Household Metabolism in the Five Cities.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MJ per Euro 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Average Stockholm City Average Sweden Urban rich Young and poor Single with car Squeezed with children Figure 7.1: Energy intensity of budget spending in the six households, 1996. In MJ primary energy per Euro. However, when we consider the total energy use of the households as well as the number of persons living in them, a different picture of which is the most energy demanding emerges. The Stockholm City household had only 1.8 person while the Swedish household had 2.2 persons and as Figure 7.2 shows, the energy use per person in the Stockholm City household is higher than in the average Swedish one. So, despite a more energy efficient way of spending their money, the Stockholm City household use more energy per person because they have more money to spend. The same can be said about the comparision between the Urban Rich household (two persons) and the one called Young and Poor (one person). Although Urban Rich has a more energy efficient spending pattern it does not outweigh the fact that they have much more money to spend per person than the Young and Poor household. The lowest energy per person is in the Squeezed with Children household (four persons). Here, sharing a household with several other people contributes to less energy use. The lesson that can be learnt from these comparisions is to put total energy use first and to use household size, household incomes, intensities of spending, intensities of basic and luxury needs as explanatory factors for differences between households total energy use. 39
primary GJ 800 700 600 500 400 total energy per household total energy per person 300 200 100 0 Average Stockholm city Average Sweden Urban rich Young and poor Single with car Squeezed with children Figure 7.1: Total yearly energy use per household and per person in the households, 1996. How then can households find more energy efficient ways of spending money? It seems that the options identified in EAP are open, mostly but not only, to households that have already fullfilled their basic needs. Every household needs a warm and light house, food on the table and some transportation services. There is little choice but to spend some money on energy intensive categories such as heating with 8.85 MJ per SEK or electricity with 6.63 MJ per SEK. Food is another category with relatively large energy inputs per expenditure unit, ranging from 0.5 to 3 MJ per SEK. Food expenditures cannot be altered without nutrition considerations so any suggestions for changing expenditures in that area will have to consider that aspect. We looked more closely at the energy intensities of the different spending categories related to indirect energy use to find suggestions for less energy demanding spending patterns for the not-poor households. It is obvious that there are numerous options in the field of food and that has been discussed extensively in the literature (Carlsson- Kanyama, 1998, Kramer et al, 1999). Other options identified in the Swedish EAP is reparing shoes, 0.59 MJ per SEK, versus buying new shoes, 0.96 MJ per SEK. Similarly, repair and hire of domestic appliances, 0.69 MJ per SEK, is a more energy efficient expenditure option than to buy a new dishwasher at 1.03 MJ per SEK. Within the sector of recreation and entertainment, it is more energy efficient to buy lotteries, 0.52 MJ per SEK than to buy flowers, 1.28 MJ per SEK. We did find some examples of energy efficient expenditure patterns when we looked at the six households. When we compared the Urban and Rich household with the Young and Poor, we saw that the latter used almost all the money spent within the category called Hygiene on soap and schampoo. These items have a rather high energy intensity 1.57 MJ per SEK. The Urban and Rich household spent as much money on soap and schampoo but also bought a lot of vitamins with lower energy itensity, 1.17 MJ per SEK. So once the need for being clean was fullfilled the remaining money was spent in an energy efficient manner. Also, the Urban and Rich household used a lot of it’s money for Transport on phone calls, an item with lower energy intensity, 0.58 MJ per SEK, than travelling by collective transportation such as 40
Page 1 and 2: Household Metabolism in the Five Ci
Page 3 and 4: ISSN 1404-6520 Fms homepage: www.fm
Page 5 and 6: 2 Summary The study present results
Page 7 and 8: 3 Introducing the household metabol
Page 9 and 10: level implies the design of metabol
Page 11 and 12: 3.6 Household metabolism: focus on
Page 13 and 14: Economic I-O data Energy Statistics
Page 15 and 16: included in the EAP analyses, as me
Page 17 and 18: 4.3 Non-Eap analyses Most energy in
Page 19 and 20: Basic goods The table Basic Goods i
Page 21 and 22: years old, and 54 % of them partici
Page 23 and 24: From this information, we estimated
Page 25 and 26: well as stakeholders’ opinions ab
Page 27 and 28: 3 1000 Euro 2.5 2 1.5 1 motor fuel
Page 29 and 30: household used 4700 kWh in their ap
Page 31 and 32: 7.2 How many items do the household
Page 33 and 34: The absolute figures for indirect e
Page 35 and 36: Table 6.1: Total expenditures durin
Page 37 and 38: 6% 8% 19% food house household effe
Page 39: At the level of analysing consumpti
Page 43 and 44: The energy profiles for different h
Page 45 and 46: IVL, 2001: Jessica Granath, persona
Page 47 and 48: Appendix 1: Input output sectors se
Page 49 and 50: Appendix 3: Packaging materials Ene
Page 51 and 52: Appendix 5: Energy use for differen
Page 53 and 54: Appendix 6 continued Code of Energy
Page 59 and 60: Appendix 7: Taxes Bread and grains
Page 61 and 62: Appendix 8 continued Item ship lorr

Household Metabolism in the Five Cities.

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?