[post written by Dr. Johan Vélez]
One of the major challenges of mankind is to eradicate poverty while keeping environmental pressures within climate budgets. A recent study by Vélez-Henao, Streeck, Kikstra, and Pauliuk tackles this challenge by quantifying the water, land, materials, and greenhouse gas emissions required to provide decent living standards (DLS) for all across 176 countries [1].
From Energy to natural resources and emissions: Expanding the DLS Framework
Previous research established that 9-36 gigajoules per capita annually would suffice to meet basic needs globally [2]–[4]. However, what about the other resources essential for a decent life, such as the material stocks for homes and infrastructure, land for food, water for sanitation, and associated emissions? This study fills that gap by encompassing four critical environmental dimensions simultaneously.
Despite the DLS defining universal requirements to fulfill human basic needs, e.g., shelter, nutrition, education, and healthcare, the per capita resource requirements for providing DLS vary significantly across countries due to differences in climate, geography, provisioning systems, and development levels.
On average, the efficient scenario (reflecting the transition into renewable energies, active mobility and reducing meat consumption) requires:
- Materials: 2-5 tonnes per capita per year
- GHG emissions: 1-4 tonnes CO₂-eq per capita per year
- Land occupation: 1,424-6,615 m² per capita
- Water use: 98-328 m³ per capita per year
In-use material stocks—buildings, infrastructure, and durable goods—range from 26 to 29 tonnes per capita. These results demonstrate that with appropriate technology choices and lifestyle adjustments, it is possible to provide everyone with a DLS while significantly reducing environmental pressures. Moreover, highlights that climate influences heating and cooling needs, culture and geography determine diets and transport needs, and development levels shape infrastructure efficiency (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Four environmental footprints to provide a person with a decent living standards (DLS) by country. Left side: Reference scenario with 2015 demand, energy mix, industrial structure, and trade patterns. Right side: Efficient scenario. (A-B) Raw material inputs (C-D). Global warming potential. (E-F) Land occupation. (G-H). Water use.
Technology and Lifestyle Choices Shape the Outcome
The study reveals how specific choices dramatically influence resource requirements:
Energy systems: Transitioning to renewables substantially reduces material and GHG footprints. Countries with high renewable electricity shares achieve DLS with significantly lower material demands. While globally, A transition to a clean electricity grid can reduce global DLS-related material use and GHG emissions by 29 % and 49 %
Food systems: Dietary choices have enormous implications. Reducing meat consumption by half could save around 3 % of the global total materials and GHG related to DLS provision,
Mobility: A 25 % shift from private transport to public transport, electric vehicles, or active mobility could bring global savings of around 2 % for materials, and between 1 % and 3 % for GHG footprints.
Closing the DLS Gap is Feasible without major climate pressures
Achieving universal DLS in an efficient scenario would require only:
- 7% of global materials use (2015 baseline)
- 1% of global GHG emissions (2015 baseline)
- 2% of global land occupation (2015 baseline)
- 2% of global water consumption (2015 baseline)
These values demonstrate that lifting everyone from poverty does not necessarily require masive environmental impacts. However, the provisioning systems and lifestyle matter enormously. In less efficient scenarios (reference scenario with current provision systems and lifestyles), closing the DLS gap could demand 14% of global materials and 26% of GHG emissions (2015 baseline) (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Resources and emissions required to remove DLS deprivation, expressed as share of the countries’ current consumption. Left panels: current system technology. Right panels: efficient scenario. (A-B) raw material inputs (C-D). global warming potential. (E-F) land occupation. (G-H). water use.
Critical Implications for Climate Justice
Currently, approximately 1.2 billion people lack adequate access to health, education, and basic living standards [5]. The finding that we can provide DLS for all with modest global resource increases—if done efficiently—carries several crucial messages.
- Paris Agreement commitments are compatible with development rights. Countries need not choose between poverty alleviation and climate action. Development rights can be achieved within climate constraints.
- High-income countries have substantial sufficiency opportunities. Current consumption in wealthy nations often exceeds DLS requirements by factors of 3-7, representing a major emissions reduction opportunity without sacrificing wellbeing.
- Technology transfer becomes essential. Ensuring emerging economies achieve DLS using efficient technologies—rather than replicating high-carbon development paths—is critical.
- Context-specific strategies are necessary. Wide variation in resource requirements across regions means blanket global policies are insufficient. Solutions must be tailored to local climates, infrastructure, and cultures.
A safe and just space for humanity
This research provides critical evidence that humanity’s greatest challenge—ensuring decent lives for all within planetary boundaries—is technically feasible. The window exists, but requires deliberate choices about technology and consumption.
The efficient scenario is not utopian fantasy but a technically achievable pathway using existing technologies and realistic lifestyle shifts. What it demands most is political will: to invest in renewable infrastructure, support sustainable food systems, build efficient public transport, and ensure development reaches those most in need.
References
[1] J. A. Vélez-Henao, J. Streeck, J. Kikstra, and S. Pauliuk, “Water, land, materials, and emissions for providing decent living standards around the world,” Ecol. Econ., vol. 240, no. September 2025, p. 108819, Feb. 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108819.
[2] J. Millward-hopkins, J. K. Steinberger, N. D. Rao, and Y. Oswald, “Providing decent living with minimum energy : A global scenario,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 65, no. August, p. 102168, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102168.
[3] N. D. Rao, J. Min, and A. Mastrucci, “Energy requirements for decent living in India, Brazil and South Africa,” Nat. Energy, vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 1025–1032, 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41560-019-0497-9.
[4] J. S. Kikstra, A. Mastrucci, J. Min, K. Riahi, and N. D. Rao, “Decent living gaps and energy needs around the world,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 16, no. 9, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1c27.
[5] UN, “Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards a Rescue Plan for People and Planet,” 2023. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/SDG_Progress_Report_Special_Edition_2023_ADVANCE_UNEDITED_VERSION.pdf (accessed Jul. 23, 2023).
