WEBVTT - S8 Ep5 | On Global Poverty and Global Warming 0:00:01.880 --> 0:00:05.400 Last week, our story in Guyana took us straight into 0:00:05.480 --> 0:00:08.559 an issue that sits at the heart of the global 0:00:08.600 --> 0:00:12.799 climate debate, the need to address poverty while also avoiding 0:00:12.840 --> 0:00:17.239 the worst impacts of climate change. The fossil fuel industry 0:00:17.400 --> 0:00:22.360 often positions these two aims as mutually exclusive. Can't solve 0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:27.840 poverty without fossil fuels, but the climate movement also does this, 0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:31.560 with some folks agreeing with oil companies that the only 0:00:31.600 --> 0:00:35.080 way to address global poverty is to continue developing fossil 0:00:35.120 --> 0:00:38.919 fuels in the global South for the foreseeable future, and 0:00:39.040 --> 0:00:42.920 others arguing that there can be no further fossil fuel expansion, 0:00:43.240 --> 0:00:48.200 but failing to offer any real solutions to poverty. As 0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:53.680 with all complicated issues, the answer is equally complex. It 0:00:53.760 --> 0:00:57.280 requires nuance and a whole lot of context, and it 0:00:57.320 --> 0:00:59.840 felt important to bring that in at this point in 0:00:59.840 --> 0:01:03.880 our story. So this week I asked doctor Narasimha Rau 0:01:04.080 --> 0:01:07.679 from Yale University to join me. Doctor raw studies energy 0:01:07.720 --> 0:01:12.400 systems and their relationship to human well being and human development, 0:01:12.600 --> 0:01:15.840 and you lead something called the Decent Living Energy Project. 0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:21.640 That project focuses entirely on this big question, how do 0:01:21.680 --> 0:01:26.360 we solve poverty and climate change at the same time. 0:01:27.440 --> 0:01:29.560 Dr Rao is going to walk us through it right 0:01:29.600 --> 0:01:31.000 after this quick break. 0:01:51.560 --> 0:01:54.680 So my name is Narsim Harau. I'm an associate Professor 0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:57.800 of Energy Systems at the Year School of the Environment. 0:01:59.200 --> 0:02:02.280 I am an INTRODUCIP and researcher with the background in 0:02:02.480 --> 0:02:07.400 electrical engineering and social sciences as well, and over the 0:02:07.400 --> 0:02:10.160 course of my career, I've been interested in understanding the 0:02:10.200 --> 0:02:15.280 relationship between energy systems, especially in the context of climate 0:02:15.360 --> 0:02:18.880 change and energy transitions, and their relationship to human well 0:02:18.919 --> 0:02:21.160 being and human development more broadly. 0:02:22.160 --> 0:02:26.399 And can I have you describe the Decent Living Energy 0:02:26.440 --> 0:02:31.440 Project and define what this term decent Living energy means. 0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:38.360 Sure? So this project addresses two very important global challenges. 0:02:39.040 --> 0:02:43.720 The first of them is persistent poverty eradication and the 0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:48.240 second is climate mitigation. And these are both in the 0:02:48.280 --> 0:02:55.120 global South, extremely important pressing priorities. We understand already that 0:02:55.200 --> 0:03:00.000 climate change is a threat multiplier for people. It exacerbates 0:03:00.000 --> 0:03:03.560 it's poverty poor people face that is proportionate effect off 0:03:03.560 --> 0:03:07.240 climate impacts. They are more vulnerable to extreme events, to 0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:10.600 extreme heat. So that is well understood. But what is 0:03:10.639 --> 0:03:14.760 perhaps less well understood is the impact of poverty eradication 0:03:14.880 --> 0:03:20.560 in terms of resource needs on emissions and climate change. 0:03:20.880 --> 0:03:24.720 That is, bringing people out of poverty all around the 0:03:24.720 --> 0:03:27.799 world going to have such a significant rise in emissions 0:03:27.800 --> 0:03:31.240 that it really complicates our ability to mitigate the climate problem. 0:03:32.000 --> 0:03:34.920 And that's the question that my research has tried to answer. 