Climate Change and Health Seminar: “Household contributions to and impacts from air pollution in India”

Transcript

• 00:02<v Dr. Rao>Good afternoon, everyone.</v>
• 00:03Thank you so much for being here.
• 00:05First of all, before I start,
• 00:07I wanted to apologize,
• 00:08especially for those who are physically present at the venue
• 00:12that I can't be there in person.
• 00:14I very recently received an invitation to attend a meeting
• 00:18that was closed on invitation for a discussion
• 00:21about energy transitions in the U.S.
• 00:23that I considered important to attend.
• 00:26And, I couldn't find any flights that would bring me
• 00:28to the meeting on time.
• 00:29Other than one,
• 00:31for which I am on my way to Newark Airport,
• 00:34literally right now,
• 00:35as you listen to this.
• 00:37But I will,
• 00:37however, join in about 40 minutes to answer your questions.
• 00:42So, if you could please just make note of your questions
• 00:44as we go along.
• 00:45I'd be happy to discuss them live at the end of this talk.
• 00:50So, I'm gonna talk today,
• 00:52about a study that I did while I was working
• 00:54at The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
• 00:56IIASA, a few years ago.
• 00:59That took a couple of years to complete
• 01:01and finally resulted in the publication,
• 01:04just a few months ago in nature sustainability,
• 01:06which makes me very happy.
• 01:08And the two main reasons I'm interested to do this talk.
• 01:12The first is,
• 01:14the empirical insights.
• 01:16This is the,
• 01:17only the second study I know of.
• 01:18And the first in India
• 01:20that relates the consumption side or the contribution side
• 01:24of air pollution in India to the impact side.
• 01:27And specifically,
• 01:29which households, of what categories of income
• 01:32contribute to different sources of pollution?
• 01:35And, to what extent are they impacted by that pollution
• 01:38in terms of the risk of mortality?
• 01:41And in doing that,
• 01:42I think it's important from a policy perspective,
• 01:46asking this question,
• 01:47because it allows us to think about consumption
• 01:50as one of the options for mitigation of air pollution,
• 01:53and not just looking at end of pipe controls.
• 01:56And this is one avenue for us to think about
• 01:59how sustainable consumption can be brought into the fore
• 02:02in terms of the solutions to address,
• 02:04not just climate change,
• 02:05but air pollution as well.
• 02:07The second reason,
• 02:08is that to me,
• 02:08this is a very interesting exercise
• 02:10in interdisciplinary research.
• 02:12And specifically in integrated assessment.
• 02:15So, there was an air pollution group in IIASA.
• 02:17There is an air pollution group.
• 02:20Which many of you I know are familiar with,
• 02:22that run the GAINS Model that I will talk about.
• 02:24And there's the energy group
• 02:25that runs an integrated assessment model.
• 02:27And does other research on energy system transformations
• 02:31for climate change.
• 02:33And what I was looking with this group,
• 02:35I saw that there was these two different groups
• 02:37that had a completely different work research agendas.
• 02:43But they had of course,
• 02:44collaborated to look at co-benefits
• 02:46between air pollution and climate change.
• 02:49But never specifically thinking about the relationship
• 02:51between the contributions from the energy sector
• 02:55to air pollution.
• 02:56And who causes that from the household perspective.
• 02:59And so, I saw these two different groups
• 03:00and the opportunity to build some bridges between them.
• 03:04And pull that off after a few years.
• 03:06So, I think methodologically,
• 03:08it's an interesting example
• 03:09of applied interdisciplinary research
• 03:11that I think would be nice to replicate
• 03:13in other contexts as well.
• 03:15So, I wanna provide some background
• 03:17to air pollution in India.
• 03:19I'm gonna discuss mostly the methodology that we applied
• 03:25in doing this,
• 03:25which I think is the most interesting part to this audience.
• 03:28And then discuss some of the results
• 03:30and the implications for policy.
• 03:36I think it's pretty clear to everyone in this audience
• 03:39that particulate matter,
• 03:40fine particulate matter has serious health effects
• 03:44and leads to the death of over a million people a year
• 03:48in South Asia alone.
• 03:49And that affects mainly women and children.
• 03:52And this is through various diseases
• 03:54that you're familiar with;
• 03:55pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular diseases,
• 03:59lower respiratory infections that children face,
• 04:02and many others.
• 04:03The main point I wanted to make about this,
• 04:05is as you're all familiar with the dose response functions
• 04:09in terms of the relative risk
• 04:10and the relationship to concentrations,
• 04:13to ambient concentrations is nonlinear.
• 04:15And what this means,
• 04:16is that you have to make very, very significant reductions
• 04:19in the concentration levels,
• 04:21in order to really see significant impacts on health.
• 04:25And I bring this up because in India,
• 04:27in particular,
• 04:28there has been a focus on residential use of cookstoves
• 04:31as the primary source of air pollution.
• 04:33And it is specifically,
• 04:34for indoor air pollution.
• 04:36And there've been numerous studies and programs over decades
• 04:41in South Asia,
• 04:42to try to create improved cookstoves that burn biomass
• 04:46in a better way,
• 04:47and have failed for decades.
• 04:49And that's because,
• 04:50although they've had some kinds of improvements
• 04:52in reductions in pollution
• 04:53and improvements in efficiency of the stoves.
• 04:56They don't lead to strong enough reductions
• 04:58in the concentrations in indoor air pollution.
• 05:01So, it's important to know that there are several other
• 05:05aspects of air pollution that are from other sources,
• 05:08that affect people's health.
• 05:11Those who are burning solid fuels for cookstoves
• 05:14by ambient air pollution that they inhale
• 05:16when they leave the house as well.
• 05:17And that's what this paper is about.
• 05:18It's about ambient air pollution for the most part.
• 05:22There's several different sources in the economy
• 05:24for air pollution,
• 05:25besides cookstoves.
• 05:27Households that don't have electricity access
• 05:29use kerosene for lighting.
• 05:30And that is an important source.
• 05:32A lot of people don't know that in urban areas of India,
• 05:34where they don't have access to biomass,
• 05:36that they use kerosene for cooking as well.
• 05:38So, this is also an urban problem.
• 05:41Traffic and air pollution of course,
• 05:43is very well known.
• 05:44And I think there's a stereotype that in cities in India,
• 05:47the traffic burning diesel from buses
• 05:51and single stroke engines are really the main cause
• 05:54of air pollution.
• 05:55But as I show you,
• 05:56it's much more complicated than that.
• 05:58A lot of industry,
• 05:59as I show the brick kilns over here,
• 06:01is one primary suspect are also major contributors.
• 06:06Of course, power plants as well.
