Energy Poverty

EG36CH06-Guruswamy ARI 13 September 2011 11:34

Energy PovertyLakshman GuruswamyCenter for Energy and Environmental Security, School of Law, University of Colorado,Boulder, Colorado 80309-0401; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011. 36:139–61

First published online as a Review in Advance onAugust 1, 2011

The Annual Review of Environment and Resourcesis online at environ.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-040610-090118

Copyright c© 2011 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

1543-5938/11/1121-0139$20.00

Keywords

appropriate sustainable energy technologies, energy justice, energypoor, least-developed countries, Millennium Development Goals,sustainable development

Abstract

The energy poor (EP) encompass between 1.25 billion and 3 billionpeople who do not have access to beneficial energy for their cooking, il-lumination, or mechanical needs. Their lives are disfigured by ill health,poverty, lack of education, and underdevelopment. The universally ac-cepted norm of sustainable development (SD) demands that the rest ofthe world, spearheaded by the rich nations, address the plight of the EP.In a welcome response, the United Nations (UN) has recently embracedthe need for universal access to electricity and declared 2012 the “Inter-national Year of Sustainable Energy for All” with a focus on providingelectricity. Although access to electricity must remain the ultimate ob-jective, the daunting additional costs of electricity, and the time takento do so—realistically 30 years—will shunt the EP into limbo unlessinterim measures are also taken. Beneficial energy based on appropriatesustainable energy technologies (ASETs) can provide such intermedi-ate energy. ASETs bridge the gap between capital-intensive electricityand the traditional subsistence technologies of the EP. ASETs demandserious consideration.

139

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Contents

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1402. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN

ENERGY AND POVERTY . . . . . . . 1413. THE CASE FOR ELECTRICITY

EXAMINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1424. WHY APPROPRIATE

SUSTAINABLE ENERGYTECHNOLOGIES? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1454.1. Existing Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . 1454.2. Appropriate Sustainable Energy

Technologies Described. . . . . . . . . 1464.3. Access to Fuels for Cooking . . . . 1464.4. Access to Mechanical Power . . . . 148

5. RIGHT TO SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT AND ACCESSTO ENERGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1495.1. John Rawls and Sustainable

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1505.2. Rawlsian Sustainable

Development as It Appliesto the Energy Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

6. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTAND THE MILLENNIUMDEVELOPMENT GOALS . . . . . . . 1536.1. Eradicate Extreme Poverty

and Hunger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1536.2. Achieve Universal Primary

Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1546.3. Promote Gender Equality and

Empowerment of Women. . . . . . . 1546.4. Reduce Child Mortality . . . . . . . . 1556.5. Improve Maternal Health . . . . . . 1556.6. Combat Human

ImmunodeficiencyVirus/AcquiredImmunodeficiency Sydrome,Malaria, and Other Diseases . . . . . 155

6.7. Ensure EnvironmentalSustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

6.8. Develop a Global Partnershipfor Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

7. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

1. INTRODUCTION

The term energy poor (EP) refers to two cate-gories of people. The most vulnerable categoryconsists of more than 1.4 billion people wholive on less than $1.15 per day (1) and have noaccess to reliable, safe, and efficient energy forcooking, lighting, space heating, or mechanicalpower. The second consists of close to 3 billionpeople, accounting for nearly half the world’spopulation, who rely upon harmful energy likebiomass-generated fire for their cooking andheating (2).

A disturbingly large swath of humanity iscaught in a time warp. They rely on biomass-generated fire as their principal source ofenergy. These fires are made by burning an-imal dung, waste, crop residues, rotted wood,other forms of harmful biomass, or raw coal.Smoke from the fire used for cooking leadsto the premature deaths of two million peoplefrom respiratory infection, primarily womenand children. Moreover, fire fails to supply themajority of other basic energy needs. Even themost rudimentary forms of rural agricultureneed energy for water pumping, irrigation,plowing, harvesting, milling, grinding, and pro-cessing food. Generating income through smallbusinesses requires energy to transport anddistribute goods and services to markets, as wellas for telecommunications. Water treatmentplants that provide safe drinking water for com-munities and schools require energy. Hospitalsneed energy for refrigerating vital medicationsand vaccinations. Education calls for energy forthe lighting and heating of schools, and studentsneed lighting at home to do their homework.

The EP have been conceptualized within asingle typology based on the binary division ofthe world into developing and developed coun-tries or North and South. However, the flaws ofclassifying the EP in this way are underlined bya recent authoritative joint report of the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP)and World Health Organization (WHO) (3).Although 28% of people in developing coun-tries lack access to electricity, the number in theleast-developed countries (LDCs) is 79% (3).

140 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The LDCs consist of 49 countries and 767million people located primarily in Africa andAsia. The LDCs have been officially identi-fied by the UN as least developed in light oftheir low income (three-year average gross na-tional income per capita of less than US$905),weak human assets (low nutrition, high mortal-ity, lack of school enrollment, and high illiter-acy), high economic vulnerability, exposure tonatural shocks and disasters, prevalence of tradeshocks, economic smallness, and economic re-moteness (4). These figures accentuate someof the differences between the LDCs of sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and the newlyindustrialized countries (NICs), such as China,India, the Asian Tigers,1 and Brazil. It is there-fore necessary at the outset to acknowledge atleast two major categories among the develop-ing countries: LDCs and NICs. Many segmentswithin NICs are in fact served by electricitybased on fossil fuels. These NICs have advancedup the energy ladder, in contrast to the LDCswho are trapped at the bottom of the energyladder.

A general lack of access to beneficial energyplays an enormous role in both creating andpromulgating the condition of the LDCs, andbecause the phenomenon of energy poverty isoverwhelmingly a problem of the LDCs, theprimary focus of this article is on them. The ar-ticle begins with a reassertion of the thesis thatthe development of civilization has been depen-dent upon, and continues to be controlled by,the use and exploitation of beneficial energy.It then evaluates the arguments for electricityand attempts to provide electricity to the EP,and next canvasses access to non-electrical en-ergy specifically citing cooking and mechanicalpower.2

1Originally called the Four Asian Tigers or East Asian Tigers,the term referred to the economies of Taiwan, Singapore,Hong Kong, and South Korea, but the term has been ex-tended to include Thailand and Indonesia.2Poverty is defined by how it is measured. Consequently, themetric used to quantify energy poverty is critical in estab-lishing its’ prevalence and defining the EP. The data used inthis paper are taken primarily from the UNDP report “TheEnergy Access Situation in Developing Countries: A Review

Energy poor (EP):between 1.4 billion to3 billion people whohave no access tobeneficial energy forcooking, lighting,space heating, ormechanical power

Least-developedcountries (LDCs):consist of 49economically, sociallydeprived andotherwise vulnerablecountries, consisting of767 million people,located largely inAfrica and Asia

Appropriatesustainable energytechnologies(ASETs): seek tobridge the gapbetween thecapital-intensiveadvanced technologiesof the developed worldand the traditionalsubsistencetechnologies of the EP

Sustainabledevelopment (SD):an expression ofdistributive justiceforming thefoundational premiseof international energyand environmental law

MillenniumDevelopment Goals(MDGs): goalsdesigned by the UNto target extremepoverty, hunger; lackof primary education;gender equality, childmortality; maternalhealth; HIV/AIDS,malaria and otherdiseases

The current era of globalization is driven bymodern innovation and advanced technologiesthat occur in industrialized countries. Thesetechnologies are not necessarily affordable, ap-propriate, or accessible for the EP. By contrast,traditional uses of energy, and the technolo-gies surrounding them, are frequently harm-ful, inefficient, and unproductive. Appropriatesustainable energy technologies (ASETs) seekto bridge the gap between the capital-intensiveadvanced technologies of the developed worldand the traditional subsistence technologies ofthe EP. ASETs’ goals are to free the EP fromthe oppressive impacts of unhealthy and unre-liable energy access and to facilitate sustainabledevelopment (SD) in the LDCs. This articlediscusses the benefits of ASETs as an immedi-ate solution or as the first step toward beneficialenergy for a significant segment of the EP.

Furthermore, this article posits that theneeds of the EP must be addressed within theethical, political, and legal framework of SD. Inorder that the universally accepted principles ofSD be applied in earnest, it is essential that theworld accept a rational justification for SD. Thegreat political philosopher John Rawls providesa cogent justification, particularly in his Law ofPeoples (5). This article briefly reviews his thesisand arrives at a crucial conclusion: SD, as in-formed by John Rawls, obligates the world toaddress the needs of the EP. Finally, this articlepresents the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) as an embodiment of Rawlsian princi-ples and highlights the potential of ASETs toachieve each of these goals.

2. THE CONNECTION BETWEENENERGY AND POVERTY

A somewhat neglected seam of scholarship,depicting how societies have used energy, has

Focusing on the Least Developed Countries and sub-SaharanAfrica” (3) and are largely a compilation of data from publi-cally available information from government reporting agen-cies. It is out of the scope of this paper to discuss the differentmetrics of defining energy poverty, please see Bazilian et al.(14) for further information.

www.annualreviews.org • Energy Poverty 141

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


illuminated the interface between physical ornatural phenomena and social systems createdby humans. Energy penetrates and impacts al-most all facets of the human and social world(6). The dominant conceptualization of this re-lationship remains a slightly nuanced versionof the original hypothesis set forth by HerbertSpencer (7) in the 1800s. He hypothesized thatthe ability of societies to harness energy de-fines what they can produce, and thus the abil-ity to harness energy is the basis of both socialprogress and development disparities amongsocieties (7).

