 Session. Can you hear me? Is this working? Okay. So, this session is on policy and social science primers, and we have three speakers. First, we'll have Rachel at the Union of Concerned Scientist who's joining remotely and we'll be talking about what policy pathways are available to address climate change and what are their associated transition risks. Next, we'll have Sanya Carly who's here next to me and she will be talking about how does public policy consider and affect socioeconomic equity. And we'll end with Jason Hicko remotely from the London School of Economics who'll talk about how does public policy affect human and economic well-being. They'll each have eight minutes to present, so I'll give you a one minute warning. And we will then continue questions. We'll start with Rachel. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity to engage here. I'm going to talk a little bit today about the intersection between the science and the policy of addressing climate change and it's really Chris Fields presentation with a bracing sort of setting the table for this. What I'd like to say upfront is, regardless of what we do, transformative change is coming our way. It is either going to come our way in the form of unmitigated, unchecked climate impacts, the kinds of which we're just seeing the leading edge off right now, but will rapidly accelerate and worsen as science is showing if we fail to sharply curtail heat trapping emissions and invest in climate resilience. So transformative change is coming our way. The question is, can we harness it in a direction for public good? If we invest in the kinds of policies upfront, the kinds of investments we need to make upfront and appropriately, we can perhaps limit the impacts for people, the economy and ecosystems. But that too will take transformative change. We're really talking about systemic changes, not on the increments and the edges, because unfortunately we've already waited too long to act. And as Chris pointed out, time is running out. So just to be clear, if you see economic models that kind of come along and just talk about business as usual, some kind of equilibrium, we don't have that choice anymore. We are thrust into a future of transformative change one way or the other. We do have agency and our choices matter, and that's what I'm going to talk about in the rest of my presentation. Next slide please. So as others have pointed out, there's a range of impacts here from the physical side that we need to be thinking about. The one piece that I would add is from a social science perspective, we need to be thinking about how these physical impacts are intersecting with long standing socioeconomic and racial inequities here in the US and around the world. And that's exacerbating impacts on particular populations. That piece is critical for policy to address. Next slide please. So this familiar slide, this is a last year in terms of billion dollar plus disasters, many of which climate change did contribute to not all. And of course, other factors are at play like maladaptive development patterns. But one thing that's becoming striking is we're seeing in a spatial and temporal sense, a rapid accumulation of impacts communities being hit again and again with a variety of impacts. We're seeing a compounding effect. It's not just a one off disaster. It's a steady stream and each blow is making it worse. We can't react in a one off way either. We have to get out ahead and invest proactively. This is not just disaster response. This is policy that takes the science into account and acts in advance. Next slide please. And this was also the story around the world last year so it's not just the United States but around the world where we're seeing these impacts and others have pointed out voices we make here in a rich powerful country like the United States have profound impacts around the world, and also our ability to step up to our responsibilities can set off a virtual cycle of action for this global collective action problem. Next slide please. This is a slide from the World Economic Forum global risk report and one thing I wanted to point out here is again we see climate change appear both on the left and the two year horizon and the 10 year horizon. But what's striking is it's called a quote unquote environmental risk. We are now not just about the environment they're definitely about the environment but they're also about our economy and it's really important in context like this for the some kind of segregation of here is the environment over here and the economy over there and people and some other place stop happening we really need interdisciplinary approaches that recognize that climate change and how we address it is about the economy is about people is about ecosystems. Next slide please. So what are the risks and opportunities we have the classic way in which transition risks that talked about is of course, decreased demand for carbon intensive products, but there's also an opportunity here if we make the right investments in shifting to lower carbon more sustainable products and practices and investments like the inflation reduction act or other climate related policies are precisely about making sure that we're leaning into the opportunities, not just standing back and having the risk fall on us but also fuel companies and others with fossil energy dependence there are certainly risks around the what their products are causing, and that is increasingly triggering legal liability there are a number of courts both in the US and around the world that are taking fossil fuel industry to task because of the risks that their products and the harm that products are causing. Next slide please. So what does it look like to take proactive action well it's about making investments in this transformative shift to clean energy. The IEA has pointed out that making investments that further our fossil fuel dependence are at odds with global climate goals, but that with the costs of renewable energy energy storage investments in transit transmission, clean vehicles. We have a tremendous opportunity here to create supply chains around the world to fuel this clean energy industry. And the question is, are we going to do it fast enough in light of the narrow window that climate science is showing us, we have to act if we're going to meet that carbon budget to stay within 1.5 C. Obviously we have to address the legacy effects of our fossil fuel dependence as well, much of which falls in environmental justice communities. Next slide please. As we make these ships in our economy a critical piece is making sure that climate risks are disclosed in a transparent fashion our failure to do this is creating a massive blind spot in the market right now. And it's making us double down on the kinds of investments that are only exposing more of our economy and more of our people to harm. Next slide please. Some of this work is work that my colleagues and I at UCS have been doing some interdisciplinary research on in the context of, for example, coastal property markets, where the risk is largely flying under the radar still despite the fact that we're already seeing edge of coastal