• 06:08And, very often there are times in the year
• 06:12when the pollution is particularly bad,
• 06:13as you can see in these photographs,
• 06:14in New Delhi.
• 06:15Because you have burning of agricultural fields
• 06:18to clear the fields for the next seeding.
• 06:22That takes place next to winter.
• 06:24And so they cause very, very high concentrations
• 06:26of pollution.
• 06:27And those also,
• 06:28are a little bit misleading because they are concentrated
• 06:31in a week or two.
• 06:32And, you know what?
• 06:33If you look at average air pollution over the year,
• 06:34they tend to be many other sources that dominate
• 06:37the agricultural emissions as well.
• 06:42So, it's known that globally,
• 06:44all of these sources contribute to air pollution at PM2.5.
• 06:48But, in different parts of the world,
• 06:50different sources dominate.
• 06:52So in the U.S. for example,
• 06:53power plants and traffic dominate.
• 06:57But in Northern Africa,
• 06:58of course, the dust from the desert as a major contributor.
• 07:03I didn't mention in the previous slide that natural sources
• 07:06are a very significant contributor as well.
• 07:08Including dust that's often picked up
• 07:10from construction work as well.
• 07:13We'll see how that plays a role in India as well.
• 07:16And as you can see on the chart here in South Asia,
• 07:19cookstoves are known to be the largest single source
• 07:22and contributor.
• 07:24But this is perhaps I think to the neglect
• 07:26of many other contributors.
• 07:28And that's what I wanna focus on in this talk.
• 07:32(wind whooshing)
• 07:33(table creaking)
• 07:34The air pollution levels in cities,
• 07:35even average annual mean levels are astounding in cities
• 07:41across India.
• 07:42Not just the metropolitans like New Delhi and Mumbai.
• 07:45You're looking at smaller-medium sized cities
• 07:48that are in the range of one to 5 million as well.
• 07:50All of which,
• 07:52have mean concentration levels that not only exceed
• 07:55the WHO's guidelines of 10 micrograms per meter cube,
• 07:59but exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
• 08:04as well, of 40.
• 08:06And, so the average over the year being so high,
• 08:09it tells you that in particular times of the year,
• 08:11this is even more than that,
• 08:12up to 300, 400 in certain times of the year as well.
• 08:16So, this is a serious problem,
• 08:18and this is only urban.
• 08:20The focus on rural areas tends to be,
• 08:22like I said,
• 08:23indoor air pollution from cookstoves.
• 08:25But as we'll see in the study,
• 08:26that there are also serious health risks to rural folks
• 08:30from air pollution as well.
• 08:33I wanted to briefly mention the New Delhi study,
• 08:35'cause I think it was insightful
• 08:36in terms of revealing the different sources of pollution.
• 08:39This is a study that was done by the air pollution group
• 08:41at IIASA using the GAINS Model.
• 08:44And, it shows that if you look at the different causes
• 08:47of air pollution in New Delhi;
• 08:50that it's a mix of sources that really,
• 08:54all of these sources contribute a fair amount.
• 08:56So, even dust from kicked up by construction work
• 09:02and by traffic is a significant component.
• 09:05Burning of bodies and fireworks are a significant component.
• 09:09Trash burning is extremely important.
• 09:12Residential cookstoves,
• 09:13even within and around New Delhi are a significant.
• 09:18And I said,
• 09:19this also includes kerosine and not just solid fuels.
• 09:22Power plants to a small extent.
• 09:25And a lot from agriculture,
• 09:26that is in the neighboring regions around Delhi.
• 09:29A lot of the pollution is from secondary inorganic PM.
• 09:32And then, this agricultural waste burning,
• 09:34as I mentioned,
• 09:35is just a small component.
• 09:37So really, if you look at all these sources,
• 09:39over 60% of air pollution in Delhi
• 09:42is from sources outside of the city center itself.
• 09:45And that's why it's really important to look at
• 09:48flows of air pollution across the country.
• 09:53Let me just give a brief overview of the literature,
• 09:55especially with relation to environmental justice.
• 09:58Because there has been a growing number of studies
• 10:00recently across the world,
• 10:02that try to understand this,
• 10:03the idea of our people facing a disproportionate exposure
• 10:08to air pollution.
• 10:09And so, we know that people who have studied
• 10:11health inequality,
• 10:12find that air pollution is a cause of health inequality
• 10:16in developing countries, by and large.
• 10:20And we find that at a global scale.
• 10:22And those health inequalities also have been associated
• 10:25with socioeconomic disparities.
• 10:28So, people of higher income levels
• 10:30suffer less health impacts from air pollution,
• 10:33than lower income levels.
• 10:35And this seems to hold in a lot of parts of the world,
• 10:38even in Europe.
• 10:39So, this is not just a developing country phenomenon.
• 10:43There are some exceptions such as in France,
• 10:44certain parts of Paris.
• 10:46You have rich neighborhoods
• 10:47that also have very high concentrations.
• 10:49But by and large,
• 10:49there seems to be a growing environmental justice concern
• 10:54about the relationship between air pollution,
• 10:56health inequality and socioeconomic inequality.
• 11:00We've seen this also in terms of international trade,
• 11:02that if you think about the air pollution that's exported,
• 11:07by importing products from countries
• 11:11where the air pollution impacts are felt.
• 11:13That also, is an important consideration.
• 11:15And China in particular,
• 11:17falls in that category
• 11:18because they provide the manufacturing capacity
• 11:21for large part of international consumption, by and large.
• 11:27There's only one study that I know of,
• 11:28that's the precedent for the one that I'm talking about.
• 11:30Which is a study in the U.S.
• 11:32that has actually looked at inequity in the consumption
• 11:35of goods and services.
• 11:37And found that there is a racial and ethnic dimension
• 11:39to the disparity in air pollution exposure.
• 11:43But this study also only goes so far
• 11:45as to look at consumption
• 11:47in relation to air pollution exposure
• 11:49for different household groups across the country.
• 11:53In our study,
• 11:54what we do is,
• 11:54we go further and look at mortality impacts.
• 11:57That is, we factor in the differential vulnerability
• 12:00of people to exposure,
• 12:02due in part to the different income levels.
• 12:05Which provide them with the ability to adapt
• 12:08or avoid different levels of air pollution.
• 12:10So, that's the unique aspect of the study
• 12:12that I'm gonna show you.
• 12:15Which is really looking all the way from consumption
• 12:17and sources,
• 12:18down to mortality risk.
• 12:22(table creaking)
• 12:25So, the question we asked,
• 12:26is can we attribute pollution sources to households
• 12:28through their consumption patterns?
• 12:30So the first challenges that the GAINS Model,
• 12:33The Air Pollution Model,
• 12:34know air pollution sources in terms of sectors.