In the 1950s, White (8) refined this ideaby discussing cultural progress in terms of acontinuum, where progress is conceptualizedin terms of a linear path from poor to advancedenergy use. He posited that development ispropelled by societies’ ability to exploit new,better forms of energy and that access to energyper capita does not only dictate the progress ofpeoples, but it also is inextricably linked withcultural developments and the shape of modernsociety on the basis of who has access andcontrol over production (8). Cottrell (9) furtherdeveloped this idea by discussing energy as alimiting factor, where the ability (or inability)to harness energy limits human capacity forgrowth. Even a soft conceptual superimposi-tion or application of this framework withina modern milieu reveals that access to energyis essential to development and that inabilityto access energy can both cause and propagatepoverty so that the EP are forced to rely onhuman energy and inefficient conversion ofbiomass to complete their daily tasks.

A recent report by the United Nation’sSecretary General’s Advisory Group on Energyand Climate Change (2) endorses the linearframework for energy development and cham-pions universal access to “modern” energy.To achieve increased global energy efficiency,the report suggests a number of prioritiesthat demonstrate an understanding of solvingenergy poverty as “indispensable for globalprosperity” (2). In the end, however, the reportis based on an unarticulated major premise:leapfrogging (2). This is the notion that

countries and peoples using poorly developedtechnology, such as open fires for cooking,heating, and illumination, can morph intosocieties employing modern energy systemswithout the need for an intermediary stage. Forexample, the linear progression model assumesthe EP will leapfrog from fire and harmfulbiomass to modern energy, involving large-scale, minigrid, and off-grid electrification,without the need for intermediate steps.

3. THE CASE FOR ELECTRICITYEXAMINED

The incontrovertible predicate that energy isa sine qua non for development has given riseto a linear framework calling upon the EP toleapfrog from primitive to modern electricalenergy. This analytical supposition continuesto dominate how energy and poverty areconceptualized today.

A report by the International Energy Agency(IEA), the UNDP, and the UN Industrial andDevelopment Organization (UNIDO) (here-inafter the IEA Report) delineates how the EPcan benefit from access to electricity and cook-ing facilities (13). It emphasizes that billions ofpeople are without access to electricity or cook-ing facilities and that extreme poverty cannotbe eradicated without acknowledging and con-fronting the lack of energy.

One of the important conclusions of thisvaluable report, however, is significantly flawedbecause, with one exception, it equates elec-tricity with energy. The one exception made isfor addressing indoor pollution by introducingnon-electric cookstoves. Beneficial energy forcooking is a basic and fundamental need of theEP, and cookstoves are an example of ASETsthat supply this need. With the exception ofcooking, the report considers electricity for allas its aim and objective.

But having recognized an exception deal-ing with energy for cooking, the rest of theIEA Report is premised on the linear leapfrog-ging model that equates electricity with energy,and advocates the sole goal of universal mod-ern electrical energy by 2030. This is puzzling.

142 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Once the salience of non-electrical energy forcooking is recognized, a parity of reasoningcommends equal recognition of the need fornon-electrical energy for illumination and me-chanical needs as interim technologies. Unfor-tunately, the IEA Report glosses over the needsof the EP for energy for illumination and me-chanical energy during the 30 to 40 years thatit would realistically take to provide energy ac-cess to all. It seems that the non-electric energyneeds of the EP, with the exception of cooking,have been placed in limbo awaiting the eventualarrival of electricity.

Enigmatically, the IEA Report does so de-spite recognizing the almost prohibitive addi-tional cost of the generation, transmission, dis-tribution, and installation of electricity, whichit quantifies as $788 billion of additional in-vestment, and acknowledges that this presentsa “major challenge” (13). But the daunting na-ture of the challenge may have been misread.While the IEA Report estimates the costs ofaccess to modern electric energy for the EP by2030 to amount to an additional $788 billion,others have argued that this figure underesti-mated some costs and omitted others and thatthe actual cost may be as high as $134 billionper year (14).

Moreover, the report offers an unrealistictime frame. In light of the political andfinancial difficulties identified by the report,it will take at least until 2040 or 2050 for thisgoal to be realized. If and when that wereto happen, electricity can provide numerousenergy services such as illumination, cooking,refrigeration, telecommunications, education,transportation, and uses stemming frommechanical power (10) that affect all aspects oflife, including access to education, healthcare,water quality, and communications (11).

But, it remains demonstrably clear thatthe EP need immediate access to basic energyservices, with or without a modern electricalsystem, because they are forced to rely uponunreliable and often expensive sources ofenergy to complete daily tasks. For example, inthe Peruvian Andes, Caritas and the Universityof Colorado at Boulder are conducting a

project to improve access to energy in theindigent Quechua communities just outsidethe city of Ayaviri ( J. Jenks, unpublishedinformation). We found that almost none ofthe families have access to electricity, with themajority of families using candles to illuminatetheir homes. Some families live more than20 miles of unpaved Andean countryside fromthe nearest market, and the simple task of illu-minating their home places a substantial physi-cal, temporal, and financial burden on the fami-lies who must walk hours to the nearest store topurchase the candles. Families that do not havethe means to procure candle lighting are unableto illuminate their homes and are forced tostop all productivity at sundown. In the Andeanwinter, this is approximately six o’clock.

While this article concludes that electricitywill not offer an immediate answer to signifi-cant segments of the EP because it costs toomuch and will take too long, it has been ar-gued otherwise. These contrary claims need tobe considered.

It has been contended, for example, that theactual amount of energy the EP need to satisfytheir basic needs make it a feasible endeavor.The typical per capita amount of electricityneeded to satisfy basic energy services for off-grid households in all developing countries, as-suming five people per household is, accordingto them, only about 50 kWh per year (15). Toprovide that much more energy per year for allof the EP would only amount to less than 0.5%of global annual production of electricity (15).

However, it should be noted at the outsetof this discussion that 50 kWh per year willhardly satisfy the basic energy needs for illu-mination, mechanical energy, or water purifi-cation of a five-person household. Accordingto the World Bank, the per capita consumptionin India, which has one of the lowest per capitaconsumption rates in the world, is 639 kWh(16).

Two main ways are popularly proposed toaddress the lack of access to electricity in theLDCs: a centralized grid extension and decen-tralized systems (11). For example, large-scalegrid extension is the increased distribution of


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


electricity from a big central system. This ap-proach is most efficient in densely populatedareas, where the physical task of increasing in-home connections is more cost-effective. Bycontrast, a decentralized system could consistof a small hydrodam creating a relatively in-expensive central system, with minigrid exten-sions serving one or two communities.

Although large-scale grid extensions haveseen some positive applications, for example, inChina, Vietnam, and South Africa (2), this solu-tion is less apt to address the energy access situa-tion in the LDCs for a number of reasons. First,grid extension requires state-run programs toincrease access and also assumes functioning,financially sound national governments. TheLDCs are often characterized by a general lackof financial or federal means and, without cre-ative intervention, would be unable to completethe task. Second, because the majority of peo-ple lacking access to electricity in the LDCs arerural dwellers, grid extension would be costly,tardy, and possibly completely unfeasible in re-mote regions.

As opposed to grid extension, decentralizedelectricity allows for the optimization of the useof indigenous natural resources. The power isgenerated on site, thereby avoiding transmis-sion losses and long distribution chains andsatisfying energy demand directly. The stan-dardization and modularity of the technologyprovides a high degree of flexibility to adaptto different locations and environments and atthe same time allows the installed technologyto be scaled up when demand increases. Fur-thermore, the relatively simple installation andmaintenance, combined with minimal runningcosts, facilitate local training and income gen-eration opportunities, which, in turn, guaranteethe sustainability of the system. Moreover, on alife cycle basis, it is cost competitive comparedwith the conventional options (17).

The photovoltaic (PV) system has beenposited as an example of the benefits of decen-tralized electricity. The modular nature of PVgenerators means that installations can be re-designed to meet an increase in demand; PV wa-ter systems can also be easily moved with little

dismantling and low reinstallation costs. Thistechnology is also highly efficient: Direct solarpumping technology covers applications rang-ing from 500 to 1,500 m3/day, requires minimalmaintenance, and, of course, does not use fossilfuels. Since 1994, ∼24,000 solar pumping sys-tems have been installed worldwide, providingdrinking water to several thousand householdsand community services (health clinics, schools,and the like), as well as irrigation services. Gam-bia, Tunisia, and Algeria are some of the loca-tions that have benefited from this technology.The EU predicted the installation of 150,000PV pumps by the year 2010 (17).

Hybrid systems are presented as anotherpromising example. A typical hybrid systemcombines two or more energy sources, suchas PV panels with wind or other conventionalfuels, e.g., diesel. Hybrid systems capture thebest features of each energy resource and canprovide “grid-quality” electricity with a powerrange between several kilowatts and severalhundred kilowatts. This combined technologycan be used for a range of applications fromvillage electrification to professional energysolutions, such as telecommunication stationsor emergency rooms at hospitals, and as abackup to the public grid in case of blackouts.Hybrid systems are integrated in small electric-ity distribution systems (minigrids) and can beincorporated into both available and plannedstructures, as replacements for diesel minigridsystems. Retrofitting hybrid power systems tothe existing diesel-based plants significantlyminimizes delivery and transport problems anddrastically reduces maintenance and emissions,representing a more advantageous solutionfor rural areas. Even if such systems include agenerator as a backup, renewable energy canstill supply, at least, between 60% and 90% ofthe energy, with generators providing as littleas 10% of the energy (17).

