See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331915386

Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions in Brazil

Article in International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development · January 2019

DOI: 10.1504/IJISD.2019.10020063

CITATIONS READS

2 301

3 authors:

Marcio Giannini Pereira Neilton Silva

Eletrobras Cepel Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
94 PUBLICATIONS 832 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 1,025 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marcos Freitas
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
148 PUBLICATIONS 2,383 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Incorporação da varíável ambiental nos estudos de planejamento de longo prazo. View project

Mercado de Energia Renováveis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcio Giannini Pereira on 10 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

376 Int. J. Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, Nos. 3/4, 2019

Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and

CO2 emissions in Brazil

Marcio Giannini Pereira*

Electric Power Research Center (Eletrobras Cepel),
Av. Horacio de Macedo N. 354 – Sala C-22,
Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão,
CEP 21941-911, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
and
Energy Planning Program (PPE),
Coordination of Postgraduate Programs in Engineering
at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (COPPE/UFRJ),
Bloco C, Sala C-211, C.P. 68565,
Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão,
CEP 21945-970, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Fax: +55-21-2598-6483
Email: giannini@cepel.br
*Correspondent author

Neiton Fidelis da Silva

International Virtual Institute of Global Change-IVIG,
Centro de Tecnologia Bloco I – Sala 129,
C.P. 68501 Cidade Universitária,
CEP 21945-970, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
and
Federal Institute of Education,
Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Norte (IFRN),
R. Raimundo Firmino de Oliveira,
400 – Conjunto Ulrick Graff –
CEP: 59015-300, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Email: neilton@ivig.coppe.ufrj.br

Marcos Aurélio Vasconcelos Freitas

Energy Planning Program (PPE),
Coordination of Postgraduate Programs in Engineering
at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (COPPE/UFRJ),
Bloco C, Sala C-211, C.P. 68565,
Cidade Universitária, Ilha do Fundão,
CEP 21945-970, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
and

Copyright © 2019 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions 377

International Virtual Institute of Global Change- IVIG,

Centro de Tecnologia Bloco I – Sala 129,
C.P. 68501 Cidade Universitária,
CEP 21945-970, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
and
Brazilian Research Network on Global Climate Change–
Avenida dos Astronautas, 1758 –
Jardim da Granja, CEP: 12227-010 –
São José dos Campos – SP/Brazil
Email: mfreitas@ppe.ufrj.br

Abstract: The transition to modern sources of energy, especially electricity,

contributes not only to alleviate energy poverty, but also to meet the basic
needs of the rural population and reduce emissions. Given the complexity of
energy choices, the dynamics of the rural population in Brazil is relevant for the
evaluation of the effects of regular and safe access to electricity. Few authors
have discussed the real (net) contributions of rural electrification on the
transition to more modern energy sources and its impacts on CO2 emissions,
considering its harmful health effects. As a result, this paper aims to investigate
the impact of regular and safe access to electricity on the rural population of
Brazil, in a transition to more modern sources of energy, as well as to provide a
CO2 emission assessment.

Keywords: energy transition; energy poverty; rural electrification; climate

changes; Brazil.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Pereira, M.G.,

da Silva, N.F. and Freitas, M.A.V. (2019) ‘Energy transition: the nexus
between poverty and CO2 emissions in Brazil’, Int. J. Innovation and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, Nos. 3/4, pp.376–391.

Biographical notes: Marcio Giannini Pereira is graduated in Economy by

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (1997), Master and Doctor Degree in
Energy Planning by Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (2002) and Visiting
Scholar in University of California-Berkeley (2015). He is Member of Editorial
Board and collaborator of Brazilian Magazine of Technology and Business in
Petroleum and researcher at Electric Power Research Center (CEPEL) since
2000 until now. At CEPEL, he is responsible for Energy Planning; Climate
Change and Poverty; Rural Electrification; Renewable Energy Market Studies;
Energy Market Regulatory Issues; besides studies about Social and Energy
Indicators.

Neiton Fidelis da Silva has graduation at Electricity Engineering for Federal

University of Rio Grande do Norte (1988), specialisation Management and
Total Quality at Federal Center of Technologic Education of Minas Gerais
(1993), specialisation on Energy Planning at Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Universidad de La Republica (1996), Master Degree at Electricity Engineering
for Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (1996) and Doctor Degree in
Energy Planning at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (2006). He is Member
of Editorial Counsel of Global Changes Brazilian Forum. He has experience
in the area of wind energy, Electric Sector, Renewables Energy and Global
Changes.
378 M.G. Pereira et al.