• 12:38So, different industrial sectors,
• 12:40the transport sector, the household sector.
• 12:43But, how can we take that back,
• 12:45trace it back further to different household groups
• 12:48and their consumption patterns?
• 12:50So, now we need to understand and trace
• 12:52the different products and services from the sectors
• 12:55back to households.
• 12:57So that was one big challenge that I wanted to address.
• 13:01And that was one of the bridges that we wanted to build
• 13:03between the air pollution group and the energy group.
• 13:06And the second is that,
• 13:08Can we incorporate households vulnerability
• 13:10in translating exposure to mortality?
• 13:12'Cause we also wanted to account for the effect of income.
• 13:16Here we didn't have a lot of empirical evidence,
• 13:18but we did apply one paper that had some quantification
• 13:22of the role of income,
• 13:24but this was at a national scale.
• 13:26But we applied that to households across India as well.
• 13:31So, putting those books together,
• 13:33we found that it would be useful to organize households
• 13:36in terms of the income level;
• 13:38because the income level defines both consumption patterns,
• 13:41which we can then relate to industry.
• 13:43And income levels define also vulnerability.
• 13:45And so that would fall,
• 13:46it was a good organizing principle,
• 13:48in order to look at households
• 13:49and the both sides of the pollution equation.
• 13:52And so that's what we did.
• 13:54We looked at household deciles across the country.
• 13:57So, here is the complex modeling environment.
• 14:00And I wanted to spend a little time going through this.
• 14:05So, if I start on the impact side,
• 14:06which I think most of you might be better,
• 14:10more well versed than I am.
• 14:11So, this is not my primary expertise.
• 14:15So, we looked at mortality by the decile.
• 14:17And the main innovation was to apply
• 14:20this vulnerability by decile.
• 14:21As I mentioned,
• 14:23higher income groups have lower vulnerability.
• 14:26And then we used standard concentration response functions
• 14:32using spatially explicit PM2.5 concentrations,
• 14:36the grid level.
• 14:38And then exposure by age, sex and location;
• 14:43urban or rural,
• 14:44and by state.
• 14:46In order to determine the mortality
• 14:49associated with a given concentration
• 14:51at different geographic parts of the country.
• 14:54Now, what was important here is the caveat;
• 14:57which is that,
• 14:59while we know the distribution of income
• 15:01across states in India,
• 15:03the surveys don't give us a reliable enough estimate
• 15:06of the distribution of income within a state,
• 15:08except urban and rural.
• 15:10So, how are the different income deciles distributed
• 15:13within rural India,
• 15:16in a particular state?
• 15:17We don't quite know.
• 15:18So what that meant,
• 15:18is all rural residents in any given state
• 15:23had the same exposure.
• 15:24We can't differentiate exposure based on income level
• 15:27within urban-rural regions within a state.
• 15:31However, we do have differential exposures
• 15:33in different states in urban and rural areas,
• 15:36based on a number of factors;
• 15:37including where pollution sources are located.
• 15:40How income is distributed, et cetera.
• 15:41As I'll mention a little bit more later.
• 15:45On the contribution side,
• 15:46the contribution pathway was where we needed an innovation
• 15:49to link the household survey and consumption by decile
• 15:55to the final sectors,
• 15:58which the GAINS Air Pollution understands.
• 16:00So, let me just spend a minute on this intermediate section.
• 16:03The three sources of pollution
• 16:05from a consumption perspective.
• 16:06There's the direct use by fuels.
• 16:09So, that's cookstoves and heating fuels
• 16:12that are burned directly in the household,
• 16:14As our scope one.
• 16:16Emissions from the IPCC's language.
• 16:18And there's transport and electricity is also use fuels
• 16:21and household expenditure on fuels.
• 16:24The fuels being gasoline, diesel and electricity.
• 16:27But the emissions are elsewhere.
• 16:29So, that's scope two emissions.
• 16:31And then the third,
• 16:32is where the consumed goods and services
• 16:35and lead our trigger air pollution through the manufacturing
• 16:40of those products and services.
• 16:42And so, that's where we use extended input-output analysis.
• 16:46A multi-regional in-product put analysis
• 16:48that ultimately counts for trade.
• 16:50To be able to link household survey products
• 16:53to industry sectors.
• 16:56Now, this mechanism I had already developed
• 16:59in my own research.
• 17:00That is, to be able to do household footprinting
• 17:03of energy use for different products.
• 17:06But what we had to do was to extend this,
• 17:07to create BM2.5 satellite matrix.
• 17:11And the satellite matrix that we had to map
• 17:13are input-output sectors directly to the sectors in GAINS.
• 17:17And that was one of the bridges that we had to build.
• 17:20And with that,
• 17:22we were then were able to create
• 17:25a population weighted national, PM2.5 concentrations,
• 17:30based on all of the sectors.
• 17:32But then attribute that to deciles,
• 17:35income deciles in the country.
• 17:38Based on the basket of goods and services
• 17:41that each decile consumed.
• 17:44So, as you can imagine,
• 17:45lower income groups tend to consume less stuff,
• 17:48but they're using a lot more direct fuel.
• 17:51Whereas higher income groups
• 17:52don't use any direct fuel at all.
• 17:54They use electricity.
• 17:56And of course, they drive cars,
• 17:58but they consume a lot of stuff.
• 17:59And so, that's how we wanna kind of see
• 18:01how they play out in terms of the net effect
• 18:03of air pollution from these different sources.
• 18:08Just a quick deep dive for the GAINS Model.
• 18:10Again, I think a lot of you are familiar with this.
• 18:13They have a very detailed representation
• 18:15of point sources of pollution across the country.
• 18:18Including a spatial representation
• 18:20from all the sectors in the economy.
• 18:23Industry transport households.
• 18:26And they also model end-of-pipe solutions
• 18:28for all of these different sources;
• 18:30pollution control, their different costs.
• 18:33The greenhouse gas emission applications as well,
• 18:35and a set of different air pollutants.
• 18:38And they have the ability to define scenarios,
• 18:42scenarios of control technologies,
• 18:44applied to different activities in the economy.
• 18:46And based on the emissions factors
• 18:48and links to a dispersion,
• 18:50atmospheric dispersion model.
• 18:52You can see the effects of controls
• 18:54on pollution concentrations in different parts
• 18:57of the country.
• 18:59And then, look at the effects on mortality
• 19:01using standard dose response functions
• 19:03from the Global Burden of Disease.
• 19:05And then, you could iterate in order to determine
• 19:10if we had to limit the number
• 19:11of the extent of health impacts.
• 19:14What scenarios of pollution control could bring us there?
• 19:17So, we will be utilizing some of this scenario technology
• 19:21in this study as well.
