With gas prices rising in Britain this month, there’s been a renewed round of discussion on energy poverty. That’s defined as spending more than 10% of household income on energy, and it’s a growing problem. This is important, and I’ve written plenty about it in the past, but it pales when compared to the global situation.
From a global perspective, energy poverty is much bigger and more complicated. It’s not to do with how much people are paying for their energy, but providing that energy in the first place. 1.3 billion people lack electricity, most of them in rural areas and with the largest unconnected populations found in Sub-Saharan Africa. Twice as many people lack an efficient source of fuel for cooking, and rely on traditional energy sources such as wood or dung.
The image here shows the number and distribution of people currently without electricity, and how that picture is likely to change between 2009 and 2030. China is expected to connect all its citizens by then, and Latin America will be 98% electrified. In Africa, 60 million people will get electricity, but once population growth is added in there will be more people without it in 2030 in absolute terms.
Bringing the enormous benefits of electricity to everyone on the planet, without blowing the carbon budget, is one of the great challenges of the century.
Can it be done? Yes, but since it will inevitably mean a rise in CO2 emissions from poorer countries, that will require deeper carbon cuts from wealthier countries.
- For more on how it can be done, see my previous post on the Poor People’s Energy Outlook.
- Also see Energy Realities
- And the UN ‘s sustainable energy for all website
The Earthbound Report 
From an energy efficiency point of view electricity is a potential catastrophe with 60% of the energy being wasted in generation and transmission losses. So it is important not to use it for heating, to use waste heat recovery for eg district heating, to use on-site combined heat and power where possible and use waste materials for fuel.
You’re right, providing people with electricity and with a sustainable heating fuel are not the same thing, thanks for pointing that out.
And yes, those working on bringing electricity to the poor suggest that building national grids in countries that don’t have them isn’t a good idea, for the very reasons you mention. Micro-generations and smaller networks are going to be much more important.
Reblogged this on gfmurphy101.
Dear Jeremy,
Australia doesn’t show on your world map, but individuals here are already paying a carbon tax. Our electricity and gas prices have risen 15% this year.
We are a 3 generation household of 8 persons and live a self-sufficiency lifestyle on a farm. We cut our own forest wood for winter heating, with a chainsaw which requires fuel, although the boys use an axe to split the wood.
We installed solar power to pump water to our vegetable fields and livestock, but even so this initial high cost has to be spread over several years.
We use a bottle of gas every month for cooking and heating water. Prior to the introduction of the carbon tax a bottle of gas cost $118.00. Now it costs us $133.00.
Petrol is 150c per litre and expected to rise.
We are spending more than 10% of our income on energy
We have had no rise in income as vegetable and fruit prices have remained low for several years.
I don’t know how much you know about this, but the Australian federal government several years ago introduced a ‘level playing field’ dropping all tariffs on food which allowed any other country to export farm produce to Australia, providing it meets health and quarantine requirements.
So, apple juice comes in from China, oranges and cherries from the USA, apples from New Zealand, tomato juice and tinned pineapple from the Philippines and much, much more
Furthermore the two big grocery chain stores in Australia have chosen to bring in such produce to keep consumers happy, making farmers price takers not price makers.
Also the Australia government is not printing money like the UK and USA so our dollar is worth more than the US dollar. This means our grocery store chains can afford to purchase goods cheaply overseas.
As a result, Australia is importing a huge volume of food stuffs that could be grown here.
In 1945 the voting power of the country people was higher, with 40% of the vote being rural. Thanks to the drift to the cities and overseas migration the urban vote has risen and the country people have become a minority with only 7% of the vote.
These city voters are happy to see the Australian dollar high which allows them to holiday overseas and to enjoy cheap food, clothes etc.
But costs for farm fuel, machinery and fertilizer continue to rise.
My husband (aged 86) and I own our farm land outright but we are unable to sell it, as there is no demand for vegetable and fruit growing land, while prices for produce remain so low.
In this district of small farms, during the last 20 years we have seen more than 50% of older farmers fallow their land because they have been unable to sell it.
We are fortunate in that our middle-aged son, his wife and 4 young children are willing to live with us and maintain the value of our property.
I would like to see the Australian dollar halve in value, because the currency war between the USA, Europe and China is making the Aussie dollar seem like a safe haven to international investors, as our interest rate is also still relatively high in comparison to other countries.
Ever since Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb we have been told there will be a world wide food shortage.
My question to you is will there ever be such a world food shortage where people like us can earn a decent living from the land, while world wide the voting public is urbanised?
Basically will politicians always interfere on humanitarian grounds to ensure that food prices remain low? It is the urban voters who keep them in office.
Regards,
Fay Helwig
Glen Aplin, Queensland, Australia.
_____
Hi Fay, thanks for your comment and for some interesting comments about urban voters. That’s a problem we have in Britain too, with countryside issues sidelined or when they are addressed, the debate is dominated by big landowners rather than smaller farmers.
The issue of food imports is an important one. In theory, people benefit from cheaper food, but it can also make a country much more dependent on imports. The risk then is that as oil gets more expensive, those imports will be much more expensive too and those savings will be wiped out. The good news for producers like you is that rising oil prices should level the playing field a little and make local food more competitive – and I hope you see the effects of that soon! Local food is going to be more important in the future.
Will there be a global food shortage? There have already been a number of critical food shortages, but they all affect different places in different ways. We’re very isolated from the effects in the developed world. I don’t think there’s going to be a big population crash of the kind Ehrlich suggested anytime soon, but our global food system is already struggling to keep up with demand.