I don't think it's a product of inequalities. I think it's a matter of preferences. People value luxuries. Food may not be efficient in the resources/calories s

I don't think it's a product of inequalities. I think it's a matter of preferences. People value luxuries. Food may not be efficient in the resources/calories sense, but it is nonetheless the food people are eating and a big part of its cost is its energy cost. In industrialized countries, less/more expensive energy will lead to an increase in inequality as the basic items that everyone (including the poor) consume a lot of are very energy dependent. Transport, heating & home electricity are easy enough examples. Richer people might use slightly more energy for these (bigger houses, cars, etc.) but not much, energy consumption of this kind does not track income. Steel, concrete and other building materials are very energy intensive. Being heavy means there is a tradeoff between manufacture near high energy sources and high cost transport. Lets leave aside the carbon effects and/or other externalities. It seems to be bad for the quality of the debate to mix the discussion about the cost of reducing energy consumption and the necessity of doing so. I don't personally have very strong opinions about the carbon-climate debate. I do think the "reduce energy consumption" side of the debate underestimate the cost of drastic cuts especially on below median economic strata.