• 19:27So, the direct sources,
• 19:28as I mentioned.
• 19:29It was important to understand what households
• 19:33use what kind of cooking fuels.
• 19:35Now, we have this data from household surveys.
• 19:38So, we have an understanding of the demand curves,
• 19:41if you will,
• 19:42for different types of households in urban and rural areas,
• 19:44and off different income levels.
• 19:47And understanding at what price point they would switch
• 19:51from gas back to biomass, for example.
• 19:53So, we have a detailed understanding of what households use
• 19:57what kind of fuels.
• 20:00But we had to do a little bit of work
• 20:01to understand the travel modes for different households,
• 20:05at different income levels.
• 20:06Who travels by bus and by rail?
• 20:08And who has a car?
• 20:09In order to determine the indirect impact of air pollution
• 20:14through the transport means of the vehicles that they use.
• 20:18And the same with electricity,
• 20:19depending upon how much electricity households use.
• 20:22The power plant in GAINS would tell us the extent to which
• 20:27they cause air pollution in power plants,
• 20:29through their use of appliances
• 20:31and electronic gadgets at home.
• 20:34So, that was the two main direct sources.
• 20:37The scope one and scope two,
• 20:39as I mentioned.
• 20:40And then the scope three,
• 20:41is this household footprinting technique.
• 20:44Which is a very large number crunching exercise.
• 20:47Where you have to link household consumption surveys
• 20:51and map them into a certain industry standard category
• 20:54called COICOP used in Europe.
• 20:57And match them to the sectors in the industry
• 21:00and put output database,
• 21:03match prices and other fun stuff,
• 21:06that allows you to create a total embodied energy
• 21:08that's induced by every unit of consumption
• 21:10from different products and services.
• 21:12So like I said,
• 21:14this is a methodology we'd already developed before.
• 21:17And the idea was just to link this
• 21:20to the air pollution model.
• 21:23One last thing on methodology,
• 21:24just to provide some sense of the results.
• 21:27This is a slightly old,
• 21:28but illustrative graph of the average air pollution
• 21:31across the country.
• 21:33And the point is,
• 21:34that location doesn't matter.
• 21:37You're seeing here that the average concentrations in India
• 21:40tend to increase as you go northward.
• 21:43And this is because of temperature inversions, by and large.
• 21:49And also because there is a very high concentration
• 21:51of polluting power plants.
• 21:54So, mainly the coal belt is largely in the north
• 21:56and the Northeast.
• 21:58And so, the combination of those make it unlikely
• 22:00for people who live in the north.
• 22:02And so they,
• 22:02you can imagine that the distribution of people,
• 22:04if it's the extent to which people are rural and poor,
• 22:08and live in the north,
• 22:09they would face a higher level of pollution,
• 22:11all as equal.
• 22:13You also can see that the urban centers,
• 22:15the little dots spread across the map
• 22:17are also much higher concentrations of pollution,
• 22:20because of additional sources of pollution in the cities
• 22:23and in the urban areas.
• 22:25And that also tells us that the distribution of population
• 22:28in different urban areas also,
• 22:31and their income distribution reflects,
• 22:34or has an impact on who ultimately faces mortality
• 22:36from all of these combined sources of air pollution.
• 22:42We did create this pollution inequity index,
• 22:45which is mortality risk per unit
• 22:48of contribution to PM concentrations.
• 22:52It's a bit of a mouthful.
• 22:53And perhaps not intuitive.
• 22:55But the reason why we did that
• 22:56was we can then compare this index
• 22:58at different income levels.
• 22:59In order to look at the relative injustice,
• 23:02if you will,
• 23:03for different income groups.
• 23:04The extent to which they are facing higher mortality
• 23:07per unit of their contribution
• 23:08to the source of that mortality.
• 23:11So, that's what we used as well
• 23:13to try and illustrate the extent of inequity.
• 23:17Okay, so now let me move to the results.
• 23:21Let me start with discussing the contributions,
• 23:24without looking at impacts yet.
• 23:26So, let me start with the leftmost average bar.
• 23:29This itself was insightful.
• 23:30So, this is the total average PM concentrations
• 23:34and their broad source categories.
• 23:36So, the lowest one is household cooking fuels.
• 23:39So, this is primarily solid fuel burning.
• 23:45And this is already something that we learned new.
• 23:48So, we generally have the impression
• 23:49that 30 to 50% of PM2.5 in India,
• 23:54it comes from solid fuel burning.
• 23:57But if you look at this green bar,
• 23:58this is including scope two and scope three emissions.
• 24:02And, so this household consumption other than cooking
• 24:06and heating fuels,
• 24:08is actually a much higher than cookstoves.
• 24:13So in fact,
• 24:14it's about 40 to 60%
• 24:15just if you look at household consumption.
• 24:17So overall, the indirect household consumption
• 24:21actually is causing more overall pollution
• 24:23than does cookstoves alone.
• 24:26The other interesting thing,
• 24:27is to see that these non-household consumption.
• 24:32So, this is government expenditure
• 24:35called industrial manufacturing;
• 24:37things like defense,
• 24:39as well as capital formation.
• 24:41That's not included in household consumption,
• 24:43contributes a fair amount,
• 24:46of the order for a quarter of total air pollution.
• 24:48And then a big chunk of air pollution
• 24:49is from natural sources,
• 24:51like dust, as well as trans-boundary sources.
• 24:53So, even from Pakistan, for example.
• 24:55So, all the solutions that we have got,
• 24:58that I'm gonna show you in this scenarios
• 24:59can really only addressed 50 to 60% of air pollution
• 25:03in the country.
• 25:04So, there's a limit to which we can reduce mortality
• 25:07just from this study;
• 25:08from reducing air pollution from household consumption
• 25:12in particular.
• 25:14Now, if you look at the right hand side,
• 25:15we're showing you by decile
• 25:16with increasing income moving to the right.
• 25:19The different sources of air pollution
• 25:21and their contributions.
• 25:23So you can,
• 25:24it's intuitive to know that the lowest income households,
• 25:28their biggest contributor is cooking and heating.
• 25:32Whereas if you look at the top decile,
• 25:34they don't cook with biomass very much.
• 25:37You still have some biomass use
• 25:39because there are some rural folks
• 25:40who still fall into the top decile.
• 25:45Even though it's dominated by urban residents.
• 25:47And you see that there's,
• 25:49electricity usage is significant.
• 25:51So that's power plant emissions.
• 25:52And passenger transport,
• 25:54which is very high because people all own cars over here.
• 25:57And so their individual per capita emissions have very high.
• 26:01What was very surprising to us,
• 26:02is the extent in the contribution of food and food waste.
• 26:05This is food production.
• 26:07Things like fertilizer use and nitrous oxide and ammonia.
