisfying

basic human needs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change

24, 45–60.

Lenzen, M., 1998. Primary energy and greenhouse gases embodied in

Australian final consumption: an input–output analysis. Energy

Policy 26 (6), 495–506.

novatlantis, 2004. http://www.novatlantis.ch/.

Pachauri, S., 2004. An analysis of cross-sectional variations in total

household energy requirements in India using micro survey data.

Energy Policy 32 (15), 1723–1735.

Pachauri, S., Spreng, D., 2004. Energy use and energy access in

relation to poverty. Economic and Political Weekly, January 17.

Podobnik, B., 2002. Global Energy inequalities: exploring the long-

term implications. Journal of World-Systems Research 8 (2),

252–274.

Rawls, J., 1971. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press of Harvard

University, Cambridge, MA.

Rawls, J., 1997. The Law of Peoples. Belknap Press of Harvard

University, Cambridge, MA.

Revelle, R., 1976. Energy use in rural India. Science 192 (4), 969.

Schenler, W.W., Gheorghe, A.V., et al., 2002. Strategic electric sector

assessment methodology und sustainability conditions. The Inter-

national Journal of Sustainable Development 5(1/2 Special Issue)

pp. 7–63.

Schmieder, B., Taormina, N., 2001. Energieverbrauchsfenster. Diplo-

marbeit ETH Z .urich, ORL-Institut and CEPE.

Spreng, D., 1993. Possibility for substitution between energy, time and

information. Energy Policy 21 (1), 13–23.

The World Bank Group, 2003. Data Query. http://devdata.worldbank.

org/data-query/.

UNDP, 2000. World Energy Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of

Sustainability. J. Goldemberg, New York.

Vringer, K., Blok, K., 1995. The direct and indirect energy

requirements of households in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 23

(10), 893–910.