These are offered as just two examples ofhow rural electrification can be achieved with-out the high-capital, time-intensive traditionalideas of grid extension. However, it must be rec-ognized that decentralized electricity requiresinitial investment, and some sources estimate

144 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


that, at a minimum, rural households will con-sume at least 250 kWh, which would providefor a floor fan, two fluorescent light bulbs, anda radio for about five hours per day. By con-trast, urban households consume approximately500 kWh per year. This would amount to to-tal growth of incremental electricity output ofaround 950 TWh, representing 2.9% of the33,000 TWh estimated to be generated in 2030(13).

Whether centralized or decentralized, sub-stantial investment is needed to revitalize thegenerating systems and associated transmis-sions and distribution networks in the LDCs.According to the World Bank, sub-SaharanAfrica would need to spend 2.7% of its an-nual gross domestic product (GDP) on capitalequipment alone. Today, the majority of ruralpeople without access to electricity live in sub-Saharan Africa (approximately 500 million) andSouth Asia (approximately 470 million). Thesetwo growing regions have the lowest averageelectrification rates in the world, estimated atnot more than 12% and 48%, respectively.Even more worrying is that these low rates haveshown very little improvement over time.

The investment required to provide electric-ity will amount to between 4% and 5% of an-nual GDP for these countries. Such a rate ofexpenditure would be necessary to eradicate en-ergy poverty in the LDCs over the next 20 years.The governments of poor countries cannot be-gin to tackle such vast financial requirementswithout assistance. This is where ASETs comein.

4. WHY APPROPRIATESUSTAINABLE ENERGYTECHNOLOGIES?

4.1. Existing Challenges

Before discussing appropriate sustainableenergy technologies (ASETs), it is importantto briefly delineate some of the challengesconfronting their fabrication, distribution, anddeployment. First, there is the informationchallenge. The primary objective is to convey

the extent to which most of the ills of the EPare attributable to lack of energy. Presentingarresting and compelling information viaTV, print, and electronic media, as well astheater and community communication, is asmuch a challenge for civil society as it is forgovernments at all levels. Second, there is thebehavioral challenge. Even where presentedwith good information, some among the EPmay choose to continue doing what they havebeen accustomed to doing. The reasons fortheir reluctance may include tradition, taste,cost, convenience, or fear of change. Meetingthis behavioral challenge calls for the samecoalitions as those dealing with the informationchallenge. Implementation strategies shouldbe informed by local conditions and could beenhanced by education, persuasion, and, inappropriate circumstances, law and legislation.

Third, there is the challenge of financingASETs. The current lack of funding is un-deniable; extensive funding from private andpublic sources for every aspect of ASETs (fromresearch, development, and demonstrationto investment, manufacture, marketing, anddistribution) is required. Investment in ASETsfrom private investors is particularly lacking,possibly because ASETs are largely new andunfamiliar. Part of the novelty of fundingASETs is that it falls somewhere between phil-anthropic giving and regular investment, whichmay cause potential investors to vacillate.

Moreover, public policy must be reshapedso as to allocate public resources to ASETs.There is a pressing case to educate and in-fluence decision makers in the public sector,where large sums of money are set aside forsocial programs both nationally and as foreignaid. This must be accompanied by a recontour-ing of existing institutions, such as aid agenciesand foreign offices, to respond to the needsof the EP. Nationally, institutionalizing themoral predicate and the obligation to reach outto the EP can be achieved through legislationand policy. Internationally, it requires a focuson the right to SD and on the duty placedon rich countries by the principle of commonbut differentiated responsibility to help the


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Table 1 Examples of appropriate sustainable energy technologies

Energy service Type of sustainable technologyCooking Efficient cook stoves, charcoal, biogas, passive solar, and pyrolytic

cook stovesWater filtration and disinfection Cloth filters, desalination, solar water disinfection, ceramic and sand

filtration, nanofilters (e.g., TATA Swach)Heating Efficient cook stoves, passive solar heatingAgricultural technology Improved plows, harnesses, feed systems, better yokes, sustainable

farming practices, passive solar greenhouses, fog collection,rainwater harvesting, hippo water roller, shallow and deep wellswith lining

Irrigation Drip irrigation systems, treadle pumps, ram pumps, rope pumps, andplay pumps

Lighting and refrigeration Multifunctional biodiesel platforms, hand-held solar lamps,minielectric light-emittting diode (LED) lighting, Faradayflashlight, pot-in-pot refrigerator, and solar refrigerators

Transportation Local biodiesel, mechanical enhancement, improved cart design,bicycles

Waste management Composting, pit latrines, urine-diversion dehydration toilets,composting toilets, treatment ponds, constructed wetlands

Housing Improved construction practices, solar thermal heatingLocal electric power Picohydropower (under 5 kW), wind-belt microwind generator,

microhydro, small solar, small-scale wind power, handwheelgenerators

Human power improvement Roundabouts, gear-driven shellcrackers, universal nut shellers,screenless hammer mills

EP. Furthermore, the flexibility mechanismsunder the Kyoto Protocol can be utilized togive credit not just for the reduction of carbondioxide but also of black soot and other non-greenhouse gas (non-GHG) causes of globalwarming, which is more relevant to the LDCs.

4.2. Appropriate Sustainable EnergyTechnologies Described

ASETs refer to the simplest level of energytechnology that can satisfy basic energy needs ofthe EP, including cooking, illumination, agri-culture, communication, and drinking water.They are based on sustainable engineering tai-lored to the particular environmental, ethical,cultural, social, political, and economic aspectsof the community for which they are intended.ASETs require fewer resources, are easier tomaintain, and have less of an impact on theenvironment compared to techniques derived

from mainstream technology. Investing in re-search and dissemination of ASETs capitalizeson the many different environmental and so-cial capabilities of energy-deprived communi-ties, sidesteps the financial and temporal con-straints of large-scale energy projects (e.g., gridexpansion), and addresses the needs of the EPimmediately; see Table 1.

The following two subsections demonstratethe potential of ASETs to meet the needs of theEP in the crucial areas of cooking and mechan-ical power.

4.3. Access to Fuels for Cooking

In the LDCs, 715 million people rely on solidfuels for cooking, 703 million rely on tradi-tional biomass, and 615 million of those rely-ing on biomass live in sub-Saharan Africa alone(3). In the LDCs, the overwhelming majorityof people forced to use solid fuels for cooking

146 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


are rural, and more than 80% of rural dwellersrely on solid fuels for cooking, including wood,coal, charcoal, crop residues, and dung; and85% of those people rely on wood and its by-products only (3). This means that a mere 15%of the EP in the LDCs enjoy access to mod-ern fuels [i.e., electricity, liquefied petroleumgas (LPG), natural gas, kerosene, ethanol, orbiofuels] for cooking.The general lack of ac-cess to modern fuels, and the overwhelmingreliance on biomass for cooking, has a num-ber of adverse consequences on human healthand also on the global phenomenon of climatechange. First, the EP who rely on biomass forcooking fuel generally cook over an open fireor with some other form of a traditional stove.This process is exceedingly inefficient, as only∼18% of the energy from the fire transfers tothe pot (18). Depending on the type of fueland stove being used, indoor air pollution cancontain a variety of dangerous pollutants, suchas carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, sulfur ox-ides, formaldehyde, carcinogens (such as ben-zene), and small particulate matter (19). Sec-ond, two million deaths per year (3.3% of alldeaths) are caused by indoor pollution owing tocombustion of solid fuels worldwide, with morethan 99% of these deaths in developing coun-tries (3). Specifically, though the population ofthe LDCs makes up a mere 12% of the globalcitizenry, they account for 30% of all deathscaused by indoor pollution (3). For some per-spective, consider the health recommendationsof the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The EPA sets a limit of 150 μg/m3 forsmall particulates in the United States, and theWHO reports that a typical 24-h mean level forhomes burning biomass fuels is between 300 to3,000 μg/m3 (19). This results in pollution lev-els that are far more deadly in EP countries thanthe atmospheric pollution allowed by the devel-oped world. According to the WHO, exposureto high concentrations of indoor air pollutionpresents one of the ten most important threatsto public health worldwide (20), resulting in dis-eases such as pneumonia, chronic pulmonarydisease, lung cancer, asthma, and acute respira-tory infections (ARIs). Furthermore, three pub-

lished studies suggest that people in homes us-ing wood for cooking are at 2.5 times greaterrisk of active tuberculosis than those who do not(18), and there is growing evidence suggestingthat indoor air pollution causes cataracts (18).

Third, women and children are dispropor-tionately affected by the use of biomass forcooking. Women are traditionally responsiblefor cooking and childcare in the home, andthey spend more time inhaling the polluted airthat is trapped indoors. Thus, women and chil-dren have the highest exposure to indoor airpollution and suffer more than anyone fromthese negative health effects (21). Specifically,the risk for childhood pneumonia increases2.3 times in homes that burn solid fuels forcooking, and women are about twice as likely asmen to be afflicted with chronic pulmonary dis-ease in homes using solid fuels (3). Beyond suf-fering adverse health effects, women and chil-dren are also disproportionately affected by thetime constraints needed for collecting fuel. Aswith water collection from the preceding analy-sis, women are also burdened with the majorityof the work to collect fuel, which can presentother serious risks such as an increased chanceof being raped, as occurred in the refugee campsof Darfur (22).