• 26:11As well as the fossil use for machinery and transport,
• 26:13and agriculture,
• 26:14is all reflected in the light green.
• 26:16Whereas the dark green is reflecting food waste.
• 26:20That's the burning of food waste,
• 26:22and that's thrown out in the open.
• 26:24As well as the municipal waste burning for incineration.
• 26:29That's a significant contributor
• 26:31and we attribute waste to households in proportion
• 26:34to their consumption of food.
• 26:36And that's why this is proportionate
• 26:38to the food related air pollution.
• 26:40And finally,
• 26:41the other stuff in terms of products and services;
• 26:43actually it was surprising to us
• 26:45to be at a smaller contributor than we thought.
• 26:50So clearly, there's here a trade-off.
• 26:51So, low-income households are contributing to air pollution
• 26:54through their cookstove use.
• 26:55And high-income households are contributing
• 26:57through their other indirect use;
• 26:59food, transport, electricity and other stuff.
• 27:03Just a quick look at urban and rural differences.
• 27:06So, if you look per decile.
• 27:09This is the contribution of urban households
• 27:11to the deciles in aggregate.
• 27:14And, clearly you see that the highest deciles
• 27:16tend to contribute the most from urban areas
• 27:19because rich people tend to be in urban areas in India.
• 27:22That's really what we're showing.
• 27:23Whereas in rural areas,
• 27:25you tend to have fewer people contributing
• 27:26to the higher deciles.
• 27:29The other thing is to,
• 27:30if you look at it per capita basis;
• 27:32so not looking at the aggregate contribution to deciles.
• 27:34You notice that in urban areas,
• 27:36that by and large,
• 27:37as you go,
• 27:38as you increase your income level,
• 27:40your overall contribution to air pollution
• 27:42isn't increasing very much.
• 27:43It's really in the highest decile
• 27:46where you see the biggest change in consumption levels.
• 27:49And therefore, the biggest impact on air pollution.
• 27:52Whereas in rural areas,
• 27:53there's a steady increase in air pollution.
• 27:56Despite the fact that there is a reduction
• 28:00in cookstove use.
• 28:01And, so that tells you that the consumption is offsetting
• 28:04the reduction in the air pollution from cookstoves.
• 28:06Even in rural areas,
• 28:08where cookstove use dominates.
• 28:11So, now we move a little bit more to the impact side.
• 28:14So, now we're looking at contributions versus mortality.
• 28:16If you just focus on the black lines here.
• 28:22The highest deciles are to the right.
• 28:23So, the contribution curve is the one sloping upward.
• 28:27And you see that higher income groups
• 28:29contribute significantly more to PM concentrations
• 28:34than do lower income groups;
• 28:35by a factor of three or so.
• 28:38And if you look at the dotted black line,
• 28:40that is showing you the mortality impacts.
• 28:43So, the lowest income group based on mortality impact
• 28:46for about 200 premature deaths per a hundred thousand.
• 28:50This is ambient air pollution alone.
• 28:53Compared to less than one.
• 28:55That's a factor of four difference in terms of the mortality
• 28:58going in the opposite direction.
• 29:00So you can see here,
• 29:01this is a kind of headline figure
• 29:03in terms of the inequity that households are
• 29:07in low-income decile are contributing so much less,
• 29:10but facing so much more.
• 29:13And this is from all different sources.
• 29:14This is separate from the indoor air pollution
• 29:16they face from cookstoves.
• 29:17This is just looking at ambient.
• 29:21And the blue and the red lines are showing you
• 29:22the rural and urban households in particular.
• 29:26And you'll see that they converge.
• 29:31So, the rural households are dominating
• 29:32the low-income households,
• 29:34and the urban households are dominating
• 29:35the high-income households,
• 29:36as I showed you earlier.
• 29:41(table creaking)
• 29:46Now, we want you to look and isolate
• 29:47some of the different sources of pollution.
• 29:49So, we developed two scenarios.
• 29:51Which we posed as sort of clean up scenarios.
• 29:54So, you have the clean cookstoves scenario,
• 29:57where holding everything else constant.
• 30:00We switched everybody to clean cookstoves.
• 30:03Which means either electric cookstoves,
• 30:06whose power plants were all green.
• 30:07So, they add literally no emissions from the stoves.
• 30:12But we kept everything else constant.
• 30:15And the other scenario,
• 30:17we implemented end-of-pipe solutions
• 30:20on all other sectors,
• 30:21except cookstoves.
• 30:23To the maximum extent of available technologies globally.
• 30:27So, actually we used Germany.
• 30:30And, so technology frontier in Germany.
• 30:33For example, Euro 6 norms for vehicles,
• 30:34If I remember correctly.
• 30:35So, very, very stringent controls,
• 30:39not really considering costs in this particular study
• 30:42and applied those.
• 30:43So, what this allowed us to do,
• 30:47really was to isolate the air pollution impacts
• 30:50and their distribution from these two sets of sources.
• 30:54So, in the clean cook source scenario,
• 30:56when I show you the results in red;
• 30:57you will see the impact,
• 30:59the distributional impact of the scope two
• 31:02and scope three sources.
• 31:04Which are dominated by higher income groups.
• 31:07Whereas in the MCO scenario,
• 31:08which you gonna see in blue;
• 31:11you're gonna isolate the distributive impact
• 31:12of dirty cookstoves through ambient air pollution.
• 31:18So, first I'm showing you what I think is already a pattern
• 31:21from the previous slides.
• 31:22Which is this the contributions.
• 31:23So, their reduction that you get from the clean cookstoves
• 31:29are shown in red.
• 31:30And from the end-of-pipe in the rest of the economy in blue.
• 31:34And you see that the contributions reduce the most
• 31:38for lower-income groups,
• 31:40when you impose clean cookstoves.
• 31:43Which makes sense because they are the higher users
• 31:44of dirty cookstoves.
• 31:46And like I mentioned,
• 31:47the rural households and the rich rural households
• 31:50still use biomass to some extent.
• 31:53So, you still have a little bit of that.
• 31:54But then if you look at the contributions
• 31:57from the other sectors,
• 31:58because lower income households don't consume a lot of stuff
• 32:00in terms of electrical gadgets or they don't have cars.
• 32:03And they don't consume a lot of stuff.
• 32:06Their reduction that they face
• 32:09in terms of contributions,
• 32:12not face the reductions in their contributions
• 32:14is lower than the reductions in contributions
• 32:16for higher income groups who consume a lot.
• 32:20Now, if we look at the impact side.
• 32:20This is the key insight in this study.
• 32:25The avoided mortality from the clean cookstove scenario
• 32:28is predictably much higher for lower income households.
• 32:33They're located in areas where there's more cookstove users.