0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:38.840 It has been of interest for a long time, but 0:03:38.920 --> 0:03:40.880 it has not really been tackled in a manner that 0:03:40.960 --> 0:03:44.400 allows you to really answer the question. So let me 0:03:44.440 --> 0:03:49.240 explain why. The first question is what is poverty in 0:03:49.280 --> 0:03:54.520 the first place. Now, our understanding of poverty, in largely 0:03:54.600 --> 0:04:00.200 in development policy internationally, is based on income thresholds per 0:04:00.320 --> 0:04:03.640 day that people earn around the world, and in global 0:04:04.240 --> 0:04:09.119 international policy we use the World banks originally dollars per 0:04:09.200 --> 0:04:12.800 day that increase with inflation to dollar ninety per day. 0:04:13.360 --> 0:04:16.360 But it's seen, first of all as an acute poverty threshold, 0:04:16.640 --> 0:04:19.520 and there are many issues with this, both in terms 0:04:19.560 --> 0:04:22.039 of its absolute value as well as the notion of 0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:25.719 an income threshold for poverty. First of all, it's hard 0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:29.960 to translate such an absolute income threshold to the actual 0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:32.280 lives of people. What does it mean in terms of 0:04:32.720 --> 0:04:36.200 the services they receive and the actual well being For 0:04:36.240 --> 0:04:40.000 many reasons. Price differences for people in poverty are large 0:04:40.360 --> 0:04:44.440 extent of services that are received non monetarily through social 0:04:45.000 --> 0:04:49.720 transfers or public services. It's very difficult to characterize people's 0:04:50.000 --> 0:04:56.360 living standards with this threshold. Second, of all, different thresholds 0:04:56.360 --> 0:04:59.760 are used in countries, so national poverty lines use different 0:04:59.760 --> 0:05:04.960 threas for different reasons. So some consider absolute conditions of people, 0:05:05.240 --> 0:05:10.320 usually food expenditure and some additional aspects, but also relational poverty. 0:05:10.680 --> 0:05:14.039 So richer countries have higher income poverty lines, and so 0:05:14.080 --> 0:05:17.920 it's not just translating to an absolute level of living 0:05:17.920 --> 0:05:20.960 standards so well being. So for this reason, the first 0:05:21.040 --> 0:05:23.919 question in this project was really fundamental, How should we 0:05:23.960 --> 0:05:27.640 define the material basis of poverty In the first place, 0:05:27.720 --> 0:05:30.560 we don't have anything that we can hang our hat 0:05:30.600 --> 0:05:34.360 on it directly. And I say material in particular because 0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:37.320 that's what we're concerned about with regards to environmental impact. 0:05:37.880 --> 0:05:42.520 Of course, well being has psychological dimensions, social dimensions, and 0:05:42.560 --> 0:05:45.000 what we want this project wanted to do was to 0:05:45.040 --> 0:05:49.880 translate those to material requirements so that it would then 0:05:50.040 --> 0:05:53.440 allow us to estimate energy and material needs and translate 0:05:53.480 --> 0:05:56.760 that to climate impacts. So basically, decent living standards are 0:05:57.400 --> 0:06:02.880 the minimum inviolable material requirements that we consider necessary for 0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:05.960 people to pursue a good life, no matter what else 0:06:06.000 --> 0:06:08.440 they may want in their lives. So can we define 0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:12.440 that minimum threshold, and then decent living energy is then 0:06:13.000 --> 0:06:17.440 the energy requirements to provide everybody with these basic living standards. 0:06:18.440 --> 0:06:20.520 I want to talk to you about something that's come 0:06:20.600 --> 0:06:23.479 up a lot in We're in the middle of doing 0:06:23.800 --> 0:06:28.480 a long story on oil drilling in Guyana, and one 0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:31.200 of the things that we hear a lot is well, 0:06:31.839 --> 0:06:37.360 we need fossil fuels to develop, and fossil fuels are 0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:41.159 sort of the answer to solving poverty. And I'm just 0:06:41.279 --> 0:06:45.560 wondering what you've seen in your research along those lines 0:06:45.680 --> 0:06:47.320 where that does or doesn't hold up. 0:06:49.040 --> 0:06:55.160 So what people need our services and maybe products, access 0:06:55.200 --> 0:06:58.279 to basic sanitation and water