Fourth, there are also severe environmentalimpacts of biomass dependence. The relianceon wood as a fuel source puts considerable pres-sure on local forests, particularly in areas wherefuel is scarce and demand for wood outstripsnatural regrowth (23). Depletion of woodlandcan lead to soil erosion and loss of a carbon sink(24). Furthermore, it is well established thatburning dung and agricultural residues emitscarbon dioxide and methane (25). Arrestingnew research findings—well-received, thoughthey have not yet garnered universal consensusamong the scientific community—have nowidentified emissions from the burning ofbiomass as a significant cause of anthropogenicglobal warming. For example, according toan article in Nature Geoscience (26) discussedin Science (27), the black carbon emitted byburning biomass is the second largest contrib-utor to current global warming after carbon


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


dioxide emissions. The article concludes thatblack carbon warms the atmosphere moreseverely than other GHGs, such as methane,halocarbons, and tropospheric ozone, byabsorbing both direct and reflected solar radia-tion (26). Unlike GHGs, ambient black carbondissipates in a very short period of time. Thus,helping to move one-third of the global popu-lation away from biomass burning will have theeffect of reducing global warming more imme-diately than merely reducing carbon dioxideemissions. Furthermore, removing black car-bon would reduce the effects black soot has onimpairing the albedo, or reflectivity, of polar ice(28). The presence of overlying black carbonmay result in ice retaining more heat, leading toincreased melting and further global warming.

The dependence on biomass for cookingcan be addressed in two ways. First, agricul-tural waste or animal dung can be convertedto other useable forms of energy to createbetter fuels by using biogas digesters. TheNational Biodigester Programme, perhaps thebest-documented and most successful programof its kind, is a joint enterprise between theCambodia Ministry of Agriculture, Forestryand Fisheries and the Netherlands Develop-ment Organisation. Unfortunately, the cost ofeach biodigester runs into the hundreds of dol-lars, which places it outside the reach of most ofthe EP (29). Other forms of fuel pellets or con-verted fuels have not proven to be practicableand have not gained wide currency.

The other way to address indoor pollution isto increase access to improved cookstoves. TheGlobal Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (30) is anew initiative, led by the UN Foundation, sup-porting large-scale adoption of clean and safehousehold cooking solutions as a way to savelives, improve livelihoods, empower women,and reduce climate change emissions. The al-liance’s founding partners have set a goal of en-abling an additional 100 million homes to adoptclean, efficient stoves and fuels by 2020.

Improved cookstoves can utilize a numberof different fuel types but in general aredesigned to conduct more efficient combustionand reduce particulate indoor air pollution. For

example, Envirofit (a non-profit corporation)has created a stove that can reduce emissionsby as much as 80% and use up to 60% less fuelwhile reducing cooking cycle time by up to 50%compared to traditional open fires (31). TheUniversity of California, Berkeley, designeda cookstove for refugee camps in Darfur thatsaves more than 1.5 metric tons of CO2 per year.In terms of CO2 reductions, this is equivalentto removing one average U.S. vehicle from theroad for an entire year (32). Both of these exam-ples use local solid fuels to facilitate sustainablepractices within the community, but there area number of other stoves that use ethanol, gas,or other forms of liquid fuels to increase com-bustion efficiency and reduce the particulateindoor pollution. Average clean cookstovescan cost anywhere from US$5 to $40, depend-ing on the model and region in which it isassembled, again demonstrating a relativelylow-cost-benefit ratio and presenting a timelyopportunity to address the needs of the EP.

4.4. Access to Mechanical Power

“The 2.5 billion people without access to mod-ern energy services still depend on unimprovedversions of mechanical power equipment thatinefficiently use human or animal power tomeet their energy needs” (33, p. 20). Mechani-cal power refers to “the transmission of energythrough a solid structure to impart motion,such as for pumping, pushing, and othersimilar needs. . .” (3). In a practical sense, thismeans either using human and animal power,or modern energy sources such as wind, solar,gas, or electrical power to complete daily tasks.The energy services that stem from access tomechanical power include agriculture (irriga-tion, farming, and processing), water pumping,and small-scale industry (33). Unfortunately,specific data quantifying exactly how many ofthe EP in the LDCs lack access to mechanicalpower is few and far between.3 It is clear,

3In the 2009 UNDP report, only three of the LDCs had datato report on access to mechanical power.

148 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


however, that access to mechanical power isa problem for the EP and that it has begun toreceive attention on the international energyagenda (3).4

For the EP, inability to access modern formsof mechanical energy results in the use of inef-ficient human and animal power to satisfy themost basic needs. To have water for drinking,women (primarily) must perform the arduoustask of walking to the natural source and collect-ing it for use in the household (33). Dependingon the season, in parts of Africa, this can requirespending up to four hours per day collectingwater. In Uganda, women spend an average of660 hours per year (about a month’s time) col-lecting water (33). Even a very simple ASET,such as a water pump, could drastically cut col-lection time. Less time spent collecting waterwill also aid development and gender equalityby allowing women to spend the time saved onother productive activities—be it economic, ed-ucational, or domestic.

Although water pumps are widely used inparts of the developing world, they are mostcommonly operated through the use of humanpower—by either hand or foot. This is alsoa physically demanding and time-consumingmethod for collecting water. In some locations,it may be appropriate to employ windmill, wa-ter wheel, or PV solar technologies to ease theburden on manual pumping. Selecting an ef-fective ASET-based pump for lifting potablewater requires investigating the groundwaterdepth, water characteristics, capacity demand,preferred method of operation, and mainte-nance sustainability in the target region. Fortu-nately, there are numerous non-electric or fossilfuel–based pumps that are up for the task (34).

Another example of how ASETs can be usedto provide useful mechanical energy involvesthe method for processing grain. Before graincan be consumed or sold, the EP must dry it inthe sun or with a handheld fan and then grind

4Increased investments in mechanical power interventions bythe Gates Foundation, UNDP, U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment, CID, the World Bank, and others (51).

it by hand or with a flail. Because postharvestprocessing is “arguably the main factor in help-ing farmers increase their income,” simple tech-nologies such as watermills could drastically cutthe amount of physical labor needed, increaseproduction, and improve both food security andprofit margins for farmers (35). Although im-proving access to some basic services achievedthrough mechanical power can be addressedthrough expanding access to electricity, this en-ergy deficit can also be addressed through non-electric, non-fossil fuel ASETs.

A particularly innovative application ofASETs to the EP is the Gravity Goods Rope-ways project conducted by Practical Action,Nepal (52). The project, initiated in 2002, wasconducted as a way to reduce the transportationtime it took communities to walk their agricul-tural produce from the village farmyards in thehighlands down to the main roads. The tech-nology was beautifully adapted to fit unique lo-cal conditions. It is basically a system of gravityoperated pulleys that can carry up to 130 kg ofgoods in a trolley carriage 1.3 km from an el-evated platform to a lower platform and about40 kg of goods from the lower platform to thehigher one. The ropeways have reduced trans-portation costs for farmers by 85% and trans-portation time from 3–4 h a day to just 5 min.Each individual pulley is locally managed, andoperational costs are funded by use charges.The communities contributed 40% of the ini-tial investment, and the rest was funded by ex-ternal sources. In sum, the ropeway requiredonly about US$6,500 (£4,200) of initial exter-nal investment. Examples like this demonstratethe feasibility of applying efficient, simple, andsustainable solutions to the problems of energypoverty.

5. RIGHT TO SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT AND ACCESSTO ENERGY

The problem of access to energy relegates theEP to a life of desperation that affronts interna-tional concepts of justice and SD. The conceptof SD was originally formulated by the World


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Commission on Sustainable Development, alsoknown as the Brundtland Commission, as a dis-tributional principle to address the needs of theworld’s poor while maintaining environmentalintegrity. SD mandates that global environ-mental protection must be pursued in tandemwith economic and social development. Inter-national law unequivocally institutionalizes SD.

The “UN Framework Convention onClimate Change” (UNFCCC) is the mostimportant energy convention in the world.Having obtained 194 instruments of ratifica-tion, it is probably the most extensively adoptedtreaty in the world. Article 3(1) of the UN-FCCC states that the Parties have a right to andshould promote SD and that economic devel-opment is essential for adopting measures to ad-dress climate change, while Article 3(2) affirmsthat full consideration be given to the specialcircumstances of developing countries. Partiesare required to protect the climate system onthe basis of equity and in accordance with theircommon but differentiated responsibilities andrespective capacities. The principle of commonbut differentiated responsibility affirms the re-sponsibility of the developed country parties totake the lead in combating climate change andthe adverse effects thereof.

The UNFCCC coalesced with anotherwidely accepted treaty, the “Convention onBiological Diversity” (CBD), by forcefully andunequivocally expressing the developmentalpriority of SD. Article 4(7) of the UNFCCCand Article 20(4) of the CBD reaffirm in uni-son that parties “will take fully into account thateconomic and social development and povertyeradication are the first and overriding pri-orities of the developing country Parties. . . .”Specifically, therefore, energy poverty can onlybe addressed within a framework of distributivejustice as part of the overall right to economicand social development established by the foun-dational norm of SD.

5.1. John Rawls and SustainableDevelopment

John Rawls’s foundational concepts of in-ternational justice, which began with liberal

democratic societies but was expanded to in-clude even non-democratic societies, providesa moral justification for SD (5). Rawls discussesa “realistic utopia” grounded in sociopolitical,institutional, and psychological reality (5). Thissection attempts to reconcile Rawls’s ideas withpresent realities insofar as they apply to SD andthe EP.

Rawls’s “original position,” a thought ex-periment expounded in A Theory of Justice (36),and developed in numerous other works, envi-sioned a collection of negotiators from liberaldemocratic societies. The negotiators assem-bled behind a veil of ignorance and were shornof any knowledge that might be the basis ofself-interested bias, such as knowledge of theirgender, wealth, race, ethnicity, abilities, andgeneral social circumstances. Rawls explainsthat the purpose of such a negotiation was toarrive at legitimate principles of justice underfair conditions—hence “justice as fairness” (36).