• 32:35And so, the ambient air quality is much worse
• 32:37from the cookstoves.
• 32:38So, that's predictable.
• 32:40But what was not expected,
• 32:41is that the contribution from the ambient,
• 32:45from the other sources;
• 32:46industry, transport, electricity,
• 32:49also falls disproportionately
• 32:50on these lower income households.
• 32:53And that's in contrast to the contribution.
• 32:56So this is the impact side,
• 32:59and this is the contribution side.
• 32:59And you clearly see how the,
• 33:02it's the other consumption that is disproportionately
• 33:05affecting lower income households
• 33:07from ambient air pollution.
• 33:09And that is really the main insight from the study
• 33:11that we were not expecting.
• 33:12And as I mentioned,
• 33:14this has to do with where points offices are located,
• 33:16in relation to low-income households.
• 33:18It has something to do with the differences
• 33:20in urban and rural populations across the country.
• 33:23As well as this temperature inversion in the north.
• 33:25All of these contribute to this imbalance.
• 33:29If you look at this pollution inequity index,
• 33:33it may seem a little counterintuitive.
• 33:35But the red dots are showing you the inequity
• 33:41in the clean cooking scenario.
• 33:43Which means this is the inequity in just the other sources.
• 33:47And that's why you see here.
• 33:49The pollution inequity is much higher
• 33:52in this scenario where you have clean cookstoves.
• 33:56Because the ambient sources of their pollution
• 33:58are causing higher mortality disproportionately
• 34:00on lower income groups.
• 34:01Whereas the pollution inequity index is not as steep
• 34:05in the case where you clean up the rest of the economy
• 34:07and leave dirty cookstoves.
• 34:11So, that's really the key,
• 34:11the point here.
• 34:12Now, I wanted to make sure that we put it into context,
• 34:17mortality associated with ambient,
• 34:19compared to indoor air pollution.
• 34:21Because it still remains the case,
• 34:23that indoor air pollution really is the biggest problem
• 34:25in terms of mortality from air pollution.
• 34:28(creaking sound)
• 34:29Is the order of magnitude higher deaths
• 34:30that are caused by indoor air pollution?
• 34:32As you all know,
• 34:33the concentration levels are associated
• 34:37with cookstoves indoor.
• 34:38We take a 300 micrograms or more per meter cube.
• 34:42And so therefore,
• 34:44if you just look at the overall introduction in mortality
• 34:48from clean cookstoves,
• 34:50accounting also for indoor air pollution.
• 34:52Of course, you see that the lower income groups
• 34:55benefit the most.
• 34:57But that's really mostly from the indoor air pollution.
• 35:00The inequity from the outdoor air pollution in blue,
• 35:04you're still seeing as falling disproportionately
• 35:05on lower income households.
• 35:07You're just seeing that the in absolute terms,
• 35:11it's still a lot less than indoor air pollution
• 35:13related deaths.
• 35:14So, we wanted to make sure that we're not saying that
• 35:18clean cookstoves aren't as important to clean up,
• 35:20due to indoor air pollution.
• 35:21In fact, they still remain the most important
• 35:24mitigation measure.
• 35:27So, I just wanted to put that into context.
• 35:29(button clicking)
• 35:30So, just to conclude,
• 35:34the cookstove contributions,
• 35:37we found some interesting insights.
• 35:39Namely, that the contribution to ambient air pollution
• 35:41is 40% of that,
• 35:43of the other sources;
• 35:44that is triggered by household consumption.
• 35:47And that's ignoring transplant resources, natural sources,
• 35:50as well as government related pollution.
• 35:54As well as capital formation.
• 35:59So, that itself is an insight that we need to think about
• 36:02the household contributions to air pollution
• 36:03from other sources.
• 36:05We found that lower income households
• 36:07tend to face a disproportionate mortality risk burden
• 36:12from ambient air pollution.
• 36:14And this has to do with the location of point sources
• 36:17around the country
• 36:18and the distribution of populations.
• 36:20But, despite all of that,
• 36:23really clean cookstoves are an important mitigation measure
• 36:26because of the impact on indoor air pollution.
• 36:30But overall,
• 36:30I think the importance of this study
• 36:32is really to think about in the broader context,
• 36:35indoor air pollution-
• 36:36um, sorry.
• 36:38consumption as a means of mitigation of air pollution.
• 36:42There's a growing interest
• 36:43in the climate mitigation literature
• 36:44to focus more on demand side options.
• 36:46And therefore, it's important to think about the co-benefits
• 36:49from sustainable consumption as well.
• 36:51And you don't really think about that very much.
• 36:53But there's a broader theme here.
• 36:56That we tend to export pollution
• 36:57associated with our consumption in so many different ways.
• 37:00Climate change is an obvious one where we export them
• 37:02to future generations.
• 37:03And from richer countries to poorer countries.
• 37:06That's been shown by the IPCC.
• 37:08Time and again,
• 37:10we see that with waste, of course.
• 37:11We export our waste to different countries as well.
• 37:13But we're also seeing that in terms of air pollution,
• 37:16more and more,
• 37:17now across countries and within countries as well.
• 37:20And so this the main result from this study.
• 37:24And so lastly,
• 37:25I wanna point out on the methodological side.
• 37:27I think that this study is generalizable
• 37:28in terms of the approach.
• 37:30This could be applied to really any economy.
• 37:33If you have the analytical framework
• 37:35to calculate your footprints.
• 37:38And you have an air pollution model
• 37:40with an atmospheric dispersion.
• 37:42It's possible to do this kind of analysis
• 37:44and really have any context,
• 37:46just by replacing the data.
• 37:48And I think that would be something
• 37:49that would be useful to do.
• 37:50As I mentioned,
• 37:52just to think about sustainable consumption more broadly.
• 37:55So, thank you for your attention.
• 37:57And now, I will be joining you live
• 37:59in order to answer questions that you may have.
• 38:01Thanks very much.
• 38:03<v ->Thanks, Dr. Rao,</v>
• 38:05for this very wonderful talk.
• 38:08And actually,
• 38:10all your questions, Dr. Rao
• 38:12as we seen them.
• 38:14And, as you may find out.
• 38:16During his talk,
• 38:18some of your questions has been already answered.
• 38:20Like, the DTR zone,
• 38:22the pollution inequity effects,
• 38:23or whether his approach could be applied
• 38:25to other different countries or settings.
• 38:29But collectively, I think your questions
• 38:35are falling within the two things.
• 38:39We can ask Dr. Rao to answer them live.
• 38:42And in the meantime,
• 38:43for our,
• 38:45the other online audiences,
• 38:46if you do have any questions,
• 38:48please feel free to post your questions in the chat box
• 38:51and we will do the Q &amp; A as well.