and food and housing and 0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:02.880 these things. That's what they need. What is an absolutely 0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:08.600 unavoidable instrumental need that arises from those goods and services 0:07:08.720 --> 0:07:13.120 is energy. Because we're talking about the transformation of materials 0:07:13.160 --> 0:07:17.400 of natural resources into services that people need or goods, 0:07:18.040 --> 0:07:23.080 and that absolutely requires energy. So the type of energy 0:07:23.800 --> 0:07:27.400 that we use in order to create these services is 0:07:27.440 --> 0:07:30.440 a completely separate matter. We may only speak about the 0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:34.800 energy demand required to eradicate poverty now, in terms of 0:07:34.840 --> 0:07:37.880 what types of energy we use to deliver these services 0:07:38.360 --> 0:07:42.240 is a matter of fuel endowments that country have and 0:07:42.280 --> 0:07:45.080 the costs of technologies and other types of energy sources, 0:07:45.800 --> 0:07:48.680 and then that translates to a matter of global climate justice. 0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:53.120 So I think there's a lot of substance and a 0:07:53.120 --> 0:07:56.440 lot of validity to saying that poor countries right now 0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:01.240 need fossil fuels to eradicate poverty. It's important to unpack 0:08:01.320 --> 0:08:05.080 that and understand that what they really need our energy services. 0:08:05.680 --> 0:08:10.120 But in the current global context, where clean energy is 0:08:10.160 --> 0:08:14.560 not affordable at a large scale in certain countries and 0:08:14.640 --> 0:08:17.600 there is an immediate urgency to build infrastructure and provide 0:08:17.600 --> 0:08:22.800 these services to people, it is only expected that policy 0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:27.440 makers in the global South will build infrastructure using what 0:08:27.560 --> 0:08:30.560 is competitive in those countries right now, and that tends 0:08:30.600 --> 0:08:34.040 to be fossil fuels currently gas, and so that's what 0:08:34.080 --> 0:08:38.720 we're seeing. Another element to this is countries, of course 0:08:38.720 --> 0:08:42.920 follow their own development priorities first, and countries that have resources, 0:08:43.440 --> 0:08:49.080 fossil resources they want to extract them for microeconomic reasons 0:08:49.080 --> 0:08:53.719 for raising revenues for economic development broadly. Now, that is 0:08:53.760 --> 0:08:57.520 a slightly separate issue because those revenues that they earn, 0:08:57.840 --> 0:09:01.120 it's questionable to what extent those are going to eradicate poverty, 0:09:01.400 --> 0:09:04.560 but it certainly may be an important revenue source for 0:09:04.679 --> 0:09:08.160 these countries to invest in those resources unless alternatives are 0:09:08.160 --> 0:09:09.200 made available to them. 0:09:10.160 --> 0:09:14.440 What are you seeing in terms of how those decisions 0:09:14.520 --> 0:09:17.040 get made. This is like a squishy question, but I'm 0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:21.400 curious about something that has come up a lot in 0:09:22.040 --> 0:09:25.080 the reporting that we've been doing recently. Is sort of Okay, well, 0:09:25.920 --> 0:09:30.000 the world is saying we need to reduce emissions and 0:09:30.120 --> 0:09:32.640 get off of fossil fuels and all of these things. 0:09:32.960 --> 0:09:37.920 But in many countries that have fossil resources, they are 0:09:38.120 --> 0:09:42.520 both seen as one of the few economic drivers and 0:09:42.600 --> 0:09:47.160 also one of the few sort of reliable energy sources. 0:09:47.320 --> 0:09:52.000 And there's not really anything immediately presenting itself as an alternative, 0:09:52.160 --> 0:09:57.679 either in terms of financing or funding for alternative energy 0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:03.959 or even the technology scale of alternative energy resources. How 0:10:04.000 --> 0:10:06.640 are countries thinking about this and is there a sense 0:10:06.720 --> 0:10:12.000 that the kind of short term choices are being made 0:10:12.080 --> 0:10:17.280 with any kind of thinking about the long term climate impacts, 0:10:17.840 --> 0:10:20.520 or is it sort of everyone is just making the 0:10:20.559 --> 0:10:23.880 decision that's best for the next ten years and kind 0:10:23.920 --> 0:10:26.360 of leaving it to the next batch of people to 0:10:26.400 --> 0:10:27.840 figure out the rest. 0:10:28.480 --> 0:10:32.760 So you first need to understand that the energy transition 0:10:33.800 --> 0:10:37.719 involves a very deep transformation of all our economic activities. 