Marcos Aurélio Vasconcelos Freitas has graduation at Geography by State

University of Rio de Janeiro, specialisation at Etudes Comparatives Sur
Developpement by École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (1990),
Master’s at Nuclear Engineering by Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
(1988) and PhD at Economie de Environnement by École des Hautes Études
en Sciences Sociales (1994). He is Professor of Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro and executive of Virtual Institute of Global Changes (IVIG) with
experience in Nuclear Engineering, emphasis on multidisciplinary, energy
focused, mainly, in the subjects: carbon cycle, amazon, land use, biomass,
global changes and energy.

1 Introduction

According to the literature, energy preferences vary from those considered low-quality,
such as biomass, to those more versatile and convenient – called modern sources of
energy – such as kerosene, LPG and electricity. In a macroeconomic context, this energy
transition from traditional sources to modern energy sources1 is a basic characteristic of
economic growth (Davis, 1998). However, when analysing society as a whole or only
households, the factors that determine the transition from depending on biomass to
commercial energy sources are not very well understood.
On the one hand, it is argued that the transition is directly related to income, relative
fuel prices, appliance costs, and availability and logistics of access of commercial fuels.
On the other hand, an alternative proposal is formulated to migrate to modern energy
sources, defending that the energy demand defines the preferences. However, in the most
basic level of subsistence, the required energy is used only for cooking, heating systems
and outdoor lighting. Particularly in developing countries, energy supply almost always
comes from biomass. Nonetheless, when economic circumstances start to improve,
energy demands tend to become more diversified, and commercial energy sources are
capable of satisfying them (Barnes and Foley, 2004; Davis, 1998).
This last statement explains why models that use multiple energy sources are often
seen in low income households, particularly in the rural areas of developing countries.
Biomass still meets their basic energy needs, while other energy services are gradually
introduced through the use of modern energy sources.
Figure 1 shows the types of energy services according to income for the population of
rural areas. According to the energy ladder model, households move from one fuel to
another, particularly to “more modern” fuels. However, the concept does not properly
represent the real choice of consumers in the aforementioned transition, considering that
there is a combination of energy sources and technologies for all income levels.
Moreover, the use of multiple fuels results from the efficiency of the final consumption,
the availability of the resource and social preferences.
The indicator of the quality of delivered energy services on the vertical axis in
Figure 1 is designed to capture a variety of dimensions, including cleanliness, efficiency
and affordability.
It is worth highlighting that the dynamics that determines the choice of energy
sources can change when the population faces energy insecurity, which can be related to
reductions in their incomes or to a restructuring of the supply of commercial energy
sources, among other factors. Then, the tendency is to adopt the strategy of minimising
 Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions 379

energy risks instead of maximizing its benefits, which leads back to the consumption of
biomass.

Figure 1 Quality of energy services per income (lighting and cooking) (see online version
for colours)

Source: IEA (2010)

Sovacool (2014) points out four important and worrisome trends of studies on energy and
society, considering the literature review of 4444 papers written over 15 years (1999 to
2013):
i undervaluation of the influence of social dimensions of energy use
ii a bias towards engineering and economics over social sciences
iii a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration
iv the under-representation of female authors or those from minority groups.
Interventions in an established energy system go beyond technological and economic
development; they enable political empowerment and the social cohesion of minority
groups, bringing about concerns related to ethics, morality and justice.
Given the complexity and the dynamics of the choices of energy sources by the rural
population, it is important to assess the effects of regular and secure access to electricity.
The literature on rural electrification and its potential social benefits is very
comprehensive, considering that a full supply of energy to all citizens is necessary to the
social well-being and economic development of the country. On the other hand, few
studies have analysed the real (net) contribution of rural electrification to the transition to
more modern energy sources and their impacts related to CO2 emissions, considering
their harmful health effects.
In this sense, the current paper aims to analyse the influence of a regular and safe
access to electricity on the rural population of Brazil, in the context of a transition to
more modern energy sources. It also evaluates the CO2 emissions caused by the change in
the energy use. The presented data considers rural properties/households with access to
380 M.G. Pereira et al.

electricity (electrified) and without access to it (control), in two different moments

(before and after electrification), with a profile of low socioeconomic development being
selected.

