Photo: Janez Habjanic/iStock
OPINION
How much does energy poverty cost?
How much is lost in productivity by societies where men, women, and children are obliged to secure their own biomass fuel?
What is the monetary value of global deforestation for biomass fuel use?
What is the cost (in CO2-equivalent) of the volumes of black carbon being pumped into the atmosphere?
What percentage of national budgets go to treat illnesses attributable to indoor air pollution from inefficient biomass combustion?
How much potential income is lost from the estimated 1,500,000 people who die annually as a consequence of exposure to indoor air pollution?
And what would it cost to solve the problem?
I’ve been asking myself this question as we try to nail the opportunity cost that would justify investing in large-scale biomass energy-efficiency programs.
As a first step in establishing a baseline for what is at stake, I think the bionergy community could greatly benefit from a comprehensive analysis — à la Nicholas Stern report — on the global and local long-term economic cost of our energy poverty. We could break it down by regions, if you prefer: Africa, Sub-Continent, Asia, Latin America.
I’m not quite certain which figure would be most staggering: the loss of GDP worldwide over the next several decades from the consequences of energy poverty and unsustainable biomass use, or how little money it would take to solve this looming crisis?
There are a number of parallels between how the world responded to Climate Change in the last decade, and the lack of attention being paid to energy poverty today. A Nick Stern type report would be a great way to get the conversation going!
The parallels between Climate Change and unsustainable Bionergy dependence will be the subject of our next post, so stay tuned!
Rgds,
Kim
What will it take?
What will it take to tip the scale in favor of a global crash program to swap out three-stones-and-a-pot for energy-efficient stoves, kilns, and sustainable alternative biofuels?
Port-au-Prince
Will Haiti be to bioenergy what Katrina was to climate change?
New Orleans
How long before Al Gore, Angelina, or Bono take on bionergy as the next big inconvenient truth? The Charcoal Project’s intelligence services tell us there is already a film in the works. Will Bono embrace the rocket stove onstage to his fan’s delight?
Perhaps it will be the lure of a multi-billion dollar global market in carbon offsets from stoves, kilns, and briquettes programs that will do the trick. Or maybe it will be the on-the-ground realities of implementing REDD that will undo the Gordian knot.
And the point is…?
Actually, there are four points and they boil down to this:
1. Is there a need for a global stove, kilns, biomass program?
2. Is the bionergy/biomass community ready to step up to the global challenge or will it cling to its small-scale, silo-ed, buckshot approach?
3. Is the world, especially the development community, ready to recognize and embrace the issue with the same furious passion it has correctly championed clean water, HIV/AIDS, climate change, malaria, and the eradication of polio, to name a few?
Getting the message across in Lagos
4. What will it take to move the world’s needle in the direction of a global effort to swap out three stones and a pot for better stoves, kilns, and fuels?
So?
Here’s what I think.
I response to the first question, my gut tells me there is a need but I’m not a scientist or development expert. I realize that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach in the way condoms, sex ed, and retrovirals come to mind when combating HIV/AIDS. Or the the mosquito net for malaria. This is perhaps the most difficult question to answer.
However, if the answer to the above is in the affirmative, then I am confident that practitioners and champions of bioenergy/biomass technology can rally around a unified goal. Whether you care about indoor air pollution, climate change, environmental degradation, or poverty alleviation, low-cost technological fixes and clean, sustainable biomass fuels exists to solve these overlapping global challenges. We might differ on how to get there exactly but I’m certain the likes of Hedon, PCIA, Aprovecho, Canada, Uganda, Brazil, Haiti, USAID, EPA, DOE, World Bank, UNEP, WHO, WFP, Berkeley U, MIT, and so many other organizations in so many countries can find enough common ground to rally around a shared vision. We have a choir, now all we need a hymn sheet, to answer question 2.