0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:42.200 This is not just a matter of building solar panels 0:10:42.200 --> 0:10:45.280 instead of coal power plants. It's a lot more than that. 0:10:45.920 --> 0:10:51.199 It's a diverse range of technologies that will require complete 0:10:51.200 --> 0:10:57.520 transformation of economies. So, given that it will require significant 0:10:57.559 --> 0:11:00.600 capital investments on the order of one hundreds of billions 0:11:00.640 --> 0:11:05.719 of dollars globally, trillions of dollars that clearly these countries 0:11:05.960 --> 0:11:09.640 do not have and are not made available today. Now 0:11:10.520 --> 0:11:14.760 in this portfolio of technologies, some elements of them are 0:11:14.760 --> 0:11:23.120 getting increasingly competitive cost competitive with existing technologies. So the 0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:28.199 decarbonization of the electricity sector using solar and wind technologies 0:11:28.400 --> 0:11:31.679 up to a point is become cost competitive with coal 0:11:32.400 --> 0:11:38.079 and to some extent with gas as well in certain circumstances. However, 0:11:38.720 --> 0:11:43.280 the complete transformation and decarbonization of the electricity system will 0:11:43.360 --> 0:11:49.600 involve significantly more renewables. The retirement of existing capacity in 0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:55.080 fossil fuel plants, and significant amounts of storage capacity to 0:11:55.200 --> 0:11:58.600 balance the intermittency of the renewables, and a lot of 0:11:58.679 --> 0:12:02.240 technologies and how you run the grid to manage this 0:12:02.360 --> 0:12:06.880 new kind of portfolio of resources. Now that deeper level 0:12:07.320 --> 0:12:11.760 of reliance on renewables, even just for electricity production is 0:12:11.800 --> 0:12:14.880 not cost competitive today, and then there are a whole 0:12:14.920 --> 0:12:19.440 bunch of technologies that you need for industry as well. 0:12:19.520 --> 0:12:21.960 If you think about fertilizer for food production, if you 0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:25.760 think about cement and steel production, and industrial heat production 0:12:25.800 --> 0:12:29.760 which requires hydrogen, these are completely not even commercialized in 0:12:29.800 --> 0:12:32.440 other countries, let alone in poor countries. So the need 0:12:32.520 --> 0:12:36.880 for international cooperation for technology transfer and some sort of 0:12:36.920 --> 0:12:41.120 consideration of fair efforts is essential for deeper transformations in 0:12:41.160 --> 0:12:44.480 these per economies. Having said that, there is some potential 0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:48.079 for them to scale up renewables beyond what they're currently 0:12:48.120 --> 0:12:52.520 doing potentially, but still there's an upfront capital requirement. So 0:12:52.600 --> 0:12:56.040 let me speak about finance for a second. If you 0:12:56.080 --> 0:13:00.640 look at private finance today, the cost of capitals are 0:13:00.840 --> 0:13:05.760 exactly inversely related to the average income of countries, that is, 0:13:06.240 --> 0:13:09.520 the poorest countries in subsidn Africa have the highest costs 0:13:09.520 --> 0:13:13.839 of capital seen by a private finance because they see 0:13:13.920 --> 0:13:17.800 high risk in investing in these economies. But this is 0:13:17.840 --> 0:13:22.160 a problem also of how risk is assessed and measured. So, 0:13:22.240 --> 0:13:26.000 for example, we think about credit risk. People need to 0:13:26.080 --> 0:13:30.080 have debt to get new debt, and that's circular and 0:13:30.160 --> 0:13:32.120 maybe inappropriate for people who have never been part of 0:13:32.160 --> 0:13:34.720 the former economy. But they may yet have a record, 0:13:35.000 --> 0:13:37.600 a perfect record of paying bills to the extent they 0:13:37.640 --> 0:13:42.200 receive existing services. So the existing market for finance on 0:13:42.240 --> 0:13:45.839 its own is going to be even more challenging because 0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:47.920 