2 Contextualisation

The energy consumption profile of rural households has become the focus of analyses of
developing countries, particularly for those with low economic development. For these
countries, rural energy consumption represents a considerable part of their total energy
consumption. The social and economic costs of the poor energy supply are high, and the
rate of expansion of the supply in a safe and reliable way is still low. According to the
Nations and the World Bank, using estimates based on 15 countries with low economic
development, household energy consumption ranges between 30% to 95% of their total
energy consumption, while in developed countries this percentage varies between 5% and
30% (Xiaohua and Zhenming, 1996).
In developing countries, biomass is the main primary energy source for domestic use.
Wood is the most commonly used source, in spite of its growing scarcity. Other forms of
biomass are also mentioned by literature, such as crop residues, animal dung and others
(Madubansi and Shackleton, 2005). In Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, wood and
charcoal are the base of energy consumption for most of the rural population, as well as
for many peri-urban areas and part of urban areas. In some African countries such as
Zimbabwe, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania and South Africa, the rural population widely
uses wood as their basic energy source.
In some Chinese provinces, a commercial expense with energy reaches 7–8% of the
annual income of the family (Xiaohua and Zhenming, 1996). Evidently, changes in
energy prices and in income may influence consumption. On the other hand, in a
considerable area of rural China, the economy is partially monetised, with a large part of
the structure of the energy consumption being strongly based on biofuels. However, these
structures are not strongly altered over time since monetary expenditures are necessary.
In addition to the poor infrastructure of the energy supply, issues related to changes in
the prices of oil and its derivatives also affect the quality of life of these people. The
difficulties caused by the lack of access to energy in rural communities, particularly those
located in countries of low economic development, increase in a context of high
international oil prices since these countries are strongly dependent on the imports of oil
and its derivatives. According to Sagar (2005), the alleviation of energy poverty and the
enhancement of current technologies could be achieved by imposing a levy on oil exports
to create an energy-poverty alleviation fund. An increase of 3.7% on oil prices would
raise sufficient funds to cover the basic energy needs of 2 billion people who suffer from
energy poverty, with the purchase of kerosene and LPG. The fund would not require a
global agreement since only major oil-exporting nations would be taxed – a levy of 8%
for OPEC members, Russia, Mexico and Norway. The implementation of this mechanism
would lead to a climate-friendly environment, reduce the emissions of CO2 and other
gases, alleviate energy poverty and promote technological development in the context of
sustainable development, being compatible with international climate agreements.
Therefore, issues related to poverty and environmental degradation are more serious
for poorer countries since the expenses of their population are mostly related to food.
As a result, the consumption of biomass increases.
 Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions 381

With the higher prices of oil derivatives and the improvements of local biomass
resources, the availability of the latter has been decreasing in many regions of the world.
Consequently, families that live in rural areas need to spend more time to meet their
energy needs. Moreover, it increases pressure on the local ecosystem.
The commercial use of biomass (especially wood) without appropriate handling and
regulation is related to many environmental and social problems such as deforestation,
desertification, biodiversity loss and soil degradation (Pereira et al., 2008). Moreover, it
affects global climate change as well. The presence or aggravation of these issues can
make the livelihood and sustainability of local populations more vulnerable. Their loss of
quality of life, measured in social and economic terms, may be related to higher
opportunity costs, harder access to wood (with longer distances to cover, requiring more
time), higher costs of alternative energies, less cooking time and consequently poorer
nutrition, among others.
Moreover, with traditional biomass use estimated to account for 10% of global, its
environmental impacts are not insignificant (CCCD, 2009). The International Energy
Agency (2016) estimates that 2.7 billion people use wood and other solid fuels for
cooking and kerosene for lighting, which creates smoky environments that are associated
with around 3.5 million deaths each year. These effects are particularly felt in developing
Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, indoor emissions occur in an enclosed space
and with poor ventilation, resulting in health impacts. Indoor smoke can contain particles
at levels 100-times higher than the acceptable level, due to an inappropriate use of
technologies and poor ventilation.
An estimated 1.3 billion people lack access to electricity, which is vital to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and decrease global poverty. According to data
from the International Energy Agency (2010), 85% of these people live in rural areas.
Casillas and Kammen (2010) highlight that the expansion of energy services per se
will not eradicate poverty, but it has immediate effects on the everyday life of the
population. Energy poverty leads to unmet basic needs and less economic and
educational opportunities, especially for women, children and minorities. Regular and
safe access to electricity boosts economic activities in rural areas and improves the
quality of services available to meet the basic needs of households and small businesses
through lighting, more efficient devices, and access to information through TV, radio and
cellular telephones.
Sovacool et al. (2016) state that energy poverty should be interpreted as a violation of
distributive justice. For instance, the state of New York (USA) with its estimated
population of 19.5 million has the same energy consumption level of Sub-Saharan Africa,
which has a population of 791 million people. The theory of distributive justice defends
that physical safety is a basic right, thus the conditions that ensure it need to be created
through jobs, shelter and the environment. In this context, people have the right to certain
energy services – including electricity – that provide them with a foundation for their
well-being.
Further aggravating the situation, Zerriffi and Wilson (2010) state that climate change
is a global concern since scenarios of higher global temperature would strongly affect
developing countries, especially those less resilient. Casillas and Kammen (2010) point
out that environmental shocks caused by climate change will first and most severely
affect poor populations, especially those from rural areas. Expanding access to energy
distribution systems at affordable prices and improving the quality of the supply of
382 M.G. Pereira et al.

