As is common, articles like this keen to promote renewables bury key details about the implications for energy poverty. In a world still teeming with the latter, can we really justify reducing access to non-renewable energy sources for the energy poor? How can that be morally acceptable, when the other side of the equation is merely the chance of some future climate scenario that is unproven, not understood and will highly likely be irrelevant given the technological advances of humanity by the time such situations arise…
KEY QUOTE:
“Michail Filippidis, teaching fellow at Portsmouth Business School, said: “The main implications of our study highlight renewable energy as a catalyst for reducing income inequality and energy poverty within a country. It should be stressed renewable energy, although it is clearly an important factor towards the reduction of energy poverty, is not so effective during the early stages of growth. In this regard, our findings suggest that societies with higher levels of income, that have probably also achieved higher levels of education and environmental awareness, benefit more from the applications of renewable energy.””
SOURCE:
Primate v. Climate 