In The Law of Peoples (5), concerning justiceand international law, Rawls extends his theo-ries from liberal democratic states to “decent”peoples living in non-democratic internationalsocieties. Rawls envisions such “well-orderedhierarchical societies” to be “nonliberal soci-eties whose basic institutions meet specifiedconditions of political right and justice (includ-ing the right of citizens to play a substantial role,such as participating in associations and groupsmaking political decisions) and lead theircitizens to honor a reasonably just law for theSociety of Peoples” (5). Well-ordered societiesmust satisfy a number of criteria: They musteschew aggressive aims as a means of achievingtheir objectives; honor basic human rightsdealing with life, liberty, and freedom; and pos-sess a system of law imposing bona fide moralduties and obligations, as distinct from humanrights. Moreover, they must have law andjudges to uphold common ideas of justice (36).

Rawls demonstrated how the law of peoplesmay be developed out of liberal ideas of jus-tice similar to, but more general than, the ideaof justice as fairness presented in A Theory ofJustice (36). Just as individuals in the first orig-inal position were shorn of knowledge about

150 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


their attributes and placed behind a veil of ig-norance to create principles for a just domesticsociety, the bargainers in the so-called secondoriginal position are representatives of peopleswho are shorn of knowledge about their peo-ple’s resources, wealth, power, and the like. Be-hind the veil of ignorance, the representativesof peoples—not states, since states lack moralcapacity—develop the principles of justice thatwill govern relations between them: the law ofpeoples.

It should be noted at this juncture that thereis a difference between John Rawls’ theories ofdomestic and international justice. The prin-ciples of domestic distributive justice espousedby Rawls in A Theory of Justice (36) did not ap-ply to the international sphere. A pivotal rea-son for this offered by Rawls is that, on theglobal level, the behavior of peoples as opposedto individuals is the primary determinant ofjustice.

Rawls emphasized the need for global orderand stability over global distributive justice.Once the duty to assist burdened peoples issatisfied, there are no further requirements oneconomic distribution within Rawls’s law ofpeoples: Inequalities across national bordersare of no political concern as such. Individualsaround the world may suffer greatly from badluck and may be haunted by spiritual emptiness.The practical goal of Rawls’s law of peoplesis the elimination of the great evils of humanhistory: unjust war and oppression, religiouspersecution and the denial of liberty of con-science, starvation and poverty, genocide, andmass murder. The limits of this ambition meanthat there is much in the world to which Rawls’spolitical philosophy offers no reconciliation(37).

Rawls seeks to determine the principles ofcooperation for such “well-ordered peoples.”Rawls thinks non-ideal conditions cannot ade-quately be addressed unless principles of justiceare determined for ideal conditions. Otherwise,it is impossible to know what kind of just societyto aim to establish and the necessary means todo so (5). A realistic utopia, as Rawls prefersto call his theory, is an aspiration and does not

reflect the existing reality of international lawand relations. It is, however, possible to relatethe Rawlsian ideal and square it with socialreality in a functional manner that concentrateson those areas of the existing internationalframework that lend themselves to thisideal.

Rawls emphasizes the crucial importance ofpeoples rather than states because of a people’scapacity for “moral motives,” meaning theylack the bureaucratic machinery of a state (5).Freeman correctly observes that a “people” forRawls is a philosophical construct. It is an ab-stract conception needed to work out principlesof justice for a particular subject—in this case,relations among different well-ordered liberaland decent societies (38). The assumption thatstates lack moral motives is partially refuted bytheir acceptance of SD. Nonetheless, Rawls re-mains trenchant when it comes to the applica-tion of SD. Rawls is not talking then about apeople regarded as an ethnic or religious group(e.g., Slavs, Jews, Kurds) or those who are notmembers of the same society. Rather, a peopleconsists of members of the same well-orderedsociety who are united under, and whose rela-tions are governed by, a political constitutionand basic structure. Composed of members ofa well-ordered society, a people is envisioned ashaving effective political control over a territorythat its members govern and within which theirbasic social institutions take root. In contrastto a state, however, a people possess a moralnature that stems from the effective sense ofjustice of its individual members. A people’smembers may have common sympathies forany number of non-requisite reasons, includingshared language, ethnic roots, or religion. Themost basic reason for members’ common sym-pathies, however, lies in their shared history asmembers of the same society and consequentshared conception of justice and the commongood.

The conclusion most pertinent to SD andthe EP is that Rawls elucidates the duty of lib-eral democratic and decent hierarchical peo-ples to assist “burdened societies” to the pointwhere burdened societies are enabled to join the


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


society of peoples.5It is of particular pertinencethat Rawls’s duty of assistance does not absolvedeveloping country governments of their obli-gation to take appropriate action. Rawls’s con-cept of peoples has been criticized. Among hismore cogent critics, Pogge (39) and Nussbaum(40) question the validity of the distinction be-tween peoples and states and discuss the dif-ficulties of defining peoples. They claim theircriticisms assume importance in any attempt torealize the society of peoples Rawls envisions ashis realistic utopia. Such criticisms have actuallybeen anticipated by Rawls, who pointed out thathe eschewed the state as a polity because of itshistorical Hobbesian connotations in “realist”international political theory, which suggeststhat the power of states can be limited only bythe states and not by moral or legal constraints(5). The legal and political acceptance of SD bythe community of nations refutes Rawls at thetheoretical level. But Rawls still remains rele-vant at the practical and functional level whenit comes to the implementation of SD. As morefully discussed in the next section, which dealswith climate change and SD, the principle ofSD has been invoked and erroneously appliedto the advanced developing countries (ADCs)while the EP in the LDCs have been ignored.

5.2. Rawlsian SustainableDevelopment as It Appliesto the Energy Poor

A starting point for analyzing the internationalphenomena of the EP must begin with the factthat the EP should be identified primarily asburdened societies (5) in the Rawlsian sense.Rawlsian principles ensure that SD is appliedto the EP. Furthermore, their special status asburdened societies must be highlighted ratherthan hidden. It also becomes important todraw attention to Rawls’s suggestion on howthe duty of assistance should be discharged,bearing in mind his particular conclusion that

5Burdened societies is John Rawls’ term for societies that arenot “well-ordered,” because they are denuded of human cap-ital by sickness and death, or lack monetary or technologicalresources and a knowledge base.

merely dispensing funds will not suffice torectify basic and political injustice (5).

Rawls’s warning that the mere distributionof funds will not rectify the targeted problemsnow becomes of special relevance. Many rulers,Rawls points out, have been callous about thewell-being of their own peoples (5), and trans-ferring resources to national governments doesnot ensure that they will be applied to the prob-lems of the EP. For these reasons, Rawls advo-cates that assistance be tied to the advancementof human rights. Tying assistance to humanrights will also embrace the status of women,who often are oppressed. It has, moreover,been shown that the removal of discriminationagainst women has resulted in major economicand social progress (41).

Such measures almost certainly will be re-sisted by authoritarian regimes that will arguethis approach amounts to an intrusion into thenational sovereignty of a country and violatesinternational law. These rulers might fear thatestablishing human rights as a condition forhelping the EP will expose their own corrup-tion and lack of good governance. Such rulershave reason to fear the granting of human rightswhen they have not confronted their problemsor have demonstrated weak governance. Asan example of this, Rawls cites to the worksof Amartya Sen (42), Dreze & Sen (43) andDasgupta (44), who have demonstrated thatthe main cause of famine in Bengal, Ethiopia,Sahel, and Bangladesh was government mis-management rather than the shortage of food.

Corruption remains a major problemin many developing countries, where largenumbers of complex, restrictive regulations arecoupled with inadequate controls. The UnitedNations Convention on Corruption (45),negotiated after Rawls’ Law of Peoples, offersample endorsement of Rawls’ conclusion. Itrecognized the “. . . seriousness of problemsand threats posed by corruption to the stabilityand security of societies, undermining theinstitutions and values of democracy, ethicalvalues and justice and jeopardizing sustainabledevelopment and the rule of law . . .” (45). Inhis Foreword to the Convention, the then

152 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Anan refersto corruption as an

. . . insidious plague that has a wide range ofcorrosive effects on societies. It underminesdemocracy and the rule of law, leads to vi-olations of human rights, distorts markets,erodes the quality of life and allows organizedcrime, terrorism and other threats to humansecurity to flourish. This evil phenomenon isfound in all countries—big and small, rich andpoor—but it is in the developing world thatits effects are most destructive. Corruptionhurts the poor disproportionately by divertingfunds intended for development, undermin-ing a Government’s ability to provide basicservices, feeding inequality and injustice anddiscouraging foreign aid and investment. Cor-ruption is a key element in economic under-performance and a major obstacle to povertyalleviation and development. . . . (45)

In both ADCs and LDCs, people havelearned to live with corruption. Not only are of-ficial decisions—for instance, the award of gov-ernment contracts or the amount of tax due—bought and sold, but very often citizens mustpay for access to a public service or the exerciseof a right, such as obtaining civil documents.The process of allocating political and adminis-trative posts—particularly those with powers ofdecision over the export of natural resources orimport licenses—is influenced by the gains thatcan be made from them. As these exchanges ofprivileges are reciprocated by political supportor loyalty, it cements the political foundations(46). Corruption, in turn, takes a toll on thecountry as a whole. It has been estimated, forexample, that moving from a relatively “clean”government like that of Singapore to one as cor-rupt as Mexico’s would have the same effect onforeign direct investment as an increase in themarginal corporate tax rate of 50% (47).

What this proves is that developed countriesplay a dominant part in alleviating the conditionof the EP, as required by SD. It also invokes theneed for action by national governments. Jus-tice requires both that assistance be given andthat such assistance be properly administered.