energy services is essential for human and economic development, reducing the
vulnerability of populations and enabling their adaptation to climate change.
Issues related to poverty in rural areas, as well as to their vulnerability to climate
change and extreme events, have strengthened government efforts to promote electricity
supply worldwide. Moreover, cleaner technologies – those that do not depend on fossil
fuels, such as charcoal and oil – have also been promoted, particularly renewable energy
sources. In recent years, the expansion of the access to electricity in rural areas has
caused the economic and social development of populations which up to the moment
lacked access to this technology which was disseminated almost two centuries ago.
Specialists on climate change agree that rural electrification is a key issue in
discussions related to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. The supposed conflict
between the expansion of energy services and the mitigation of emissions exists partially
because of a paradigm of developed countries – to them, rural electrification is associated
with centralised generation, strongly based on the use of fossil fuels in power plants, with
low energy efficiency. If developing countries adopt this model, it will hinder the
stabilisation of emissions at levels that do not jeopardise the climate system (Alstone,
Gerhenson and Kammen, 2015). However, not all developing countries pursue this
strategy. In Brazil, for instance, renewable energy accounted for 74.2% of electricity in
2014.
The process of development that started with the Industrial Revolution is intrinsically
linked to climate change. Historically, developed countries have contributed the most to
increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to Hansen et al. (2013), from
1751 to 2012, the US, the UK, Germany and Japan accounted for 26%, 5.4%, 6% and 4%
of cumulative CO2 emissions, respectively, while Central/South America and Africa
corresponded to 3.9% and 2.6%.
In spite of their smaller participation in global GHG emissions, the poorest countries
will be impacted most severely by the extreme events caused by climate change.
However, if they follow the same development strategies adopted by developed countries
in the past, based on the exploitation of fossil fuels, global GHG emissions will increase
more sharply (Yadoo and Cruickshank, 2012).
Yadoo and Cruickshank (2012) state that using renewable energy sources to increase
access to electricity is an example of a synergistic strategy that reduces energy poverty
and reduces GHG emissions while improving resilience, since access to electricity can
enhance adaptive capacity to climate change. This can be achieved using renewable
energy sources in many ways:
a by integrating them into the national grid network, which would be expanded to rural
areas
b with off-grid solutions installed at the local level, such as solar photovoltaic systems,
micro-wind turbines, gasifiers and pico-, micro- or mini-hydro power plants, among
others.
The extent to which technologies reduce GHG emissions can be indicated by a life-cycle
analysis, which analyses not only the emissions produced during electricity generation
(direct emissions), but also those from fuel transportation, mining, and those that
will occur during decommissioning, waste management and disposal. Estimations
vary depending on the assumptions made during the calculation. According to the
literature review carried out by Weisser (2007), the ranges of life-cycle GHG
 Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions 383

emissions are as follows: hydro 1–34 gCO2eq/kWh; onshore wind 8–30 gCO2eq/kWh;
offshore wind 9–19 gCO2eq/kWh; solar photovoltaic 43–73 gCO2eq/kWh; biomass
35–99 gCO2eq/kWh; charcoal 950–1250 gCO2eq/kWh; oil 500–1200 gCO2eq/kWh and
gas 440–780 gCO2eq/kWh.
In addition to issues related to electricity generation in rural communities, the use of
fuels for cooking should also be taken into account by public policies, especially when
the relationship between climate change and access to electricity is being analysed.
Kerosene and LPG are commonly used for cooking, and they are more efficient and
cleaner-burning than wood, residues and dung.
According to Barnes and Floor (1996), cooking with LPG, biogas and kerosene is less
damaging to the natural environment and to human health, thus being more efficient and
recommended for cooking (Table 1).