My answer to number 3 is an unequivocal yes. We know what the problems are and we have the technology to fix them. All this at a very low cost compared to, say, the financing of clean coal development or even a single nuclear power plant. When I explain the magnitude of the problem, its impact on half the world’s population, and the existence of readily available solutions, people I speak with invariably get excited about solving this problem. I’m certain you all get the same response wherever you are. In the words of Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a leading climate change scientist at the University of California San Diego, solving the charcoal/woodfuel problem is the “low hanging fruit” for climate change…. and, I would add, environmental degradation… and indoor air pollution… and energy poverty.
So what will it take? Three things: marketing/communications, lobbying, and resources. Launching global marketing and advocacy campaigns is not rocket stove science:
Nike ad in spanish
Marocco
"Yes. One dozen rocket stoves, please."
Nike, Coca Cola, IBM have managed global campaigns. As Tuyeni Mwampamba mentioned in our interview last month, there’s a real disconnect when the poorest of the poor can afford to have a cell phone (Nokia? Sony?) yet still use inefficient stoves and biomass. Maybe a free cell phone with every stove?
Perhaps Haiti will help us get the ball rolling. Either way, let this be a call to all in the bioenergy field to start thinking global, not just local.
I know not everyone will agree with our views on this but let the discussion begin and let’s hammer out a consensus because the stakes are high and the time to act is now.
Kim & Nina
The Charcoal Project
In reading up on the IEA’s World Energy Outlook released today, I stumbled upon the most compelling and sobering picture of what it means to be energy poor in this world today. The excerpt comes from a the acceptance speech given by WOE director, Dr. Fatih Birol, in 2006. Read the whole speech here.
Energy Economics:
A Place for Energy Poverty in the Agenda?
Fatih Birol*
Unfortunately, the energy-economics community has given far less attention to the challenge of energy poverty amongst the world’s poorest people.
Over the past five years, less than 20% of the articles that have appeared in the major international energy journals have focused on developing countries, and only a tiny fraction of these have addressed energy-poverty issues. I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to all energy economists around the world to give more attention to this pressing issue.
The stark facts should give us all pause for thought. Today, 1.6 billion people in developing countries do not have access to electricity in their homes. Most of the electricity-deprived are in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. For these people, the day finishes much earlier than in richer countries for lack of proper lighting. They struggle to read by candle light. They lack refrigeration for keeping food and medicines fresh. Those appliances that they do have are powered by batteries, which eat up a large share of their incomes.
Another hallmark of energy poverty is the use of traditional biomass in unsustainable, unsafe and inefficient ways.
Currently, 2.5 billion people – 40% of the world’s population – rely on traditional biomass such as wood, agricultural residues and dung to meet virtually all their cooking energy needs. In many countries, these resources account for over 90% of all household energy consumption. These people live mainly in rural areas of Asia and Africa. The use of biomass is not in itself a cause for concern. But, in practice, it has a number of harmful consequences for health, the environment and economic and social development.
People, most often women and children, can spend many hours gathering such fuels. This reduces the time they can devote to more productive activities, such as farming and education. Wood gathering can also lead to deforestation, resulting in local scarcity of fuelwood and severe damage to the ecosystem. In addition, reliance on traditional biomass has a direct impact on human health. The World Health Organization estimates that each year, 1.3 million people – again, mostly women and children – in developing countries die as a result of fumes from indoor biomass stoves (WHO, 2006). Only malnutrition, HIV/AIDS and lack of clean water and sanitation are greater health threats.
Despite the prospect of continuing economic expansion and technological progress in the developing world, on current trends, 1.4 billion people will still lack electricity in 2030. That is barely 200 million less than today. Although 2 billion people will gain access to electricity during this period, this will be offset by rising world population. Most of the net fall in the number of electricity-deprived will occur in Asia; in Africa, their number will increase significantly. Furthermore, the number of people relying on traditional biomass for cooking and heating is also set to expand. In the absence of new policies, it will rise to 2.7 billion in 2030 – equal to one-third of the world’s population.
Dr. Fatih Birol really does put it into sobering perspective, doesn’t he?
