A Seemingly Contradictory Finding

Picture a family living in the Russian Arctic. In the winter the temperature outside can fall to minus forty degrees Celsius. Heating is not something optional—it is essential for survival. When you calculate the household's "carbon footprint" the figures might not be very satisfactory since heating uses large quantities of natural gas or coal and results in high emissions.

However, if you pose a different question—namely, whether or not they can afford enough energy to keep their home warm—the answer might just be equally concerning. Many households are facing energy poverty.

The situation can be such that one is a high carbon emitter and at the same time a victim of energy poverty.

This is the fundamental problem that we set out to understand in our most recent study, which appeared in Discover Sustainability. Conventionally, climate policy deals with 'emissions reduction' and 'energy equity' as two distinct matters: one line of action is concerned with setting up carbon pricing and emission targets, while the other focuses on energy subsidies and measures to alleviate poverty. However, in a federal country such as Russia—given its great size and huge climatic diversity—this 'divide and conquer' strategy can weaken the implementation of policy.

Why the Russian Arctic?

The situation in the Russian Arctic is an extreme example, but the problems it shows are general.

First of all, the energy system in this area relies greatly on fossil fuels, coal and natural gas being the main sources of heating and leading to a high level of carbon intensity. Secondly, the climate is very severe and energy demand is fixed since it's not possible to ask an Arctic household to reduce its heating usage in order to lower emissions. Thirdly, the infrastructure is old, for many places still have Soviet-era buildings and heating systems which are inefficient and therefore increase both emissions and costs.

Above all, Russia is a federal country; as a result, the power to draw up climate and energy policy is shared between the central government and the regional authorities. Any policy framework issued in Moscow has to be interpreted and adjusted by the regional governments when it reaches places such as Norilsk or Murmansk. A discrepancy may arise if the central government's policy is concerned solely with 'total carbon emissions' while the regional governments are more concerned with 'whether residents can afford their heating bills'.

Against this background, our study seeks to combine carbon footprint analysis with energy poverty assessment within a single framework.

What Did We Find?

In short, if you look at carbon emissions alone, you will overlook the people who need protection the most; if you focus only on energy poverty, you will miss the main means of reducing emissions.

In the situation concerning the Russian Arctic, there was a great deal of overlap between households that emit a high amount of carbon and those that are energy poor. Families residing in old Soviet-style buildings tend to emit more carbon dioxide (since heating is inefficient) and also have a greater burden of energy costs (since they have to use more energy in order to maintain a basic level of comfort).

What this shows is that a climate policy which imposes charges only on 'emissions' without taking into account the ability of households to pay could result in the most vulnerable groups experiencing even greater difficulty. On the other hand, an energy poverty policy that gives out subsidies only for 'bills', without also encouraging energy efficiency retrofits to buildings and upgrades to heating systems, is just pumping money into an inefficient system with only a small effect on emissions reduction.

Our analysis also shows a particular aspect of federalism in that the various regions have very different energy structures, climatic conditions, economic levels, and capacities for governance. It is almost certain that applying the same carbon price or the same subsidy criterion throughout the entire Russian Arctic will result in some benefiting and others being disadvantaged.

What Does This Have to Do With the General Public?

The narrative of the Russian Arctic is typical of global climate governance.

In coal-producing areas of Indonesia, in the vicinity of coal-fired power stations in South Africa, and in the Appalachian mountains of the United States, the same kinds of tensions are occurring: there actually is a conflict between the need to reduce emissions and the requirement for energy equity that must be recognised.

The fact that carbon footprints and energy poverty are studied together does not mean that opposition is being created; rather, it provides opportunities for "double dividends". In our study, energy efficiency improvements for buildings and upgrades to heating systems are clear examples of such opportunities, since they manage to lower emissions as well as reduce the energy bills of households. However, if such policies are to actually become established, coordination between the federal frameworks and the regional implementations is necessary—which is what we refer to as "federated climate policy".

The Story Behind the Research

The study began out of confusion. When I had been going through a large amount of literature concerning carbon footprints, I observed a certain pattern—that is, although many of the studies gave exact figures for emissions they ignored the question of 'who bears the energy costs'. In the case of research into energy poverty, the situation was the opposite: detailed attention was paid to household affordability but the environmental externalities were almost never taken into account.

The two areas of literature progressed almost independently of one another. It would have been a straightforward move to link them, but when one actually attempted to do so it became clear that data integration, indicator alignment, and the derivation of policy implications all required interdisciplinary thinking.

We chose the Russian Arctic for our study since its extreme conditions make the issue obvious; when the climate is cold enough, the energy system is old enough, and the federal structure is complex enough, the conflict between carbon considerations and equity cannot be ignored.

Next Steps

Our study merely represents the beginning of the work. If the 'carbon-energy poverty' integrated framework is to be applied to other countries which have a federal or decentralised system of governance, then further comparative cases are required. We should in particular look at similar studies from India, Brazil, Nigeria and other nations in order to see how different types of federalism affect the implementation of climate policy.

If you are interested in this paper, you can read the full text here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43621-026-03448-7#citeas