Table 1 Energy efficiency of cooking fuels

Fuel Delivered energy (MJ/kg of fuel)

Wood 3
Wood and stove 5
Charcoal and stove 10
Kerosene 12
Biogas 15
LPG 25–30
Source: Barnes and Floor (1996)

The value of public efforts aimed at promoting rural electrification has been
acknowledged, especially due to positive social externalities. The price system works
efficiently when market prices transmit information to producers and consumers.
However, in some cases market prices do not reflect what really happens between
producers or between consumers. An externality occurs when an activity of production or
consumption has an indirect effect on other activities of consumption or production,
which is not directly reflected in market prices. An example of externality is the cost that
society pays for the environmental pollution caused by a company that makes chemical
products for industrial use. Without government intervention, this producer would not
have any incentive to take into account the social cost of his pollution (Pyndick and
Rubinfeld, 1994).
Rural electrification is frequently considered a rural development strategy regardless
of the technology employed. However, it is not always easy to identify its real
contribution to the life of the population, especially in developing countries with many
economic and social constraints. Rural population lacking safe and regular access to
electricity uses equipment to cover their information and lighting needs. Normally, they
use dry batteries, car batteries and small generators, among others. These energy
resources have low unit purchase prices and are affordable to the budgets of rural
families. However, when the relative costs of these energy resources are compared with
the cost of energy supply through the electricity grid, it is possible to verify that dry
battery is from 1800 (large batteries) to 7700 (small batteries) more expensive (Gouvello
and Maigne, 2003).
384 M.G. Pereira et al.

Recently, access to electricity was successfully increased in Brazil. With the

Programa Luz para Todos – LpT (“Light for All Program”), the access was provided to
16 million people over the last 14 years. However, an estimated 2 million people in the
country still lack regular and safe access to electricity in 2016.
In Brazil, the high level of poverty in rural areas leads to the argument that a large
part of the rural population is prevented from enjoying the comfort and quality of life
brought by safe and regular access to electricity. Moreover, those that have poor access to
some type of energy also have a low purchasing power, which explains their low
electricity consumption and why sources which are less clean and efficient remain being
used in rural areas, even if to a lesser extent, especially for cooking (wood) and lighting
(kerosene).

3 Methodology

The methodology chosen to analyse the discussed information aims at defining the
specificities of the local energy use of the rural population before and after they had
regular and safe access to electricity. The main focus of the analysis is to evaluate the
energy transition from traditional sources to more modern sources of energy, considering
the energy alternatives of the properties and their interference in environmental issues.
The CO2 emissions profile was also examined in the analysis.
Sovacool (2016) listed a set of definitions about energy transition, defined by some
authors as a ‘revolution’ or ‘disruptive transformation’ both for technology and social
practices. Other authors mentioned by Sovacool (2016) define energy transition as the
expansion of the access to energy, particularly focused on abundance.
The field evaluation was performed in two moments. The ex ante phase refers to the
conditions of the properties before electrification, and the ex post phase refers to the
period of at least 2 years after electrification. Each rural property was investigated with a
questionnaire that encompassed economic, social, technical and environmental aspects.
The results and the consolidated data of the research is available in the IMPAR system –
Version 2.3 (CEPEL, 2007).
The IMPAR system is composed of a database that stores information of
questionnaires of field researches from the National Program for Rural Electrification and
a user interface for retrieving and visualising the information. The database was created
in the Relational Database Management System – RDBMS, Microsoft SQL SERVERTM
7.0, and the user interface was programmed in Borland DELPHITM 7.0.
In addition to the longitudinal analysis, which enables a more in-depth investigation
of the subject, the evaluation methodology considers two types of samples. The
Electrified Sample is composed of properties with regular and safe access to the
power grid. The Control Sample, in its turn, is composed of rural properties which
would not be electrified during the execution of the process (Figure 2). The initial
sample had about 23,000 households researched in the entire country, but after
the profile of the analysis was defined, the (total) initial sample decreased to 4154
households.
 Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions 385

