Brazil is a useful contrast, as it faces similar social challenges, such as high
inequality, but a very different scale and with different resource endowments.
Based on a previously developed account of decent living standards (“DLS”),
which define the material requirements for human wellbeing [4], we use LCA and
Input-Output (I/O) analysis, as appropriate, to estimate the life-cycle energy
required to meet the gap in, and sustain, DLS for all. We consider the energy
associated with delivering DLS goods and services, including food production and
preparation, clothing, housing, the extension of networks for water and sanitation,
electricity, social infrastructure (health and education), communications, roads and
transport systems. Our emphasis in this study is on methodology, not on empirical
findings. That is, rather than supplying comprehensive estimates on the energy
requirements for providing DLS, we aim to illustrate how LCA methods can be
used to provide insights into such a quantification exercise. We make three contributions in this regard: (a) we illustrate the relative contributions of living standard
components to the estimation of energy requirements for a DLS; (b) we show how
uncertainty can be systematically quantified and attributed to these choices; and
(c) we show the trade-offs in construction and operating energy inherent in these
choices.
2 Methods
The methodology includes three steps: estimation of the gaps in DLS; calculation of
life-cycle material and energy requirements; uncertainty analysis.
First, we estimate the gaps in DLS (Sect. 3) in material terms, such as the
number of housing units for shelter, toilets for sanitation, minimum water consumption for water supply, basic appliances, etc. based on national and international sources. The key components of the DLS can be inferred from the normative
standards in Table 1. A more comprehensive description can be found in Rao and
Min [4].
These normative standards are converted into material requirements, the process
of which is straightforward except for social dimensions of wellbeing (health and
education), whose material needs are not easily determined. For these, we rely on
previous empirical analysis [4] to determine the national expenditure levels required
at a minimum to achieve standards of primary education and life expectancy
respectively. We use a multi-region input-output (MRIO) to estimate the energy
requirements associated with this expenditure. We also use MRIO for food production, whose heterogeneity across the economy is best aggregated through an
MRIO.
For material items in the DLS, such as housing, appliances and related infrastructure, we use traditional LCA calculations [5]. For housing, we identify building
archetypes representative of different climatic conditions, regions (e.g. depending
on material availability) and urban/rural areas and we calculate construction and
operational energy using a material inventory and a dynamic energy model. Using
398
N. D. Rao et al.
inequality, but a very different scale and with different resource endowments.
Based on a previously developed account of decent living standards (“DLS”),
which define the material requirements for human wellbeing [4], we use LCA and
Input-Output (I/O) analysis, as appropriate, to estimate the life-cycle energy
required to meet the gap in, and sustain, DLS for all. We consider the energy
associated with delivering DLS goods and services, including food production and
preparation, clothing, housing, the extension of networks for water and sanitation,
electricity, social infrastructure (health and education), communications, roads and
transport systems. Our emphasis in this study is on methodology, not on empirical
findings. That is, rather than supplying comprehensive estimates on the energy
requirements for providing DLS, we aim to illustrate how LCA methods can be
used to provide insights into such a quantification exercise. We make three contributions in this regard: (a) we illustrate the relative contributions of living standard
components to the estimation of energy requirements for a DLS; (b) we show how
uncertainty can be systematically quantified and attributed to these choices; and
(c) we show the trade-offs in construction and operating energy inherent in these
choices.
2 Methods
The methodology includes three steps: estimation of the gaps in DLS; calculation of
life-cycle material and energy requirements; uncertainty analysis.
First, we estimate the gaps in DLS (Sect. 3) in material terms, such as the
number of housing units for shelter, toilets for sanitation, minimum water consumption for water supply, basic appliances, etc. based on national and international sources. The key components of the DLS can be inferred from the normative
standards in Table 1. A more comprehensive description can be found in Rao and
Min [4].
These normative standards are converted into material requirements, the process
of which is straightforward except for social dimensions of wellbeing (health and
education), whose material needs are not easily determined. For these, we rely on
previous empirical analysis [4] to determine the national expenditure levels required
at a minimum to achieve standards of primary education and life expectancy
respectively. We use a multi-region input-output (MRIO) to estimate the energy
requirements associated with this expenditure. We also use MRIO for food production, whose heterogeneity across the economy is best aggregated through an
MRIO.
For material items in the DLS, such as housing, appliances and related infrastructure, we use traditional LCA calculations [5]. For housing, we identify building
archetypes representative of different climatic conditions, regions (e.g. depending
on material availability) and urban/rural areas and we calculate construction and
operational energy using a material inventory and a dynamic energy model. Using
398
N. D. Rao et al.