The consumption of energy has grown significantly over the past four decades, as has global life expectancy. New research from the University of Leeds sets out to see whether the two are linked.
The study found that while energy usage and life expectancy were indeed correlated at specific points in time, this connection dissipated over the long-term. The researchers discovered that the growth in energy usage between 1971 and 2014 accounted for around 25% of the improvements in life expectancy during that timeframe, which amounts to around 4 of the 14 years improvement witnessed during that period.
The link appears to be far stronger in terms of economic growth, with the research finding that 90% of the growth in GDP could be attributed to higher energy usage.
“Increased use of fossil fuels and primary energy may have helped make countries richer, but it was not responsible for much improvement in human health,” the researchers say. “Our results directly counter the claims by fossil fuel companies that their products are necessary for well-being. Reducing emissions and primary energy use, while maintaining or enhancing the health of populations, should be possible.”
Prosperity
Similarly, the analysis suggests that economic prosperity also plays a relatively small part in the improvements in life expectancy, with the researchers believing it to be less than 30% responsible. That’s in terms of GDP at least, as when economic prosperity was measured using purchasing power parity, this appeared to provide a much closer link.
“What this suggests is the importance of eradicating extreme levels of inequality within and across countries,” the researchers say. “Solving this dual challenge does not require adding more stuff in our economies, but prioritising wellbeing and distributing existing resources more equally.”
Previous work on the topic has made the connection between energy use and life expectancy, but this connection is typically limited to a particular moment in time. By using a method known as Functional Dynamic Composition, the researchers were able to understand how wellbeing, the economy and energy use change over time, and the extent to which they influence one another. It’s an approach that whilst it doesn’t show causality, it does at least show association.
The researchers believe their findings highlight that prioritizing economic growth might not lead to significant improvements in life expectancy. Instead, they suggest that policy makers should focus directly on areas with a clear impact on wellbeing, such as healthcare and nutrition.
“The implications of this for the climate crisis are profound: rapidly decreasing emissions, even through reductions in energy use, need not be catastrophic in terms of our well-being, so long as human needs, such as food and household electricity, are prioritised,” they explain. “In short, this research shows we need to prioritise human well-being and acting on climate change over economic growth, because more fossil fuels do not lead to healthier lives.”
Improving wellbeing
What did appear to make a significant difference was the level of residential electricity available in a community, with the researchers believing this reflected the quality and versatility of energy available to households. This was associated with up to 60% of wellbeing improvements.
Also of considerable importance was the food supply in a country, which the research found was associated with 45% of wellbeing improvements. What’s interesting is that this is despite food supply only growing by 18% during the study period.
“At this moment in history – when we are overconsuming and destroying environmental systems, whilst simultaneously trying to bring billions out of poverty to a good standard of living – it is vital that we re-orient our priorities so that people and planet can prosper as one,” the researchers say. “In terms of policies and politics, we need to face the reality that feeding fossil fuels to the economy is far less beneficial to human development outcomes than directly satisfying human needs.”