Figure 2 Types of sample (Electrified × Non Electrified) (see online version for colours)

Source: Elaborated by the author

Regarding data, they were collected in 21 states of the Brazilian Federation and
considered two moments in time, i.e., prior to having access to electric energy (ex-ante
phase) on a regular and safe basis, and three years following access (ex-post phase).
As far as the samples are concerned, they were classified and analysed into two types:
• Electrified sample: set of rural households that were part of the national rural
electrification program.
• Non-electrified: set of rural households that were not part of the national rural
electrification program.
The current work uses electrified and non-electrified (control) groups to isolate other
effects of the access to electricity on the studied population. As a result, it is possible to
define more precisely the net impacts of governmental measures. It is important to
highlight that the object of the study is dynamic and exposed to variables that are not
always totally captured, which indicates how hard it is to work in the field of applied
social sciences.
To evaluate the impacts among peers, i.e., among groups with similar economic and
social profiles, we selected a subgroup that would be better for the homogenisation of the
samples, in other words, a group that would allow to better capture the impacts of
electrification. It was defined that the best representation would be given by a profile of
low social and energy development, based on the following characteristics:
386 M.G. Pereira et al.

• Average income of up to U$1/day; percentage of income spent with energy between

10% and 100%; property smaller than 50 hectares; energy consumption lower than
45 GJ/year per property
• Less than 2.75 t/year of CO2 emissions per property.
These data are approximations based on international references and in simulations with
the database of field researches. Their aim is to consolidate economic, social, energy,
environmental and agrarian structure variables about the rural scenario in Brazil.

4 Results

The presented results are based on data from field researches related to the governmental
efforts aimed to promote rural electrification, which started in the 2000 s. The
systematisation of these results is presented below.

4.1 Energy consumption

To analyse energy consumption, the volume of energy of each source mentioned by the
interviewees is used as base, transforming the annual consumption informed for each
source into only one unit of energy (Gigajoule). Thus, the amount of energy consumed
annually by the properties is estimated, and the results of the Electrified Sample and the
Control Sample are compared for the ex ante and ex post phases.
For the Control Sample, the average annual energy consumption presents an increase
between the phases of the research, and the difference is considered statistically
significant (Figure 3). For the Electrified Sample, energy consumption increases after
electrification as well, but to a greater extent. As a result, it is possible to affirm that the
arrival of electricity caused a higher increase in consumption. It is worth noting the high
correlation between energy consumption and development. The notion that an increase in
energy supply is a necessary condition to reduce social inequality, especially in rural
areas, is widely disseminated in literature.

4.2 Emission per property

One of the main environmental problems of rural areas is the exposure of families to
pollutants which impact their respiratory morbidity, emitted by the burning of wood,
charcoal and fossil fuels such as diesel oil, kerosene and gasoline.
The analysis of CO2 emissions is not just a local issue, since replacing a fuel by
electricity to expand the energy supply leads to a more efficient consumption, which in
the case of Brazil is based on hydroelectricity. As a result, relative CO2 emissions tend to
decrease, in spite of the increase in the absolute emissions per property.
Figure 4 shows an increase in absolute CO2 emissions per property/year for the
Control Sample. For the Electrified Sample, the emissions of the properties were reduced.
This result indicates that regular and safe access to electric energy caused lesser
emissions per property. This result is expected when two opposite factors are taken into
account. The first is the replacement of current energy sources for cleaner sources such as
electric energy, which potentially reduces emissions per property. However, this
 Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions 387

transition may be slow since it is strongly related to the population’s ability to pay. The
second factor is that energy consumption tends to increase since certain demands of rural
populations from developing countries are generally not covered. Thus, when access to
electricity is made available, their energy consumption tends to increase. It is worth
highlighting that this information should be analysed together with the intensity of
emissions (Figure 5).

Figure 3 Annual energy consumption of the properties (GJ/year) (see online version for colours)

Source: Elaborated by the author based on data from the IMPAR system –
Version 2.3 (CEPEL, 2007)

Figure 4 CO2 emissions per property (t/year) (see online version for colours)

Source: Elaborated by the author based on data from the IMPAR system –
Version 2.3 (CEPEL, 2007)
388 M.G. Pereira et al.