The failure of foreign aid has been debated,and better ways of granting assistance must befound. Justice also requires that national gov-ernments take on the task of addressing the EP.It is not possible to lay the blame on avariciousrich countries alone.

6. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTAND THE MILLENNIUMDEVELOPMENT GOALS

This section is predicated on two unarticulatedmajor premises of the MDGs. The first is thatthey express Rawlsian principles of distribu-tional justice. The second is that, despite theabsence of an MDG specifically directed at in-creasing access to energy, it is clear that “en-ergy services are essential to both social andeconomic development and that much widerand greater access to energy services is crit-ical in achieving all of the MDGs” (49). Asexplained in the preceding analysis, energy isnot only essential to securing basic needs forimpoverished communities, but it is also es-sential for implementing any other interven-tion that may address the specific MDGs. Inshort, securing access to energy is necessaryto achieve international justice and SD as in-formed by John Rawls and embodied in theMDGs. The resulting Millennium Declarationis a UN document that expresses and out-lines the collective commitment of the world toachieve eight major development goals by theyear 2015 (48). These goals seek to (a) erad-icate extreme poverty and hunger; (b) achieveuniversal primary education; (c) promote gen-der equality and empower women; (d ) reducechild mortality; (e) improve maternal health;( f ) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other dis-eases; ( g) ensure environmental sustainability;and (h) develop a global partnership for devel-opment (48). This section also provides a broadoverview of how energy relates to achievingeach of the MDGs.

6.1. Eradicate Extreme Povertyand Hunger

As demonstrated above, access to electricity,mechanical energy, and modern fuels for


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


cooking is critical to development. Specif-ically, access to energy can reduce hungerby improving food production and storagevia electric or mechanical energy. Access tomodern fuels for cooking would also improvefood security by increasing yields because moreof the nutrient-rich crop residues would beallowed to stay on the soil rather than burnedas biomass for cooking (12).

Access to energy can reduce poverty by pro-viding families with more productive hours towork by illuminating their homes after dark andby cutting travel and production time with non-human mechanical energy. Energy services canprovide jobs by enabling communities to setup small industry and can give local economiesbetter access to markets through communica-tions and more efficient transportation (12).Furthermore, with improved access to more ef-ficient and sustainable forms of energy, indigentfamilies can spend less money both on energyand energy services. For example, a 10-countrystudy of East Africa found 80% of urban house-holds spent an average of more than 20% oftheir income buying water because they lackeda piped water supply (11). These families pur-chased water at a price nearly 10 times the utilitycost. With access to a treadle pump (which canpump up to 130 liters per minute without caus-ing fatigue), money stuck in purchasing waterowing to a lack of access to energy would beliberated to promote growth (33).

6.2. Achieve UniversalPrimary Education

Worldwide, more than 115 million childrenare not enrolled in school (11). Childrenfrom the richest 20% of sub-Saharan Africancountries are three to four times more likelyto attend school than those from the poorestquintile (33). Much of this phenomenon can beattributed to lack of access to energy. First, EPfamilies rely on children to support the phys-ical workload required to achieve daily meanswithout access to energy, such as collectingfuel, water, and helping in food processing. Fordesperately poor families, these life-sustaining

activities take priority over a child’s education.Second, children are unable to study at nightin homes without illumination, which hinderstheir ability to complete assignments. Finally,there is a huge problem in securing qualifiedteachers in the most remote and impoverishedregions of the world. Improved energy servicescan help attract more qualified teachers toremote areas either by improving the qualityof life for them to move there or by provid-ing technologies for distance learning andcontinued education for local teachers (11).

Reducing drudgery in women’s lives by pro-viding clean, affordable fuels for food grind-ing, water pumping, cooking and transporta-tion is one of the most important challengesto achieving universal primary education andgender equality (10). One example of how im-proved access to energy can increase primaryeducation in schools can be seen in Mali, af-ter the implementation of the MultifunctionalPlatform (MFP) project. The MFP providesmechanical and electrical energy from a dieselengine (which can also be fueled by biomass-derived fuel without any drop in power) thatis mounted on a chassis to power a variety ofdifferent equipment. The platforms are con-figured by local demand but may consist offood processers (grinding mills or oil pressers),battery chargers, water pumps, or power tools(welding and carpentry). After 500 MFPs wereinstalled, the project achieved an average sav-ings of 2.5 h per day that women spend ondaily activities and an income increase of 56%in rural Mali. This increased access to energyalso correlated with an increased level in girls’attendance in primary school, an increase inthe proportion of children completing primaryschool (33), and improvements in girls’ scholas-tic achievements (11).

6.3. Promote Gender Equalityand Empowerment of Women

As discussed in the preceding section, lack ofaccess to energy services disproportionately af-fects women and children both in terms of thetime constraints associated with securing daily

154 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


needs and in terms of adverse health effects,caused by inefficient combustion of biomassfor cooking. Dissemination of ASETs, suchas the MFP in Mali, water pumps, or ac-cess to sustainable cookstoves, saves invalu-able time and physical stress, which aids inthe empowerment of women. The time womencould save simply by reducing collection timecan amount to a critical increase in the timethey could spend on other income-generatingactivities (11), schooling, or just time tothemselves.

6.4. Reduce Child Mortality

Almost 11 million children under five years ofage die every year from preventable causes: 19%are from ARI’s, 18% are from diarrhea, and37% are from neonatal conditions (33). Im-proved access to energy services can help com-bat each of these conditions. First, improvingaccess to clean-burning cookstoves directly re-duces the amount of particulate pollution chil-dren under five breathe while their motheris cooking. For example, in Western Kenya,more than 16,000 improved cookstoves havebeen installed in rural households. These cook-stoves have provided a 60% reduction in indoorsmoke, which has resulted in a 65% reductionin ARIs among mothers and a 70% reduction inconjunctivitis among children under five yearsold (11). Second, pumped water and latrines, forexample, would reduce the propensity of con-tracting general enteric infections from con-taminated drinking water or generally poor san-itary conditions. Finally, access to energy wouldimprove health care infrastructure in general,whereby children could be brought to clinicsafter dark and would have access to medica-tions and vaccines that could be refrigerated(11).

6.5. Improve Maternal Health

Again, women carry the majority of the bur-den of securing energy services by traditionalmeans. This responsibility does not stop dur-ing pregnancy. The drudgery of daily tasks for

women is amplified during pregnancy by thephysical burden of carrying a child, coupledwith the increased difficulty of securing propernutrients. Poor nutrition during pregnancycauses anemia among other things, which isknown to augment the risk of maternal deaths,stillbirths, and low-birth-weight babies (33).Furthermore, energy projects aimed at improv-ing health care infrastructure have been directlylinked to improving maternal health. A statisti-cal analysis was conducted in 15,000 townshipsin the Philippines where a rural electrificationcampaign had been recently conducted. TheNational Demographic Health Survey showedthat women with access to electricity are 17%more likely to have a doctor-assisted birth thanthose without access after income and other de-mographic variables were considered (11).

6.6. Combat HumanImmunodeficiency Virus/AcquiredImmunodeficiency Sydrome,Malaria, and Other Diseases

The global campaign to combat disease,specifically HIV/AIDS and malaria, has vari-ous connections to the availability of energy.First, as indicated above, access to electricityand mechanical energy helps improve basicsanitation and health care infrastructure.Better hygiene reduces incidents of secondaryopportunistic infections that can be deadlyto HIV/AIDS patients, and better clinicscan house and refrigerate vaccines, medica-tions, and antivirals. Second, education andawareness campaigns are essential to diseaseprevention, especially for HIV/AIDS. Thesecampaigns are generally conducted using radioand television, which both require energy toreach at-risk communities (11).

Finally, just as energy infrastructure can at-tract, or provide access to better teachers, itcan also provide indigent communities bet-ter access to doctors, nurses, midwives, andhealth workers (33). An example of a relativelynew application of this idea is telemedicine.“Telemedicine is the use of information andcommunications technology to provide health


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


care services to individuals who are some dis-tance from the health care provider” (50). Al-though there are few successful case studies ofdissemination of this idea in the developingworld, the potential to improve global healthcare is inspiring. For example, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology and the Costa RicaFoundation for Sustainable Development arecurrently working on the “Little IntelligentCommunities” or LINCOS project to bringtelemedicine to remote indigent communitiesin Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic(51). To cut costs, the project develops towncenters equipped with communication tech-nologies, including telemedicine consultationrooms, which has brought doctors to rural vil-lages previously without health care.6 Aravind,for example, is the largest and most productiveeye care facility in the world, offering invalu-able services in rural India (47). Telemedicine,however, requires energy, and providing min-igrid electricity generation, for example, couldincrease the potential for telemedicine and helpcombat disease worldwide.

6.7. Ensure EnvironmentalSustainability

Addressing energy poverty, specifically byinvesting in ASETs, contributes to ensuringenvironmental sustainability. As discussedabove, lack of access to modern fuels for cook-ing forces the EP to harvest and burn biomass.Burning biomass also contributes to globalclimate change by emitting black carbon intothe atmosphere and by reducing the albedoeffect. Harvesting wood for fuel leads to defor-estation and contributes to land degradation,erosion, desertification, and depletion of soiland water resources. Improving access to cleanfuels or more efficient cookstoves reduces thesenegative environmental consequences, whileimproving the daily lives of the EP. For exam-ple, the Senegalese government embarked on a

6The LINCOS project and other telemedicine projects indeveloping countries have been criticized for cultural insen-sitivity and potentially high costs; however, as a relatively newfield, this deserves consideration.

program to help EP families switch from usingbiomass to LPG through a subsidy program.In 2002, the people of Senegal consumed morethan 100,000 tones of LPG, which replaced theequivalent of 40,500 hectares of deforestationfor biomass or 337,500 tons of charcoal (12).