• 38:56So, Dr. Rao,
• 39:00if you,
• 39:01I see you here.
• 39:02So, if you can unmute yourself,
• 39:06then maybe we can start the Q &amp; A section.
• 39:11<v ->Sure. Hi.</v>
• 39:12I hope you can hear me okay?
• 39:14<v ->Yeah, we hear you very well.</v> <v Dr. Rao>Great.</v>
• 39:15<v ->Thanks for joining us this way on the (indistinct)</v>
• 39:19So, I think before the whole audience can ask questions,
• 39:25we can first start with the students,
• 39:28the questions they have.
• 39:30The first type of questions,
• 39:32is generally about relationship between air pollution
• 39:35in the country and some of the detailed questions,
• 39:38for example,
• 39:39students are wondering,
• 39:41what's the link between the global versus local actions?
• 39:45And among the different countries;
• 39:48Do development rise play in a role in determining
• 39:52the inequity in the air pollution exposure.
• 39:56And also, in terms of the content of impact.
• 40:00Data that also recent COP26,
• 40:03address those issues indirectly
• 40:07or maybe completely ignore them.
• 40:09So, Dr. Rao?
• 40:13<v ->Yeah, that's a very interesting set of questions</v>
• 40:16around the link between climate change and air pollution.
• 40:17And kind of a global,
• 40:20the global imperatives versus the local imperatives
• 40:24of feeding up air pollution.
• 40:25What's interesting about the cookstoves,
• 40:26is that the biomass cookstoves
• 40:29have a lot of their own emissions;
• 40:33short-term forces that cause climate change.
• 40:36And they're extremely inefficient.
• 40:38So, when we switch over to even gas-based stoves
• 40:41or LPG stoves;
• 40:42even though gas is produced in fossil resources
• 40:47and causes CO2 emissions.
• 40:50The net effect on climate is actually almost negligible.
• 40:52Because the efficiency of gas stoves is so much higher
• 40:54and you avoid all of the other short-term climate forces.
• 40:58The net effect is almost negligible.
• 41:00So in other words,
• 41:02to switch over to LPG stoves,
• 41:04which is currently the most popular substitute
• 41:08is not a climate issue.
• 41:10Which is good,
• 41:11because people often saw that as a potential conflict.
• 41:15If you will, to electric stoves,
• 41:16which I do think is the long-term solution.
• 41:18Initially in India,
• 41:20because we have a coal dominant electric sector.
• 41:22It would be an increase in emissions,
• 41:26CO2 emissions in the short-term.
• 41:29But in the long-term,
• 41:29as you decarbonize the electric sector,
• 41:31of course, the idea is that the electric stoves
• 41:33will be zero carbon.
• 41:35So, that is the immediate impact of cookstoves and climate.
• 41:41Broadly, this topic is not really addressed so much
• 41:43in the sort of co-benefits
• 41:45that richer people tend to look much more at transport;
• 41:48because that's a clear co-benefit,
• 41:51reducing air pollution and reducing emissions
• 41:53in decarbonizing transport.
• 41:55So, I do think cookstoves need to be brought
• 41:58into the equation a little bit.
• 41:59Because there's a strong development core benefit
• 42:02of pursuing cookstoves.
• 42:04And potentially, a climate benefit in the long-term
• 42:06with electric cookstoves.
• 42:09And I don't think there has been any focus on this
• 42:10in the negotiations.
• 42:12We far removed from it really.
• 42:14It doesn't really factor in.
• 42:17But I do think,
• 42:18a lot of the climate policy in developing countries
• 42:21needs to be looked at as development first.
• 42:24That is, looking at development policies entry point,
• 42:27and doing that in a manner that's climate friendly.
• 42:29In that kind of a conversation,
• 42:31looking at cookstoves is really important.
• 42:35(cricket chirping)
• 42:35<v Facilitator>Thanks, Dr. Rao.</v>
• 42:37The second type of question is,
• 42:40you have shown there is very vast differences
• 42:44in terms of the deciles
• 42:49regarding the lowest of income (indistinct) contribute,
• 42:52the less, but they suffer the most from the air pollution
• 42:55related mortality.
• 42:57And so, the students are wondering.
• 42:59Are there any policies to effectively check the status quo?
• 43:04So, how can we reduce this inequity?
• 43:08Particularly, through consumption.
• 43:11Examples, these students are wondering,
• 43:13what are the most cost effective and last floating options
• 43:17that work?
• 43:18How do we incentivize the behavioral changes
• 43:22for people to,
• 43:24for example, you mentioned cookstoves.
• 43:25How can we incentivize people to use more clean cookstoves
• 43:32and a whole,
• 43:33also you showed that for the high-income population;
• 43:37accurately, the food and food waste
• 43:41has the kind of the large contribution to the air pollution.
• 43:45So, how can we reduce this urban food waste?
• 43:50And then lastly,
• 43:52What are the key policy challenges
• 43:54that you could have going on?
• 43:56Do you know whether these policy
• 43:58has been achieved on so far?
• 44:04<v ->Yeah.</v>
• 44:05So, the policy or the situation,
• 44:06as with a lot of climate issues.
• 44:08There's a big disconnect between reality
• 44:10and what we see in our models and analysis.
• 44:13So, seeing air pollution as a consumption issue,
• 44:15is very far removed from policy.
• 44:18I think air pollution policies are focused a lot on,
• 44:23like I said,
• 44:23in end-of-pipe solutions.
• 44:25And those are really still the main focus of policy.
• 44:29Cookstoves in particular,
• 44:31even just simply coming up with a cost-effective
• 44:35alternatives has been very, very difficult.
• 44:37As I mentioned in India,
• 44:40the main substitute has been
• 44:41LPG, liquid petroleum gas stoves.
• 44:44And there has been a very successful experiment
• 44:46in the last few years by the Modi government.
• 44:49Where 15 million households
• 44:51actually were given free cookstoves and one cylinder.
• 44:56And that was seen as a major success,
• 44:58especially in urban areas.
• 45:00But, we found from research subsequent to that program,
• 45:05that people didn't end up using the gas stove so much.
• 45:08And the reason is that,
• 45:09even though they got a free stove,
• 45:11the fuel was too expensive.
• 45:13And the fuel has not been subsidized enough.
• 45:16In fact, the prices have been liberalized
• 45:18over the last decade.
• 45:19So, that's the problem.
• 45:22We need to subsidize both the fuel and the stove.
• 45:25If you really want a sustained shift over to other fuels.
• 45:29Because people may be familiar that people stack stoves,
• 45:32they have multiple stoves;
• 45:35and they use the one that's cheapest.
• 45:36So, the policy solutions are not successful yet.