of the fact that the poorest countries have the highest 0:13:48.559 --> 0:13:51.120 demanding cost of capital. So there's going to have to 0:13:51.160 --> 0:13:55.000 be some kind of government intervention to underwrite private finance 0:13:55.040 --> 0:13:58.000 if at all, or some sort of broadest scheme for 0:13:58.080 --> 0:14:03.520 government cooperation. So that's with regards to the transformation. Now 0:14:03.760 --> 0:14:08.240 are developing countries thinking only short term not thinking long term? 0:14:09.080 --> 0:14:11.720 For the most part, we have to understand that poor 0:14:11.760 --> 0:14:15.720 countries have development priorities that are long standing. And over 0:14:15.760 --> 0:14:20.440 the last few decades, generally countries started out by saying 0:14:20.440 --> 0:14:23.680 that the climate is a northern problem. It's a problem 0:14:23.720 --> 0:14:25.400 created by the West and has to be dealt with 0:14:25.480 --> 0:14:28.320 by them. But over time, for various reasons, it's been 0:14:28.400 --> 0:14:30.880 understood that all countries have to be part of the 0:14:30.960 --> 0:14:34.520 energy transition, and also that there are several opportunities for 0:14:35.160 --> 0:14:39.320 efficiently growing in ways that will be beneficial to even 0:14:39.680 --> 0:14:44.360 low income countries, for example by reducing air pollution and 0:14:44.440 --> 0:14:47.880 other health benefits of transition to clean energy. So there 0:14:47.880 --> 0:14:52.359 has been a push towards trying to integrate and mainstream 0:14:52.640 --> 0:14:56.960 climate conditions and climate priorities into development priorities. But it's 0:14:57.000 --> 0:15:01.320 really important to understand that we have to embed climate 0:15:01.360 --> 0:15:05.720 considerations within the existing set of priorities developing countries have, 0:15:06.520 --> 0:15:10.080 rather than to think about it as let's see how 0:15:10.120 --> 0:15:13.440 we can introduce climate policy and think about other benefits 0:15:13.480 --> 0:15:18.720 for development. So that mainstreaming of climate into development policy, 0:15:18.800 --> 0:15:23.680 I think is happening increasingly, and so yes, poor countries 0:15:23.720 --> 0:15:26.680 are mostly thinking about near term priorities, but there has 0:15:26.720 --> 0:15:31.120 been significant progress and at least formally thinking about climate 0:15:31.320 --> 0:15:34.880 explicitly including them in plans for the future, but very 0:15:34.920 --> 0:15:39.239 often conditional on support from the international community. 0:15:40.400 --> 0:15:42.520 One of the people that we spoke with in Diana 0:15:42.560 --> 0:15:46.440 was saying you know that she feels like the global 0:15:46.480 --> 0:15:49.600 north is doing with fossil fuels sort of what it 0:15:49.640 --> 0:15:54.280 did with tobacco and cars, which is dump the stuff 0:15:54.280 --> 0:15:56.840 they don't want on the global's mouth, and then that 0:15:56.920 --> 0:16:00.640 puts the global stuff that much further behind on energy transition. 0:16:00.920 --> 0:16:03.360 And I'm curious just what you think about that. 0:16:03.920 --> 0:16:06.280 I do think there's a couple of concerns with regards 0:16:06.320 --> 0:16:10.760 to inequality and the kind of fragmentation of the global 0:16:11.480 --> 0:16:15.440 energy system in a couple of ways. One is that 0:16:16.160 --> 0:16:21.480 you have certain countries, wealthier countries investing in renewables but 0:16:21.720 --> 0:16:25.560 not supporting the investment in renewables in poorer countries, and 0:16:25.600 --> 0:16:28.360 then they would go ahead and invest in fossils, and 0:16:28.400 --> 0:16:31.360 so you'd have the segmentation where you have higher fossil 0:16:31.960 --> 0:16:35.000 lock in happening in poorer countries. But there's also the 0:16:35.120 --> 0:16:40.640 risk that investeeing signs of this already, that multilateral institution 0:16:40.880 --> 0:16:46.760 development banks start to stop funding fossil based projects as 0:16:46.800 --> 0:16:52.440 part of their climate first priorities in poor countries before 0:16:53.360 --> 0:16:56.080 you have strong decarbonization in rich countries. So actually the 0:16:56.080 --> 0:16:59.760 opposite effect where they are pushing for renewables but simply 0:16:59.760 --> 0:17:03.840 by not providing lending for fossil resources, and at the 0:17:03.840 --> 0:17:07.439 same time, renewable energy is not very affordable either, So 