Climate protection through carbon pricing – in Uganda, that wouldn’t be a big deal in terms of money. The country, with a population of around 50 million, would collect just 26 million US dollars a year if fossil fuels were priced at 40 dollars per tonne of CO₂. But the seemingly tiny burden of 3 dollars per household per year reduces emissions by 18 percent. At the same time, however, the food situation worsens if the burden is not compensated for, with people eating around half as much fruit and vegetables, for example. And they collect a tenth more firewood, which accelerates the already threatening deforestation, endangering biodiversity.
This scenario is presented by the Berlin climate research institute MCC (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change) in the journal Environment and Development Economics. “In our model study, supported by empirical data, we show how climate policy in a low-income country in sub-Saharan Africa affects the economic welfare of private households,” reports Raavi Aggarwal, who led the study as a doctoral student in the MCC working group Climate and Development, and who is now working as a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Indian Statistical Institute in Delhi. “Carbon pricing in Uganda will affect energy demand, how biomass is used and the quality of nutrition in a different way than in industrialised countries – this is important to know for sustainable policy, and has been little researched so far.”
The research team uses a so-called EASI consumption demand model, with data from Ugandan statistics on the spending structure of private households and the prices of goods, as well as the country’s CO₂ emissions by economic sector as determined by the Global Trade Analysis Project research network. Econometric methods are then used to assess how the assumed carbon price of 40 dollars would affect private households, and how they would react to it. Only a minority is directly affected: one in three households has access to kerosene, the fossil fuel most commonly used in Uganda for cooking, and only one in six has access to electricity. By contrast, all households feel the indirect effects through the production costs of other goods, such as food.
Unlike in industrialised countries, the distributional effects of carbon pricing in Uganda are progressive overall: high-income households bear a greater burden in percentage terms. Relative to spending on energy and food, the model study shows a 12 percent burden on the richest households and a 1 percent burden on the poorest half. The demand for kerosene and electricity drops by 20 percent and 11 percent respectively, with people switching to firewood and charcoal for cooking and heating. In terms of nutrition, demand for cereals, which are produced with relatively low carbon emissions, nearly doubles, although demand for meat & fish and vegetables falls by over 50 percent, and for fruit by 15 percent. You can do without meat and fish – but this radically unbalanced diet leads to a 20 to 30 percent lower intake of proteins and micronutrients, which the study accurately reflects for both rich and poor, urban and rural populations.
Aggarwal, R., Ayhan, S., Jakob, M., Steckel, J., 2024, Carbon pricing and household welfare: evidence from Uganda, Environmental and Development Economics
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X24000214
Teilen mit:
Entdecke mehr von Pugnalom
Melde dich für ein Abonnement an, um die neuesten Beiträge per E-Mail zu erhalten.