Figure 5 Emissions per unit of energy (CO2/GJ) (see online version for colours)

Source: Elaborated by the author based on the data from the IMPAR system –
Version 2.3 (CEPEL, 2007)

4.3 Energy consumption × CO2 emissions

Energy sources provide some of the most important elements of modern society and
many of the amenities that are available today. However, quality of life is also measured
by factors which are not material goods. Health, human well-being and the nature of
social systems play important and fundamental roles. We realise we are part of a bigger
picture, and that our well-being is related to the well-being of the planet. In this sense, the
relationship between CO2 emissions and energy consumption is analysed below. We
verify the amount of CO2 emissions per unit of energy (CO2/GJ), considering the change
in the energy mix.
Based on Figure 5, it is possible to observe a reduction of emission per unit of energy
(CO2/GJ) for the both sample, nevertheless the reduction on the Electrified Sample is
bigger. This is an interesting result for the improvement in life quality for the people and
environment. Regardless of any considerations about climate change, this information
indicates that the electrification of properties favours the use of energy sources which are
more environmentally viable. Climate change is one of the most pressing global issues of
the century, as it intensifies other local and regional socioenvironmental problems and is
intensified by them at the same time. In this way rural electrification is an alternative to
mitigate CO2 emissions.

5 Conclusion

A scenario that does not favour access to electricity perpetuates the large social inequality
observed between urban and rural environments. Providing safe and regular access to
electricity brings many social and environmental benefits to the rural population,
especially to their quality of life.
 Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions 389

This paper analysed how regular and safe access to electricity influences the rural
population of Brazil, in the context of a transition towards more modern energy sources.
Moreover, it also evaluated the CO2 emissions caused by the change in the energy mix.
As for annual energy consumption, we verified an increase in the properties that were
electrified, indicating that the arrival of electricity led to a higher consumption. In
addition, there is a strong correlation between energy consumption and development.
As for the consumption profile, verified through the composition of the energy mix,
it was observed that the properties from the Electrified Sample increased their energy
consumption based on energy sources that were ‘cleaner’ than those of the properties that
were not electrified. Moreover, the consumption of electricity accounted for 28% of the
energy mix in the ex post phase of the Electrified Sample, showing that this source had a
fast penetration over a short period of time.
At the same time, it was observed that the access to modern energy sources,
especially electricity, helps meet the basic needs of the population and reduces the
intensity of emissions per unit of energy (GJ), by including more efficient energy
resources (supply) and equipment (demand). After electricity was installed, the average
energy consumption per property increased in comparison to the ex ante phase of the
Electrified Sample. It also increased for the Control Sample, but less extension. This
information indicates that the presence of electricity, replacing other energy sources,
improves environmental quality and the quality of life of the rural population. Moreover,
it enables the development of productive activities and covers the basic needs of
households.
Brazil is a developing country with many challenges related to the eradication of
poverty, education, public health, employment, housing, infrastructure and access to
energy. In spite of them, its actions to fight global climate change are among the
strongest efforts made by one single country up to the moment. Thus, it is worth to
continue promoting rural electrification in the country as a way to move towards energy
justice and less poverty, especially in rural areas.

References
Alstone, P., Gershenson, D. and Kammen, D.M. (2015) ‘Decentralized energy systems for clean
electricity access’, Nature Climate Change, 5 April.
Barnes, D. and Foley, G. (2004) ‘Rural electrification in the developing world: a summary of
lessons from successful programmes’, Joint UNDP/World Bank EnergySector Management
Assistance Programme (ESMAP), World Bank, Washington, DC.
Barnes, D.F. and Floor, W.M. (1996) ‘Rural energy in developing countries: a challenge for
economic development’, Rev. Energy Environmental, Vol. 21, pg. 497-530.
Casillas, C.E. and Kammen, D.M. (2010) ‘The energy-poverty-climate nexus’, Science, Vol. 330,
26 Novemer.
Cccd (2009) Energy Access, Climate and Development. Commission on Climate Change and
Development, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), May.
Cepel/Eletrobras (2007) Sistema De Avaliação Dos Impactos Rurais (IMPAR) -Versão 2.3.– Base
De Dados Do Programa Nacional De Eletrificação Rural, Rio de Janeiro, N 1 CD-ROM.
Davis, M. (1998) ‘Rural household energy consumption – the effects of access to electricity:
evidence from South Africa’, Energy Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.207–217.
Gouvello, C. and Maigne, Y. (2003) Eletrificação Rural Descentralizada – Uma Oportunidade
Para a Humanidade, Técnicas Para o Planeta, CRESESB – CEPEL, Rio de Janeiro.
390 M.G. Pereira et al.