Furthermore, increasing access to energyfor the EP by using ASETs, which are inher-ently environmentally sustainable, provides aunique opportunity to reduce global reliance onfossil fuels. “Accelerated use of renewable andmore energy efficient technologies can provide‘win-win’ options to tackle global and local de-velopment challenges” (11). For example, theHimalayan Environmental Studies and Con-servation Organization has helped installnearly 200,000 multipurpose watermills in theHimalayas since 2001. Each watermill variesdepending on the community, but most use di-verted stream water to turn a turbine in themill, which powers a vertically moving shaft thatturns a rectangular metal key to move the grind-ing stones. Each mill thus provides mechanicalgrinding power for wheat, corn, and rice, as wellas electrical power by harnessing the kineticenergy of the stream. Some watermills can re-turn up to US$135 per month from faster andbetter grinding and have increased both poweruse and efficiency by 90% (33). This representsa locally maintained and environmentally sus-tainable technology that addresses the needsof the EP, while contributing to economicdevelopment.

6.8. Develop a Global Partnershipfor Development

Finally, the energy sector represents an im-portant potential for synergies across markets,regions, and financial resources. “Energy isa cross-cutting issue by its very nature, andthus requires participation from all develop-ment sectors in order to maximize its impacton development” (11). Thus, addressing the en-ergy access problem can help achieve globalpartnerships by providing a unique opportunityfor collaboration. Consider, for example, theGlobal Village Energy Partnership (GVEP).The GVEP is a collaboration of governments

156 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


from developing countries and from developednations, public organizations, private organiza-tions, businesses, and consumers to help addressthe energy needs of the EP. The objective ofGVEP is to focus on capacity building and tech-nology transfer. Although it boasts more than700 partners from the energy, agriculture, edu-cation, environment, health, water, and devel-opment sectors, there has not been an assess-ment of the impact that GVEP has had on theactual problems of energy poverty (11). GVEPremains a possible example of global partner-ships as envisioned by Goal 8 of the MDGs,but the extent of its success remains to be eval-uated.

7. CONCLUSIONS

The most important conclusions may be sum-marized. First, the inability to access energyboth causes poverty and disables impover-ished people from developing. This fundamen-tal connection between energy and poverty hasbeen recognized in the literature since the early1800s and continues to underscore the SD dis-course. Second, the plight of the EP cannot beremedied by relying solely on the states withinwhich they reside. The EP have been glossedover by their identification only as nationalproblems falling within the sovereign jurisdic-tion of the developing countries within whichthey reside. They are treated as problems of de-veloping countries and not perceived as a bur-dened societies, calling for international actionsometimes independent of those countries.

Third, allowing the EP to languish in theircurrent state violates fundamental concepts ofinternational justice and SD. These concepts

are best justified by John Rawls, who outlinedthe duty of developed peoples “. . . to assistburdened societies.” Rawls’ concepts of dutyand distributive justice, though not explicitlyarticulated, are embodied more generally inthe principles of SD and more specifically inthe MDGs, which can be achieved only if theneed for energy is satisfied.

Fourth, access to energy is commonlyperceived as a linear progression. Societies aremapped on one singular, step-by-step contin-uum from primitive to modern energy, equatedwith electricity. We have noted that accessto electricity remains the ultimate objective.Unfortunately, it is a cost-prohibitive and pro-tracted remedy that will take decades to imple-ment and does not offer any interim solutions.During the long wait for electricity, large seg-ments of the EP will remain energy deprived formany decades unless they are offered intermedi-ate solutions using ASETs. Employing ASETs,can begin the journey out of energy poverty.

Finally, there is no doubt that the recentrecognition by the UN of the need for universalaccess to energy is a great step forward that ac-knowledges the connection between energy andpoverty and charts a new path for SD. Althoughthe reports of the UN continue to be premisedon the dominant linear paradigm, their recogni-tion of the need for cookstoves indicates that theUN may be open to more immediately effec-tive forms of development using ASETs. Suchrecognition will offer a new space for formu-lating appropriate sustainable energy solutionsthat address the needs of the EP by providingtimely, sustainable, and affordable ways to sat-isfy their energy needs.

SUMMARY POINTS

1. There is a widespread global prevalence of energy poverty.

2. Harnessing exogenous energy is essential for sustainable development (SD), achievingthe MDGs, and addressing energy poverty.

3. SD is universally accepted as a legal and political norm and demands that the worldfocus on peoples where energy poverty is most concentrated, i.e., in the least-developedcountries (LDCs).


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


4. John Rawls underscores the right of these burdened peoples to SD.

5. The UN initiative on access to energy is greatly welcome.

6. Universal access to electricity is a laudable objective but may prove cost prohibitive, andthis cannot realistically be implemented for another 30 years.

7. The EP need beneficial energy now, and ASETs, which bridge the gap between capital-intensive electricity and traditional subsistence technologies, can prove to be significantintermediate sources of cheap, accessible energy.

FUTURE ISSUES

1. Presenting arresting and compelling information conveying the extent to which most ofthe ills of the poor are attributable to lack of energy via TV, print, and electronic media,and by theater and community communication is as much a challenge for civil society,as it is for governments at all levels.

2. Even where presented with good information, some among the EP may choose to con-tinue doing what they have been accustomed to doing. The reasons for their reluctanceto change can range from tradition to taste, to costs or expense, and the fear of the new.Meeting this behavioral challenge calls for the same coalitions as those dealing with theinformation challenge. The response would be informed by local conditions and couldinvolve education, persuasion, and in appropriate circumstances, laws, and legislation.

3. We need extensive funding from private and public sources for every aspect of ASETsfrom research, development and demonstration to investment, manufacture, marketing,and distribution.

4. There is an enormous lack of investment in ASETs from private investors because fundingsocial products like ASETs is something new. It falls within a difficult new and unfamiliarspace between philanthropic giving and regular investment.

5. How can we influence decision makers in the public sector where large sums of moneyare set aside for social programs both nationally and as foreign aid? How do we reshapeexisting institutions like aid agencies, foreign offices, parliaments, and congresses torespond to the needs of the EP?

c. The following changes are needed in institutional responses:

a. Nationally, institutionalizing the moral predicate and the obligation to reach out tothe EP in national legislation and policy.

b. Internationally, focusing on the right to sustainable development of the EP andthe duty placed on rich countries by the principle of common but differentiatedresponsibility to help the EP.

c. Reformulate the flexibility mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol so as to give creditnot just for the reduction of carbon dioxide but also for reduction of black soot andother non-GHG causes of global warming.

158 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author acknowledges grants received from the Renewable Energy & Energy EfficiencyPartnership (REEEP) for projects on energy poverty.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Jacquelyn Amour Jampolsky ( JD and MS candidate) and Jeremy Pollack( JD candidate) for their invaluable assistance.

LITERATURE CITED1. United Nations. 2010. The Millennium Development Goals Report. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf2. UN Secr. Gen. Advisory Group Energy Clim. Change. 2010. Energy for a Sustainable Future:

Summary Report and Recommendations, 28 April, New York. http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/Documents/AGECC%20summary%20report%5B1%5D.pdf

3. Legros G, Havet I, Bruce N, Bonjour S. 2009. The Energy Access Situation in Developing Countries: AReview Focusing on Least Developed Countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. New York: UNDP Environ. EnergyGroup/WHO

4. Comm. Dev. Policy. 2011. UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, LandlockedDeveloping Countries and Small Island Developing States. http://www.unohrlls.org/

5. Rawls J. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press6. Rosa E, Machlis G, Keating K. 1988. Energy and society. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14:149–727. Spencer H. 1897. First Principles. New York: Appleton8. White L. 1959. Energy and tools. In The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall

of Rome. New York: McGraw-Hill9. Cottrell F. 2009. Energy & Society (Revised): The Relation Between Energy, Social Change, and Economic

Development. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse10. UN Dev. Program. (UNDP). 2005. Energizing the Millennium Development Goals: A Guide to Energy’s

Role in Reducing Poverty. New York: UNDP11. Modi V, McDade S, Lallement D, Saghir J. 2006. Energy and the Millennium Development Goals. New

York: Energy Sector Manag. Assist. Program/UN Dev. Program./UN Millenn. Proj./World Bank12. Johnson FX, Lambe F. 2009. Energy access, climate and development. Rep. Comm. Clim. Change

Dev./Stockholm Environ. Inst., Stockholm, Sweden13. Int. Energy Agency/UN Dev. Program.. (IEA/UNDP/UN IDO). 2010. Energy Poverty: How to make

modern energy access universal? Special early exerpt of the World Energy Outlook 2010 for the UN GeneralAssembly on the Millineum Development Goals. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_poverty.pdf

14. Bazilian M, Nussbaumer P, Cabraal A, Centurelli R, Detchen R, et al. 2010. Measuring Energy Access:Supporting a Global Target. New York: Columbia Univ./Earth Inst.

