countries and CO2 emissions based on the population of each country (i.e. per capita emissions). Interestingly, the IEA over a decade ago also pointed out that GHG emissions from developing countries are likely to exceed those of developed countries within the first half of this century (IEA 2009) Although aggregate GHG emissions have increased dramatically over time, the major countries responsible for the largest aggregate shares of emissions have not changed significantly. Seven countries have consistently been amongst the top emitters on an annual basis and have driven emissions growth since 1850, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Russia and more recently India and China. By way of comparison, three‐quarters of the 50 lowest emitting countries in 2014 are the same countries as in 1850 (Lebling et al. 2019). It is the stark distinction between per capita emissions seen in conjunction with the burden of disease accruing fossil fuel related air pollution that merits attention.
The inequitable morbidity and disease costs borne by those who rely on polluting solid fuels and who are exposed to toxic levels of fossil fuel related air pollution occurs within a global context where GHG emissions are unmistakably on the rise. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) has produced an annual Emissions Gap Report for 10 years detailing where GHG missions are headed in comparison to where they should be to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The 2019 Emissions Gap Report provided a stark reminder that GHG emissions continue to escalate, despite numerous scientific warnings and political commitments: ‘There is no sign of GHG emissions peaking in the next few years; every year of postponed peaking means that deeper and faster cuts will be required. By 2030, emissions would need to be 25 per cent and 55 per cent lower than in 2018 to put the world on the least‐cost pathway to limiting global warming to below 2°C and 1.5°C respectively’ (2019, p. xiv). But the 2020 Emissions Gap report summary is even more sombre in its assessment: ‘Are we on track to bridging the gap? Absolutely not. Although 2020 emissions will be lower than in 2019 due to the COVID‐19 crisis and associated responses, GHG concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise, with the immediate reduction in emissions expected to have a negligible long‐term impact on climate change. However, the unprecedented scale of COVID‐19 economic recovery measures presents the opening for a low‐carbon transition that creates the structural changes required for sustained emissions reductions. Seizing this opening will be critical to bridging the emissions gap’ (2020, p. iv).Whether this opportunity to build back better, cleaner and greener is actually seized is quite literally up in the air, because on 20 April 2021, the IEA announced that in spite of COVID lockdowns, global energy related CO2 emissions are on course to surge by 1.5 billion tonnes in 2021 – the second‐largest increase in history – reversing most of last year’s decline caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic. But the real question is what is being done and what will happen to those who are both climate vulnerable and lack access to clean energy in the near future? IEA’s Global Energy Review 2021 has estimated that CO2 emissions will increase by almost 5% in 2021 to 33 billion tonnes – biggest annual rise in emissions since 2010, during the carbon‐intensive recovery from the global financial crisis. The key driver is coal demand, which is set to grow by 4.5%, surpassing its 2019 level and approaching its all‐time peak from 2014, with the electricity sector accounting for three‐quarters of this increase (IEA press release 2021) Figures 1.3 and 1.4 excerpted from the UNEP (2020a)Emissions Gap Report outline the growth in GHGs as well as the differences between absolute versus per capita emissions of the world’s six top emitters.
To better understand the linkages between clean energy, air pollution and climate change, it is useful to point out that access to energy (sources, services and technologies) has widely viewed as essential to human development in all parts of the globe. Smil in his detailed history of how energy has shaped all aspects of human society from pre‐agricultural foraging to fossil‐fuel driven civilization argued that energy is the only universal currency that enables all things to get done (2017). Conversely, the lack of access to cost‐effective, reliable energy as well as reliance on polluting solid fuels has been shown to impact negatively on income poverty, nutrition, gender and health inequalities, access to livelihoods and educational opportunities (Goldemberg et al. 1988; Sokona et al. 2004; Modi et al. 2006). The topic of ‘energy poverty’ was outlined very early on in the climate and energy global debate as a causal link to income poverty, health and gender inequities by Goldemberg et al. in Energy for a Sustainable World (1988). The multidimensional linkages between energy and inequalities related to poverty, gender and urbanization were documented in an early 2000 joint report (prepared by two of the principal UN development agencies and the World Energy Congress), which called for energy issues to be ‘brought to centre stage and given the same importance as other major global issues’ (UNDP/UNDESA/WEC 2000, p. 40). Access to modern energy services has been deemed essential for socio‐economic development and poverty reduction across countries, communities and households (Bazilian et al. 2010; Sovacool 2012). Srivastava et al. in their literature review of ‘energy access’ pointed to the fact that the terms ‘energy poverty’ and ‘energy access’ have been used interchangeably, and highlighted ‘an important distinction’ in that ‘energy poverty is more amenable to be defined as a benchmark’, while ‘energy access can be presented as a continuum linked to different income levels reflecting different stages of development’ (2012, p. 12). The recognized linkage between access to modern, cost‐effective, energy and environmental objectives related to climate change are what make the concept of increasing access to sustainable energy for all a central element of the debate on sustainable development (Rehman et al. 2012, p. 27).
Figure 1.3 Global GHG emissions from all sources.
Source: UNEP (2020b, p. v).
Figure 1.4 Absolute GHG emissions of the top six emitters (excluding Land Use Change emissions) and international transport (left) and per capita emissions of the top six emitters and the global average (right).
Source: UNEP (2020b, p. vi).
The WHO’s previously referenced 1997 report express focus on poverty and inequity ‘as two of the most important contributory factors to poor environmental conditions and poor health’; and its reference as to how integrated environmental and health policy interventions matter for air pollution abatement are worth recalling over 24 years later (1997, p. 6). The WHO emphasized that: ‘Indoor air pollution can be particularly hazardous to health because it is released in close proximity to people. The most prominent source of indoor air pollution in developing countries is household use of biomass and coal for heating and cooking, usually involving open fires or stoves without proper chimneys. A large number of studies in recent years have shown remarkable consistency in the relationship observed between changes in daily ambient suspended particulate levels and changes in daily mortality. Two different methods for estimating the total global mortality from suspended particulate air pollution exposures arrive at very similar total numbers (i.e. 3 million and 2.7 million), with indoor air pollution accounting for the vast majority of total deaths’ (emphasis added, 1997, p. 15).
The linkages between the lack of access to clean energy and air pollution were referenced in UNDP’s 2002 report entitled ‘Energy for Sustainable Development: A Policy Agenda’ which outlined the socio‐economic costs of the energy and air pollution imbalance experienced by poorer households: ‘Worldwide, 2 billion people are without access to electricity, and the same number use traditional fuels ‐ fuelwood, agricultural residues, dung ‐ for cooking and heating. Over 100 million women spend hours