0:17:07.480 --> 0:17:11.240 that actually puts the risk of investing in more expensive 0:17:11.520 --> 0:17:14.639 clean energy technologies in poor countries well before they are 0:17:14.640 --> 0:17:17.640 cost effective and affordable, and well before they have been 0:17:17.720 --> 0:17:21.520 deep cuts given in Western economies. So I'm as concerned 0:17:21.520 --> 0:17:24.720 about that second scenario as I'm concerned about the first, 0:17:24.760 --> 0:17:28.360 where you just have a fragmentation where poor countries continue 0:17:28.359 --> 0:17:30.679 to invest in fossils and we just don't meet our 0:17:30.680 --> 0:17:34.280 broader climate targets. There's a serious case of justice playing 0:17:34.280 --> 0:17:37.000 out over here where poor countries don't get access to 0:17:37.080 --> 0:17:40.479 the technologies they need to develop, and not only are 0:17:40.520 --> 0:17:42.640 we not solving the climate problem, but we're making their 0:17:42.640 --> 0:17:46.480 existing development problems harder by making all forms of energy 0:17:46.520 --> 0:17:50.440 expensive because we are proscribing the use of fossils without 0:17:50.480 --> 0:17:53.120 making available cheap renewable energy technologies. 0:17:53.720 --> 0:17:55.679 You've kind of already done this in a couple of 0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:57.760 ways that I'm going to ask you more directly to 0:17:58.080 --> 0:18:01.240 just sort of walk me through what a decent living 0:18:01.600 --> 0:18:05.879 energy approach would look like in a less developed country 0:18:06.280 --> 0:18:08.160 and a more developed country. 0:18:08.760 --> 0:18:11.720 So the decent living standard is intended to be a 0:18:11.880 --> 0:18:18.840 universal threshold that defines the minimum material requirements for people 0:18:18.840 --> 0:18:21.480 to pursue a decent life. So we are developing what 0:18:21.560 --> 0:18:25.320 we call universal satisfiers in a modern society, in a 0:18:25.359 --> 0:18:30.440 modern context, which is backed up by theories of justice 0:18:30.480 --> 0:18:34.680 of Beatrix justice. It's supported by regulations around the world 0:18:34.840 --> 0:18:37.840 we see for different elements of decent living standards, as 0:18:37.840 --> 0:18:41.200 well as backed by empirical support. That is, we've seen 0:18:41.240 --> 0:18:44.439 household surveys around the world that show people want to 0:18:44.520 --> 0:18:46.960 have certain things once they reach a certain level of income, 0:18:47.200 --> 0:18:52.840 things like access to the internet, mobile phones, access to televisions, refrigerators, 0:18:53.440 --> 0:18:56.800 durable housing, and things like that. So what was lacking 0:18:56.880 --> 0:19:02.159 in the analytical space was the ability to project or 0:19:02.200 --> 0:19:06.080 to understand the energy requirements stemming from these particular goods 0:19:06.080 --> 0:19:08.800 and services, because we buy and large thing about energy 0:19:08.840 --> 0:19:14.680 demand as a function of GDP growth and maybe decomposed 0:19:14.720 --> 0:19:19.560 into industry versus transport versus buildings, but not really being 0:19:19.560 --> 0:19:23.800 able to translate them to people's own enjoyment of services 0:19:23.840 --> 0:19:27.240 and their well being. So this project is actually creating 0:19:27.240 --> 0:19:31.920 this link between household consumption of goods and services which 0:19:31.960 --> 0:19:34.639 provide us with well being or at least our basis 0:19:34.680 --> 0:19:38.760 for it and the broader energy and environmental environmental impact 0:19:39.160 --> 0:19:42.399 of that consumption. So what will it cost in energy 0:19:42.480 --> 0:19:46.000 terms for meeting the transportation needs of people, the basic 0:19:46.080 --> 0:19:50.520 mobility requirements when they move away from cycles and animal 0:19:50.600 --> 0:19:53.720 power to motorized transport. What will it take to get 0:19:53.760 --> 0:19:57.359 fifty million people households off of slums and into more 0:19:57.440 --> 0:20:00.560 durable housing that protects them from the elements, or will 0:20:00.560 --> 0:20:02.520 it take to get people up to the level of 0:20:02.600 --> 0:20:06.000 nutrition that are consistent with the standards of the Food 0:20:06.000 --> 0:20:10.879 and Agricultural Organization the FAO and with country regulations around 0:20:10.920 --> 0:20:14.480 the world. So we have assessed this and found out 0:20:14.600 --> 0:20:17.760 what it would take