There are huge differences between carbon footprints of people in different countries. Here in the UK we are worse than average but by no means the worst. However there are also huge differences between people within the UK, even in Cambridge. What are each of us doing and how does this vary by income?
How income and wealth affects what we can do
Sometimes when I am on an outreach stall I use an actions survey – you tick the actions you are doing. The answers we get are affected by how well-off people are. Less well-off people tick fewer boxes. This is partly because some of the actions do not apply, and partly to do with cost.
Well-off people often tick: solar panels, or even low carbon heating; eating vegetarian or vegan, and buying from a local farm shop. They may say they walk or cycle for short trips. Hardly anyone ticks car sharing but they often say they have cut down on air travel.
Less well-off people cannot afford solar panels and their diet choices are constrained by cost (good quality veggie burgers and sausages tend to cost more). Also less well-off people are often time poor which means they use more convenience foods and less farm shops. They may not have a car at all and rarely go on holiday abroad, but if they do they fly because the trains are more expensive.
Less well-off people will tick the boxes for home draught proofing, repairing stuff when possible and using clothes swaps and charity shops for clothing. These are low cost actions that save money. If they are able, they walk or cycle for short trips and quite often they do not own a car so they have to use public transport more.
Those surveys are not scientific and so all these facts are anecdotal – but there is supporting evidence from other sources. For example the National Travel Survey tell us that the least well-off households are less likely to have access to a car, while ‘routine and manual workers’ are less likely to use a car to go to work; they are more likely to use public transport or cycle.
People who live in rented accommodation are very restricted as to what they can do to improve its energy efficiency. However, apart from social rented housing, renting is fairly evenly spread across income groups. So this is not so much an equality issue, but it is an issue in so far as people who do not own their homes have less agency.
Lower income households have lower carbon footprints
A report from the London School of Economics looked at consumption footprints for households by income and various other attributes. They found
- the top income decile has twice the median footprint. The bottom decile is 2/3 of the median;
- the differences are mainly to do with consumables (not food) and transport.
That report is 10 years old. However, carbon emissions are related to expenditure and data from the ONS for 2021 shows it is still the case that higher income households spend more, especially on travel and on clothes and household goods. In those areas the highest income 20% of households spend four to six times as much as the lowest. For transport, the difference is more than £100/week.
Lower income households are less able to adapt.
Lower income households have less capacity to adapt to climate change impacts. If the roads are flooded they cannot get to work – but many higher income groups can work from home.
If the weather is very hot, then higher income groups can afford to adapt their home such as by installing shutters on windows, or to run fans or even air conditioning. The Climate Change Committee reports that people living in social housing or low income groups are four times as likely to suffer overheating in their home as the top income groups.
Summary
Less well-off people:
- have lower carbon footprints
- are less able to take actions that require capital expenditure such as solar panels
- or involve increased expenditure such as holidays by train instead of flying, or buying nutritious meat-free convenience food
- are less able to take adaption measures to keep their home cool, or to work from home when transport is disrupted.
I think this means that if you are wealthy enough to have choices, it is particularly important for you to exercise them wisely to minimise your carbon footprint.
Supporting evidence
National Travel Survey (www.gov.uk) 2021
Table NTS 0703 Across all households 22% do not have access to a car or van. In the bottom 20% by income, this is 38%
Table NTS 0708 routine and manual occupations take more trips than average by local bus (29 cf 18) and more cycling (20 cf 16) and less by car. When they do travel by car they are more likely than average to be a passenger rather than a driver suggesting more car sharing.
Bucks, M. and Mattiolo, G. (2021) Trends in air travel inequality in the UK: From the few to the many?, Travel Behaviour and Society
Using data from the National Travel Survey and the Living Costs and Food Survey between 2010 and 2018, the authors determined that households in the top 20% for income made six times as many flights as those in the bottom 20%.
The distribution of total greenhouse gas emissions byhouseholds in the UK, and some implications for socialpolicy (NEF and CASE, 2012), published by the London School of Economics
(for carbon footprints by sector and spending)
Family spending workbook 2: expenditure by income (ONS) 2021
Table A7 shows the highest income 20% spend six times as much as the lowest on travel and on clothing and footwear. For household goods (such as furniture and appliances) and for recreation, the difference was less, but still a factor of four.
Low earners less likely to be able to work from home study shows (The Home Office Life) 2022
The highest salary workers (earning over £40,000 or more) are least likely to have to travel to work (28%) and the most likely to work from home at least sometimes (61%). For the lowest salary workers (less than £15,000) the figures were almost reversed: 62% have to travel to work and only 14% work from home always or sometimes.
English Housing Survey 2021 to 2022 Headline report (www.gov.uk)
Paragraph 1.32; Social renters were concentrated in the lowest two income quintiles (47% were in the lowest income quintile; 28% in the second lowest), while mortgagors were concentrated in the two highest income quintiles (40% were in the top income quintile; 29% in the second highest). Private renters and outright owners were more evenly spread across the quintiles.
No comments:
Post a Comment