15. The Acad. Sci. Dev. World (TWAS). 2008. Sustainable Energy for Developing Countries. Trieste, Italy:TWAS. 22 pp.

16. World Bank, Int. Bank Reconstr. Dev. (IBRD). 2010. Unleashing the Potential of Renewable Energy inIndia. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTENERGY2/Resources/Unleashing_potential_of_renewables_in_India.pdf

17. Llamas P. 2011. Rural electrification and renewables decentralized energy for remote communities.Cogener. On-site Power Prod. http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/325599/articles/cogeneration-and-on-site-power-production/volume-9/issue-2/features/rural-electrification-and-renewables-decentralized-energy-for-remote-communities.html

18. Warwick H, Doig A. 2004. Smoke—The Killer in the Kitchen. London: ITDG19. World Health Organ. (WHO). 2006. Fuel For Life: Household Energy and Health. Geneva, Switz.: WHO

Press


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%202010%20En%20r15%20-low%20res%2020100615%20-.pdf

http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/Documents/AGECC%20summary%20report%5B1%5D.pdf

http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/Documents/AGECC%20summary%20report%5B1%5D.pdf

http://www.unohrlls.org/

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_poverty.pdf

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_poverty.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTENERGY2/Resources/Unleashing_potential_of_renewables_in_India.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTENERGY2/Resources/Unleashing_potential_of_renewables_in_India.pdf

http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/325599/articles/cogeneration-and-on-site-power-production/volume-9/issue-2/features/rural-electrification-and-renewables-decentralized-energy-for-remote-communities.html




20. World Health Organ. (WHO). 2007. Indoor Health Pollution Takes a Heavy Toll on Health. 30 Apr.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2007/np20/en/index.html

21. Donohoe M, Garner EP. 2008. Health effects of indoor air pollution from biomass cooking stoves.Medscape News. May 19. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/572069

22. Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Lab./Uni. Calif., Berkeley. 2011. Darfur Cookstoves. http://darfurstoves.lbl.gov/

23. World Health Organ. (WHO). 2011. Broader Impacts of Household Energy. http://www.who.int/indoorair/impacts/en

24. Cairncross S, O’Neill D, McCoy A, Sethi D. 2003. Health, Environment and the Burden of Disease, AGuidance Note. London: Dep. Int. Dev.

25. Sagar A. 2005. Alleviating energy poverty for the world’s poor. Energy Policy 33:1367–7226. Ramanathan V, Carmichael G. 2008. Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon.

Nat. Geosci. 1:221–2727. Service RF. 2008. Climate change. Study fingers soot as major player in global warming. Science 319:

174528. Hansen J, Nazarenko L. 2004. Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

101:423–2829. Natl. Biodig. Program. 2011. Benefits for Households. http://www.nbp.org.kh/30. UN Found. 2011. Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. http://www.unfoundation.org/our-solutions/

campaigns/cookstoves/31. Envirofit Int. 2010. G-3300: Core of the Envirofit Cooking System. http://www.envirofit.org/

cookstoves/g-3300.html32. Darfur Stoves Proj. 2009. Darfur Stoves Project. http://darfurstoves.org/our-solution/impact/33. Bates L, Hunt S, Khennas S, Sastrawinata N. 2009. Expanding Energy Access in Developing Countries: The

Role of Mechanical Power. Warwickshire, UK: UNDP/Pract. Action34. Stewart E. 2003. How to Select the Proper Human-Powered Pump for Potable Water. Mich. Technol.

Univ. http://www.cee.mtu.edu/sustainable_engineering/resources/technical/Human_Powered_Pumps_FINAL.pdf

35. UN Dev. Program. (UNDP). 2006. Beyond scarcity: power, poverty, and the global water crisis. Hum.Dev. Rep. UNDP, New York

36. Rawls J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press37. Wenar L. 2008. “John Rawls”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), ed. EN Zalta.

Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rawls/38. Feldman N. 2007. Cosmopolitan law? Yale Law J. 116:1022–7039. Pogge T. 2004. The incoherence between Rawls’s theories of justice. Fordham Law Rev. 72:1739–

5940. Nussbaum MC. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA:

Belknap Press/Harvard Univ. Press. See pp. 236–4441. Yunus M. 2007. Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future Capitalism. New York:

Public Aff.42. Sen A. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press43. Dreze J, Sen A. 1989. Hunger and Public Action. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press44. Dasgupta P. 1995. An Inquiry into the Wellbeing of Destitution. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press45. UN Off. Drug Crime (UNODC). 2000. United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/46. Hors I. 2000. Fighting corruption in the developing countries. OECD Obs. No. 220.

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/291/Fighting_corruption_in_the_developing_countries.html

47. Wei S-J. 1997. How taxing is corruption on international investors? Work. Pap. 63. William Davidson Inst.,Univ. Mich. Bus. Sch., Ann Arbor

48. UN Millenium Project. 2005. Energy Services for the Millenium Development Goals. http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/MP_Energy_Low_Res.pdf

160 Guruswamy

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2007/np20/en/index.html

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/572069

http://darfurstoves.lbl.gov/

http://darfurstoves.lbl.gov/

http://www.who.int/indoorair/impacts/en

http://www.who.int/indoorair/impacts/en

http://www.nbp.org.kh/

http://www.unfoundation.org/our-solutions/campaigns/cookstoves/

http://www.unfoundation.org/our-solutions/campaigns/cookstoves/

http://www.envirofit.org/cookstoves/g-3300.html

http://www.envirofit.org/cookstoves/g-3300.html

http://darfurstoves.org/our-solution/impact/

http://www.cee.mtu.edu/sustainable_engineering/resources/technical/Human_Powered_Pumps_FINAL.pdf

http://www.cee.mtu.edu/sustainable_engineering/resources/technical/Human_Powered_Pumps_FINAL.pdf

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rawls/

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/



http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/MP_Energy_Low_Res.pdf

http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/MP_Energy_Low_Res.pdf


49. Int. Energy Agency/UN Dev. Program./UN Ind. Dev. Organ. (IEA/UNDP/UN IDO). 2010. Energyand the Millenium Development Goals. See Ref. 14, § 1, p. 15

50. Rione R, Ohinmaa A, Hailey D. 2001. Assessing telemedicine: a systematic review of the literature.CMAJ 165:765–71

51. Adler A. 2000. A Cost-Effective Portable Telemedicine Kit for Use in Developing Countries. Masters thesis.MIT. 21 pp.

52. Pract. Action. 2010. Annual report 2009/10. http://practicalaction.org/nodepages/view/docs/nepal/practical-action-nepal-annual-report-2009-10.pdf


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



EG36-FrontMatter ARI 7 September 2011 14:34

Annual Review ofEnvironmentand Resources

Volume 36, 2011 Contents

Preface � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �v

Who Should Read This Series? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �vii

I. Earth’s Life Support Systems

Improving Societal Outcomes of Extreme Weather in a ChangingClimate: An Integrated PerspectiveRebecca E. Morss, Olga V. Wilhelmi, Gerald A. Meehl, and Lisa Dilling � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Ocean Circulations, Heat Budgets, and Future Commitmentto Climate ChangeDavid W. Pierce, Tim P. Barnett, and Peter J. Gleckler � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �27

Aerosol Impacts on Climate and BiogeochemistryNatalie Mahowald, Daniel S. Ward, Silvia Kloster, Mark G. Flanner,

Colette L. Heald, Nicholas G. Heavens, Peter G. Hess, Jean-Francois Lamarque,and Patrick Y. Chuang � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �45

State of the World’s Freshwater Ecosystems: Physical, Chemical,and Biological ChangesStephen R. Carpenter, Emily H. Stanley, and M. Jake Vander Zanden � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �75

II. Human Use of Environment and Resources

Coal Power Impacts, Technology, and Policy: Connecting the DotsAnanth P. Chikkatur, Ankur Chaudhary, and Ambuj D. Sagar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 101

Energy PovertyLakshman Guruswamy � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 139

Water and Energy InteractionsJames E. McMahon and Sarah K. Price � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 163

Agroecology: A Review from a Global-Change PerspectiveThomas P. Tomich, Sonja Brodt, Howard Ferris, Ryan Galt, William R. Horwath,

Ermias Kebreab, Johan H.J. Leveau, Daniel Liptzin, Mark Lubell, Pierre Merel,Richard Michelmore, Todd Rosenstock, Kate Scow, Johan Six, Neal Williams,and Louie Yang � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 193

viii

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

EG36-FrontMatter ARI 7 September 2011 14:34

Energy Intensity of Agriculture and Food SystemsNathan Pelletier, Eric Audsley, Sonja Brodt, Tara Garnett, Patrik Henriksson,

Alissa Kendall, Klaas Jan Kramer, David Murphy, Thomas Nemecek,and Max Troell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 223

Transportation and the EnvironmentDavid Banister, Karen Anderton, David Bonilla, Moshe Givoni,

and Tim Schwanen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 247

Green Chemistry and Green Engineering: A Framework forSustainable Technology DevelopmentMartin J. Mulvihill, Evan S. Beach, Julie B. Zimmerman, and Paul T. Anastas � � � � � 271

The Political Ecology of Land DegradationElina Andersson, Sara Brogaard, and Lennart Olsson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 295

III. Management, Guidance, and Governance of Resources and Environment

Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change:Lessons from Human Development, Well-Being, and DisastersKatrina Brown and Elizabeth Westaway � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 321

Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to DeforestationPatrick Meyfroidt and Eric F. Lambin � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 343

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest DegradationArun Agrawal, Daniel Nepstad, and Ashwini Chhatre � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 373

Tourism and EnvironmentRalf Buckley � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 397

Literature and EnvironmentLawrence Buell, Ursula K. Heise, and Karen Thornber � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 417

Religion and EnvironmentWillis Jenkins and Christopher Key Chapple � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 441

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 27–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 465

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 27–36 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 469

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Environment and Resources articles maybe found at http://environ.annualreviews.org

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nvir

on. R

esou

rc. 2

011.

36:1

39-1

61. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by H

arva

rd U

nive

rsity

on

04/1

5/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.