How will the energy poor cool down this summer?

Text originally published on the portal Cloud coder

One hot summer day in my life passes under the air conditioner, disheveled, with a cold coffee on the table and a laptop in front of me. The air is still heavy, I am asked for water every half hour, but it is realistic that the situation is tolerable, at some moments even pleasant. By all accounts, I am a privileged category of the population, which has enough resources to cool down and sip its iced coffee at 40 degrees, and not far from me there is a one-story house, whose owners do not have this opportunity. Air conditioning is not installed in the premises, shade is created by opening opposite doors and windows, popularly known as draft, and if lunch is also being prepared, then warm air circulates throughout the house. When the windows are closed, it is practically impossible to breathe, because the cold air is not retained in the house due to poor insulation. Sleep is bad at night, which greatly affects general health, and during the day it is almost completely unsuitable for life, so people are forced to spend time outside, where they are condemned to the extra warm air that comes out from our air conditioners, while we are inside it cools down.

This is what a summer day in energy poverty looks like. We are sure that we have not discovered hot water for you, and that you or someone of yours, unfortunately, was once in this situation. Research by the RES Foundation says that over a million households in the country are at risk of energy poverty. In 2020, Serbia also adopted the official definition of energy poverty:

A state in which the household does not have at its disposal sufficient opportunities to provide the required amount of energy that is necessary for a healthy and dignified life in a way that does not endanger other basic life needs of the household or the wider community.

If our fellow citizen from the beginning of the text installed an air conditioner in his house, it would consume more electricity than the standard cost, because these are residential units that generally had poor insulation and installations, and the cold air does not stay inside long enough. What particularly worries energy-poor households is the winter period, i.e. that the price of wood will be more expensive every next winter, and with energy, so will other food items.

The imperative to do something to reduce energy poverty and the emission of health-threatening particles is increasing, and this cannot be done without concrete help from the state.

Photo / Dušan Rajić

A large number of households do not have the conditions to improve the energy efficiency of the home

When the choice comes down to whether you will provide food and electricity for the next week/month or invest in closing holes around doors and windows, it is clear that you will choose that the basic needs and obligations are met, and you will somehow endure the heat. Energy efficiency measures are very simple (insulation, installations, carpentry...) and every household knows which hole to start with first, but they require additional and unplanned expenses that are impossible for those who do not even have regular obligations. Years ago, the data of the Republic Institute of Statistics show that more than 30% of households in Serbia are unable to allocate money for unexpected expenses in the amount of about 16 dinars.

Most people cool down a hot apartment with one click, they don't think about how to fall asleep at night in a room where it's over 20 degrees and it's unbearably stuffy, how to avoid turning on the stove in an already hot room, and the like. Those who live in energy poverty must think about all this and every step in advance, to devise cooling tactics and use every moment of wind or rain, which will cool the space a little, as well as to prepare lunch as early as possible, so that the sleeping rooms are not even warmer in the evening.

State measures must be directed towards the poor

Energy-poor households have the most problems and expenses during the winter period, but although they do not have excessive expenses during the summer days, their daily life is quite difficult and unbearably hot days reduce their vital functions. A concrete measure of assistance that would be of great importance is to increase the energy efficiency of the living space, so that the rooms stay cooled as long as possible.

The state provides subsidies for the renovation of buildings and devices into energy-efficient ones, but this subsidy is possible up to 50% of the amount, while the rest should be provided by the household. Consequently, this measure has the largest coverage among the population that could bear the cost of the reconstruction itself, while the less affluent part of the population is again deprived of the necessary assistance, because it does not have the means for its share of the investment.

It is an extremely unfair outcome that the one who has the opportunity to carry out renovation measures on his own has the help of the state and pays lower bills in the future, while the one who does not still lives in worse conditions and has higher energy bills. The health of people living in these conditions is seriously impaired, which is shown by the excess mortality we have from year to year during the summer period.

It is clear that energy poverty is not an attractive or fruitful topic for the political public and that political points will not be quickly and easily measured, but it is also certain that it is the state that must direct aid to households that do not have the opportunity for unplanned expenses, otherwise they will remain in the spiral of poverty. A more concrete state aid would be the donation of more efficient heating devices, as well as assistance in the procurement of more sustainable firewood of better quality, as well as measures to increase the energy efficiency of residential buildings that take into account the socio-economic situation of the household. In contrast, the green transition will only deepen the social gap between the population, so its effects will not be fair or positive, regardless of the potential reduction in the emission of harmful particles.