in different countries. So what's interesting 0:20:17.840 --> 0:20:22.040 is that we learn that the most important elements of 0:20:22.080 --> 0:20:28.080 consumption anywhere in any country that have the strongest impact 0:20:28.080 --> 0:20:35.160 on climate change in terms of their energy intensity are housing, mobility, 0:20:35.400 --> 0:20:38.880 getting around with motorized transport, and diets. These are three 0:20:38.960 --> 0:20:41.600 of the biggest elements and one of the reasons why 0:20:41.600 --> 0:20:47.080 they are so important is because, in contrast to say, water, sanitation, health, 0:20:47.080 --> 0:20:50.240 and education, that are all services that are provided through 0:20:50.359 --> 0:20:55.200 shared capital, shared resources networks, of infrastructure that are commonly 0:20:55.280 --> 0:21:01.320 used by large populations, cars and houses and food is 0:21:01.400 --> 0:21:04.040 private consumption and that ends up being a lot more 0:21:04.160 --> 0:21:08.880 energy per person to satisfy well being. So the insights 0:21:08.880 --> 0:21:11.800 for poor countries, what does a decent living energy basket 0:21:11.840 --> 0:21:15.840 look like. Equitable development that is geared towards providing these 0:21:15.880 --> 0:21:21.160 fundamental services like water and sanitation, health and education are 0:21:22.040 --> 0:21:25.280 cheapest in energy terms and provide the most important elements 0:21:25.320 --> 0:21:28.480 of well being. In mobility and housing, if we were 0:21:28.520 --> 0:21:32.560 to provide people options for public transit rather than just 0:21:32.680 --> 0:21:36.359 supporting a card dependent economy in emerging cities in the 0:21:36.400 --> 0:21:40.480 global South, if we were to build public housing with 0:21:40.800 --> 0:21:47.199 local materials and efficient construction practices rather than focusing on 0:21:47.240 --> 0:21:52.000 gated communities for high income households, we would satisfy equity 0:21:52.040 --> 0:21:55.160 in terms of focusing on poor poor housing policy, and 0:21:55.240 --> 0:21:59.159 we would reduce the footprint, the carbon footprint of housing 0:21:59.200 --> 0:22:01.840 developments in general. So those are the key synergies we're 0:22:01.880 --> 0:22:05.520 seeing in poor countries. Now, some elements of this are 0:22:05.520 --> 0:22:08.360 the same even in rich countries. Some of the key 0:22:08.359 --> 0:22:13.600 differences are that for the same living standard, you do 0:22:13.680 --> 0:22:17.600 tend to require more energy in richer countries because they 0:22:17.640 --> 0:22:21.200 tend to be colder. So northern European and northern American 0:22:21.240 --> 0:22:24.240 countries need more energy to provide the same thermal comfort 0:22:24.240 --> 0:22:28.160 at home to heat them than the energy you need 0:22:28.280 --> 0:22:32.639 in subtropical and tropical climates to cool homes to the 0:22:32.640 --> 0:22:37.080 same level of comfort. That's one important difference. Another difference 0:22:37.119 --> 0:22:39.360 is we have some path dependence, you know, in our 0:22:39.400 --> 0:22:44.160 economic structures, and ideally we would have more and more 0:22:44.200 --> 0:22:47.640 people moving to public transit, which is much more efficient, 0:22:48.119 --> 0:22:51.040 much less of an impact on climate and on the 0:22:51.200 --> 0:22:55.400 environment in general. But countries like the US or Brazil 0:22:55.480 --> 0:22:59.160 also or Turkey for example, they all are car dependent. 0:22:59.200 --> 0:23:01.560 Over ninety percent of travel demand is met with cass 0:23:02.080 --> 0:23:06.639 or road transport, so you assuming that they can shift 0:23:06.680 --> 0:23:10.160 over to public transit completely is not very realistic. So 0:23:10.200 --> 0:23:13.240 in our analysis, when we kind of create realistic assumptions 0:23:13.280 --> 0:23:15.919 for the shift to public transport, you do find that 0:23:16.000 --> 0:23:20.480 the same mobility requirements, cost warn energy terms in the 0:23:20.600 --> 0:23:23.919 US are in Brazil compared to say India of Japan. 