• 45:41Let alone, look at consumption.
• 45:44In the area of consumption,
• 45:45I think behavioral change to reduce consumption;
• 45:47I mean, we can think about that as being extremely difficult
• 45:50in any context.
• 45:52What's more important maybe from the study,
• 45:54is to focus on food and food waste
• 45:56as an air pollution issue.
• 45:58Which is not often viewed that way.
• 46:00So, thinking about cleaning up waste;
• 46:02not only for recycling,
• 46:04but to control how it's disposed off
• 46:06and to prevent its burning,
• 46:08or doing controlled burning.
• 46:10Having incineration in an organized manner in cities,
• 46:13where they have controls for pollution.
• 46:16That, I think is probably the insight that's most important
• 46:19from this study with regards to policy more broadly.
• 46:25<v Facilitator>Thanks Dr. Rao for sharing that insight</v>
• 46:26and expanding.
• 46:28We do have a few minutes left at that.
• 46:31Any of our,
• 46:32also online audience want to ask a question,
• 46:34please feel free to post the question on the chat box.
• 46:37Or if you want to ask directly,
• 46:41feel free to unmute yourself.
• 46:44And before we move on,
• 46:48I even had another question regarding this type of research
• 46:53that Dr. Rao,
• 46:54you showed us that the very drastic differences
• 47:00in the low-income country,
• 47:04low-income communities versus the high-income communities
• 47:06in terms of the inequity.
• 47:09So, this type of Pollution Equity Index.
• 47:16You mentioned that it can be applied to different countries.
• 47:20So, I'm particularly wondering,
• 47:21that do you have any plans for future work,
• 47:24like, focusing on not just India but in the United States?
• 47:27Because, one,
• 47:30the recent researchers found that,
• 47:32actually the food production consumption also contributes,
• 47:39is also a major contribution to the ambient air pollution
• 47:42due to the house impacts in the United States as well.
• 47:45So, I'm thinking about,
• 47:47if you can apply this Pollution Equity Index
• 47:51to the United States,
• 47:52what could be some of the major messages that you can wave
• 47:58for policy makers?
• 48:00<v ->Yeah, actually there is a research group.</v>
• 48:04I had mentioned it,
• 48:05I think in part of this talk.
• 48:06A Tesa metal paper, it's in Phoenix.
• 48:10I believe Phoenix,
• 48:11where they have done a very nice study
• 48:14that does this relationship between consumption
• 48:17and air pollution.
• 48:19And so, we do have research groups
• 48:22and the data are available in the U.S.
• 48:24to do this analysis.
• 48:25The missing piece there,
• 48:26in that study was to take exposures
• 48:29at a especially granular level
• 48:31and convert that into mortality risk.
• 48:34So, that's the part that we'd need to be done.
• 48:35And then, one can look at pollution equity,
• 48:38not just in terms of exposure and consumption comparisons;
• 48:41But mortality consumption.
• 48:43And I think that would be a useful step to do.
• 48:47I don't personally, have access to those data.
• 48:50I'm on energy side.
• 48:52I am working in fact,
• 48:54on residential energy in the U.S.
• 48:57at a detailed spatial granularity,
• 49:00with spatial granularity.
• 49:01And it would be an opportunity to team up
• 49:02with air pollution folks to...
• 49:06Kyle is an example of it himself.
• 49:08(chuckles)
• 49:08To look at that kind of inequity
• 49:11or looking at mortality risks for specific communities
• 49:14and comparing it to consumption levels.
• 49:16And I think that is certainly something that's worth doing,
• 49:20and possible for us to collaborate and do in the future.
• 49:23<v Facilitator>Excellent, yeah.</v>
• 49:24I think that'll be a very emerging field
• 49:29for a lot of researchers like you.
• 49:32Working in handy site for researchers
• 49:34in the air pollution field
• 49:36and for our students and all our audiences working
• 49:39maybe in the environment of agricultural food.
• 49:41So, thank you, Dr. Rao.
• 49:43I don't see there's,
• 49:47but there's one question.
• 49:51<v ->I see one more question in the chat.</v>
• 49:53<v Facilitator>Yes.</v>
• 49:54Okay, Richter Autry. <v ->Yeah.</v>
• 49:57<v Facilitator>So, Richter Autry;</v>
• 49:58Do you think it would be more efficient to enrol
• 50:00with the private sector in bringing about a faster
• 50:04and more efficient change?
• 50:08<v ->Mm.</v>
• 50:10Um...
• 50:12I think the private sector will be undoubtedly necessary
• 50:14for the implementation of these policies.
• 50:15They will be the provider of these technologies,
• 50:18for sure.
• 50:19I think, it also would require
• 50:22as much government regulation as well to guide investments.
• 50:27I think for example,
• 50:28with norms for automobiles standards.
• 50:34Those are generally regulated wherever you go.
• 50:38It's something that has to be regulated
• 50:40'cause there's not much incentive.
• 50:43There's no private benefit associated
• 50:44with the air pollution reduction.
• 50:46And so, it has to be guided by policy.
• 50:49But I think,
• 50:50there could be,
• 50:51it has to be asked whether there's enough incentive
• 50:53for the providers of those technologies
• 50:56to enter the market for them.
• 50:58So, that definitely is an issue.
• 50:59I think with cookstoves,
• 51:02it's not necessarily an issue.
• 51:04There's plenty of market incentive to provide,
• 51:06to sell these stoves.
• 51:08The government has to just subsidize them.
• 51:10Make them affordable.
• 51:12And for other end-of-pipe solutions;
• 51:15cleaning up waste, for example.
• 51:16that is another externality.
• 51:18It's hard to see just the private sector leading that.
• 51:23But I do think they have to be involved
• 51:24in terms of providing the technologies.
• 51:26But, I think regulation is really the answer
• 51:29in terms of making a shift today.
• 51:34<v Facilitator>Thank you, Dr. Rao.</v>
• 51:35Yes, I think this speaks to the very core
• 51:40of what the purpose of the caption the house constitution,
• 51:46is to train the next generation of leaders
• 51:50who might be the policy makers
• 51:51than to have us tackle on this issue.
• 51:53So, thank you for Vanessa.
• 51:56And thank you so much for answering the Q &amp; A.
• 51:59I don't think there'll be other questions.
• 52:01And so, maybe we can check out.
• 52:03We can have five minutes earlier.
• 52:04And thank you all for joining us,
• 52:07in person and online.
• 52:09Thank you.
• 52:09I think we can give a round of applause for Dr. Rao.
• 52:13<v ->Thank you so much for tolerating this suboptimal</v>
• 52:16form of communication,
• 52:17but I appreciate it.
• 52:20Bye-bye.
• 52:21(indistinct)