Hansen, J., Kharecha, P., Sato, M., Masson-delmotte, V., Ackerman, F., Beerling, D.J.,
Hearty, P.J., Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and Hsu, Shi-Ling; Parmesan, C., Rockstrom, J.,
Rohling, E.J., Sachs, J., Smith, P., Steffen, K., Susteren, L.V., Schuckmann, K.V. and
Zachos, J.C. (2013) ‘Assessing ‘Dangerous climate change ‘: required reduction of carbon
emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature’, PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 12,
University of Oxford, UK, December.
IEA (2010) Energy Poverty: How to Make Modern Energy Access Universal? Special Early
Excerpt of the World Energy Outlook 2010 for the UN General Assembly on the Millennium
Development Goals, International Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IEA (2016) Energy and Air Pollution, World Energy Outlook – Special Report, International
Energy Agency, Paris, France.
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2004) IPCC Third Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2001: Agriculture and Energy Cropping, www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_
tar/wg3/115.htm (Accessed 3 February, 2004).
Itamaraty (2015) Pretendida Contribuição Nacionalmente Determinada – Convenção Quadro Das
Nações Unidas Sobre Mudança Do Clima, http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/images/ed_
desenvsust/BRASIL-iNDC-portugues.pdf (Accessed 8 November, 2016).
Madubansi, M. and Shackleton, C.M. (2005) ‘Changing energy profiles and consumption patterns
following electrification in five rural villages – South Africa’, Energy Policy’, in press.
Pachauri, S., Mueller, A., Kemmler, A. and Spreng, D. (2004) ‘On measuring energy poverty in
Indian households’, World Development, Vol. 32, No. 12, pp.2083–2104.
Pachauri, S., Mueller, A., Kemmler, A. and Spreng, D. (2012) Access to Modern
Energy: Assessment and Outlook for Developing and Emerging Regions, IIASA, Laxenburg,
Austria.
Pereira, M.G., Camacho, C.F., Rodrigues, A.F. and Paz, L.R.L. (2008) ‘Migração energética e seus
efeitos sobre a emissão de C02 em domicílios rurais de baixo desenvolvimento’, XII
Congresso Brasileiro De Energia, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Pyndick, R.S. and Rubinfield, D.L. (1994) Microeconomia, Makron Books, São Paulo.
Sagar, A. (2005) ‘Alleviating energy poverty for the world’s poor’, Energy Policy, Vol. 33,
pp.21367–1372.
Sovacool, B. (2014) ‘Diversity: Energy studies need social science’, Nature, Vol. 511 31 July,
pp.529–530.
Sovacool, B. (2016) ‘How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy
transitions’, Energy Research and Social Science, Vol. 13, March, pp.202–215.
Sovacool, B., Heffron, R., Mccauley, D. and Goldthau, A. (2016) ‘Energy decisions reframed as
justice and ethical concerns’, Nature Energy, Article number: 16024 (2016), 6 May,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.24
Weisser, D. (2007) ‘A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply
technologies’, Energy, Vol. 32, No. 2007, pp.1543–1559.
Xiaohua, W. and Zhenming, F. (1996) ‘Survey of rural household energy consumption in China’,
Energy, Vol. 21, No. 718, pp.703–705.
Yadoo, A. and Cruickshank, H. (2012) ‘The role for low carbon electrification technologies in
poverty reduction and climate change strategies: a focus on renewable energy mini-grids with
case studies in Nepal, Peru and Kenya’, Energy Policy, No. 42, pp.591–602.
Zerriffi, H. and Wilson, E. (2010) ‘Leapfrogging over development? Promoting rural renewables
for climate change mitigation’, Energy Policy, Vol. 38, No. 2010, pp.1689–1700.
 Energy transition: the nexus between poverty and CO2 emissions 391

Note
1
According to Pachauri et al. (2012), modern energy access typically includes access to three forms
of energy, each of which provides distinct but essential benefits for economic and social
development: less polluting household energy for cooking and heating, including from improved
cook stoves with traditional solid biomass fuels, from liquid and gaseous fuels such as kerosene
and LPG or energy from renewable energy sources such as solar; electricity for powering
appliances and lights in households and public facilities such as health clinics, schools, and
government offices; and mechanical power from either electricity or other energy sources that
improve the productivity of labour.

View publication stats