ArticleNature communications2022
Inequality can double the energy required to secure universal decent living.
Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Climate vulnerability and governance impact the payoff of policy drivers for SDG 7 outcomes in BRICS countries.iScience · 2026Article
- Unlocking global carbon reduction potential by embracing low-carbon lifestyles.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Quantifying the energy and emissions implications of consumption redistribution in the UK through sustainable consumption corridors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Energy requirements for securing wellbeing in Switzerland and the space for affluence and inequality.Nature communications · 2025Article
- When enough is enough: Introducing sufficiency corridors to put techno-economism in its place.Ambio · 2024Article
- Article
- Achieving decent living standards in emerging economies challenges national mitigation goals for CONature communications · 2023Article
- Fair pathways to net-zero healthcare.Nature medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ecological breakdown and economic inequality are among the largest contemporary global challenges, and the issues are thoroughly entangled - as they have been throughout the history of civilisations. Yet, the global economy continues toward ecological crises, and inequalities remain far higher than citizens believe to be fair. Here, we explore the role of inequality, alongside traditional drivers of ecological impacts, in determining global energy requirements for providing universal decent living. We consider scenarios from fair inequality - where inequalities mirror public ideals - through a fairly unequal world, to one with a super-rich global elite. The energy-costs of inequality appear far more significant than population: even fair levels increase the energy required to provide universal decent living by 40%, and a super-rich global 1% could consume as much energy as would providing decent living to 1.7 billion. We finish by arguing that total population remains important nonetheless, but for reasons beyond ecological impacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.