0:23:25.240 --> 0:23:27.919 So those are some of the differences. There are some 0:23:28.560 --> 0:23:32.080 colleagues of mine who are also interested in seeing these 0:23:32.080 --> 0:23:34.679 decent living standards with some adjustments in terms of the 0:23:34.760 --> 0:23:39.040 thresholds as also a sufficiency standard. That is, if we 0:23:39.200 --> 0:23:42.720 just increase the quantity of the size of housing, the 0:23:42.760 --> 0:23:46.480 amount of travel, the amount of food and water we 0:23:46.560 --> 0:23:50.000 consume for different parts of the world that allow a 0:23:50.040 --> 0:23:52.879 slightly higher quality of life, we can still use this 0:23:52.960 --> 0:23:56.919 threshold to think about even sufficiency. As you increase consumption 0:23:57.080 --> 0:24:00.520 levels beyond this minimum point at one time, at what 0:24:00.600 --> 0:24:02.880 point when you start to see diminishing returns to well 0:24:02.880 --> 0:24:07.239 being as we consume more and more. We know that 0:24:07.280 --> 0:24:10.800 it has significant impacts on other people, but can we 0:24:10.840 --> 0:24:13.440 see diminishing returns to our own well being? And we 0:24:14.359 --> 0:24:17.719 don't have sufficient evidence to say that. We only have 0:24:17.800 --> 0:24:22.000 circumstantial evidence related to income that people's self assessed to 0:24:22.080 --> 0:24:26.400 well being in terms of life satisfaction. It keeps increasing 0:24:26.400 --> 0:24:29.159 with income, but not at the same rate as at 0:24:29.160 --> 0:24:32.920 lower levels of income. There's diminishing returns at a broad level. 0:24:33.440 --> 0:24:35.000 But we need to do a lot more research to 0:24:35.080 --> 0:24:39.439 understand how different consumption patterns contribute to well being in 0:24:39.480 --> 0:24:43.600 affluent societies, and how we can find lifestyles and patterns 0:24:44.440 --> 0:24:49.920 in the West that are environmentally benign because a lot 0:24:49.960 --> 0:24:53.159 of these lifestyles are being aped in poor countries, and 0:24:53.200 --> 0:24:55.920 we want to we want to generate evidence for these 0:24:55.960 --> 0:25:00.960 lifestyles that are less consumptive and less impact from the environment, 0:25:01.040 --> 0:25:03.840 but still give people high well being. And that's the 0:25:03.840 --> 0:25:06.320 direction that I'm moving now with this research. 0:25:07.160 --> 0:25:12.320 Do you find that that idea is more or less 0:25:14.359 --> 0:25:17.439 accepted in certain areas like I know that in the 0:25:17.600 --> 0:25:22.840 US people are loathed to think about less consumption general. 0:25:24.080 --> 0:25:27.720 I'm curious if you find that there's any examples of 0:25:27.760 --> 0:25:31.439 global north countries where it's not such a big ask. 0:25:32.480 --> 0:25:36.080 Well. I think you do see a lot more momentum 0:25:36.760 --> 0:25:43.280 and interest in Europe in demand side questions around consumption 0:25:44.080 --> 0:25:47.040 and sufficiency than you see in the US, and this 0:25:47.160 --> 0:25:50.680 is indicated by the priorities in research, by the papers 0:25:50.720 --> 0:25:53.040 that are coming out. And I should mention that the 0:25:53.119 --> 0:25:57.480 latest sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC for the first 0:25:57.520 --> 0:26:01.199 time has a demand chapter in it that outlines a 0:26:01.200 --> 0:26:04.520 lot of the evidence that we've already accumulated to indicate 0:26:04.600 --> 0:26:07.840 lifestyle changes that would be beneficial for climate and for 0:26:07.880 --> 0:26:12.880 people's well being. A classic example being moderating meat consumption, 0:26:13.000 --> 0:26:17.280 particularly red meat, and the impact on lower cardiovascular disease 0:26:17.880 --> 0:26:22.280 and significant reduction in environmental impacts. So there are differences, 0:26:22.280 --> 0:26:26.000 But at the same time, I am seeing some discussion 0:26:26.040 --> 0:26:28.840 in the media. I've seen in the New York Times 0:26:28.880 --> 0:26:32.920 some articles that do talk about sustainable consumption that talk 0:26:32.920 --> 0:26:36.320 about waste. I think waste is well understood in the US, 0:26:36.320 --> 0:26:40.359 and that is a significant component of demand side discipline, 0:26:40.359 --> 0:26:42.760 if you will, in consumption. You know, forty percent of 0:26:42.800 --> 0:26:46.560 food that's produced is wasted in the US and twenty 0:26:46.560 --> 0:26:50.880 five percent globally. Also, the circular economy is much more 0:26:50.920 --> 0:26:56.199 in the public realm understanding the short product lives and 0:26:56.400 --> 0:26:59.520 the effect that has on waste, and that indirectly, of course, 0:27:00.160 --> 0:27:02.600 requires more energy and therefore has more of an impact 0:27:02.600 --> 0:27:05.800 on climate change. But I would certainly say that there 0:27:05.840 --> 0:27:10.280