Carbon Prices and Cooking Fires: How Decarbonization Pathway Design Shapes Household Energy Burdens
7 affiliations
- 1University of Maryland at College Park
- 2University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability
- 3International institute of advanced systems analysis
- 4The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
- 5University of Maryland School of Public Policy
- 6Yale School of the Environment
- 7Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
Abstract
Pathways reaching the same climate target can distribute household energy costs very differently across income groups. We compare 16 core mitigation pathways spanning a cost-optimal benchmark and technology, timing, effort-sharing, and demand-side designs, plus one rebound sensitivity, within a common integrated assessment framework. All core pathways remain below 2°C and converge to approximately 1.5°C warming by 2100, consistent with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C temperature goal. We translate energy- and food-price outcomes into household energy burdens across income deciles in India and the United States using survey-informed downscaling. In 2030, cost-optimal, technology, and pace pathways are regressive in both countries, with larger burden increases for poorer deciles. In India, lower-demand pathways reduce global carbon prices and lower burdens for poorer households, whereas accelerated electrification and rapid traditional-biomass phase-out raise burdens. Historical-responsibility transfers lower burdens in India and raise them in the United States under the stylized transfer design. A conventional gross-income sensitivity preserves pathway rankings and almost all decile-level burden-change signs but roughly halves poorest-decile magnitudes in India. Accounting for food expenditure therefore reveals affordability pressures on poorer households that gross-income measures mute. Scenario design is an equity-relevant dimension of pathway assessment alongside revenue recycling.
Related
- The green paradox of on-demand adaptation: how digital delivery amplifies urban carbon and material burdens
- Habit-locked-in carbon-air-pollutant emissions dominate China's household footprints
- Spatiotemporal ship carbon emission exploitation and low-carbon shipping pathway evaluation
- Climate change and interprovincial trade move grain production and environmental burdens northwards in China
- Hybrid LCA of French research activities reveals limited trade‑offs for decarbonization strategies across multiple impacts
BibTeX
@article{george2026carbon,
title = {{Carbon Prices and Cooking Fires: How Decarbonization Pathway Design Shapes Household Energy Burdens}},
author = {Mel George and Leon Clarke and Jihoon Min and Shonali Pachauri and Anand Patwardhan and Narasimha D. Rao and Haewon McJeon},
journal = {Environmental Research Letters},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aeb55d},
url = {https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aeb55d},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Carbon Prices and Cooking Fires: How Decarbonization Pathway Design Shapes Household Energy Burdens
AU - Mel George
AU - Leon Clarke
AU - Jihoon Min
AU - Shonali Pachauri
AU - Anand Patwardhan
AU - Narasimha D. Rao
AU - Haewon McJeon
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/16
JO - Environmental Research Letters
DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/aeb55d
UR - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aeb55d
AB - Pathways reaching the same climate target can distribute household energy costs very differently across income groups. We compare 16 core mitigation pathways spanning a cost-optimal benchmark and technology, timing, effort-sharing, and demand-side designs, plus one rebound sensitivity, within a common integrated assessment framework. All core pathways remain below 2°C and converge to approximately 1.5°C warming by 2100, consistent with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C temperature goal. We translate energy- and food-price outcomes into household energy burdens across income deciles in India and the United States using survey-informed downscaling. In 2030, cost-optimal, technology, and pace pathways are regressive in both countries, with larger burden increases for poorer deciles. In India, lower-demand pathways reduce global carbon prices and lower burdens for poorer households, whereas accelerated electrification and rapid traditional-biomass phase-out raise burdens. Historical-responsibility transfers lower burdens in India and raise them in the United States under the stylized transfer design. A conventional gross-income sensitivity preserves pathway rankings and almost all decile-level burden-change signs but roughly halves poorest-decile magnitudes in India. Accounting for food expenditure therefore reveals affordability pressures on poorer households that gross-income measures mute. Scenario design is an equity-relevant dimension of pathway assessment alongside revenue recycling.
SN - 1748-9326
ER -