flooding. So well before places go completely under. They will start experiencing such frequent high tide flooding because of sea level rise that we've got billions of dollars of property and infrastructure in harm's way and we're continuing to build on our coastline. When we talk to people in the real estate market they essentially say the market is not pricing this risk. Even now, and it's not just about individual properties. This is about mortgages. It's about you and I having real estate in our retirement portfolios. There's a tremendous amount attached to these coastal real estate markets, local property tax basis as well. And for the large part this risk is flying under the radar. Next slide please. Rachel one minute. Sure. Another risk we've looked at is extreme heat and here are here are some information about the way in which extreme heat would increase around the country if we fail to sharply cut our heat trapping emissions many millions of people exposed. One particular aspect is outdoor workers where we have billions of dollars worth of earnings that are at risk because of rising heat. Next slide please. So the opportunity we have is to invest both in climate resilience and mitigation. Next slide. And what we're trying to do is close the resilience gap we have to address climate change now on both fronts if we're going to limit impacts on the economy and people both mitigation and adaptation with equal urgency. Next slide please. So these are our choices and opportunities we have to communicate the risk clearly but as we do that we have to make sure that we're not leaving certain segments of the population exposed. For example that elderly person or that low income family for whom that home is their biggest single investment. So that risk from coastal flooding. We can't just disclose the risk and leave them holding the bad. We need national policy now it can't just be about individual market based decisions, but how are we as a nation and a global community going to address what is a rising challenge everywhere around the world and do it and adjust an equitable way. So the conversation for having in this group to me are fundamental to how we in the US can be part of that change that necessary global change. Thank you. Thanks, and we'll do questions for all of them at the end so we'll listen to Sonia. Wonderful thank you. There we go. So I was given the charge with the question of how does public policy consider and affect social economic equity which is huge it's a lot and I'm a very little literal person so I was like okay how exactly can I answer this in eight minutes. Next slide please. So I decided to start with a cartoon this is a picture that I often show my students actually when we think about the difference between equality and equity if you look at the first two on the left hand side. So equality is understanding is giving everybody essentially an equal amount right so there are different people different sizes in this picture different heights. And as a result of each getting the same box they still might not have the same opportunity to see the baseball game and compare that with equity which is in the middle and here it's recognizing that there are disparities that exist across a demographic and a variety of other disparities that exist across space. In the United States as well as across the world and that as a result of these disparities that might be necessary to give different groups or different individuals different things or different amounts. So here we can see that the the shortest individual the young child is given two boxes whereas the adult is given none. And with reality here and reality. One could say is very emblematic of our current circumstances within the world where the tallest individual actually has a whole bunch more boxes that they've been provided by the government by society by history and their family circumstances. The other individual has one box and the smallest individual is actually sunken into the ground and has zero opportunity for seeing the game. If you could go on please so here I'd like to use this picture to refine the question just slightly and say how much does public policy recognize this reality and how does it seek to move toward a more equitable picture. Next slide. So typically the tools that are available in policy making when making decisions about the types of government programs or interventions are available. The tools enable one to ask questions such as will this policy help advance economic growth or development. Does the societal benefits outweigh the costs and is this the most efficient approach to addressing the problem, or what are other more efficient options. Next slide. Less typical at least historically in these policy decision making frameworks are is one able to ask questions such as will this policy help improve the economic conditions for those who have historically been disadvantaged or marginalized. Will this policy create or exacerbate disparities across certain social demographic groups such as across race income age gender occupation or many more. Will this policy result in so called sacrifice zones sacrifice zones being entire communities populations households that must bear all of the burden of a decision that's made for the societal good of the benefit being spread across space. Next slide. There are a few examples of where public policy can create an exacerbate social demographic disparities and I'm going to pull from my own research as well as others research within the domain of energy policy and energy justice and think about the energy transition that we're in presently which of course is very directly tied to our charge here today. Next slide. We know about energy and security and energy poverty and this refers to when a household or an individual is struggling to pay their energy bills or they need to live in an energy deprived state. Next slide. We know from government surveys that one in three individuals have difficulty paying their energy bill and have to live in uncomfortable temperatures in their home and one in four individuals within the United States have to forego paying for other basic necessities such as food. Now these disparities and work that we've conducted are incredibly huge when it comes to different social demographic groups. Here I show you just one social demographic group comparison. And that is looking at race. So here we're looking at households within 200% of the federal poverty line in a study that we just conducted a year ago during the COVID-19 pandemic. What you can see here is the difference between households that identify as white and those that identify as black. For example, it's a doubling of those reporting a difficulty paying their energy bill and it's a tripling of those who have been disconnected from their service provider. Now if we compare Hispanic households with white households we see that they are four times more likely to be disconnected from their service providers. Now with the increasing incidence of climate change as well as the ongoing energy transition these disparities will continue to get worse. They'll get worse not only for households of color but also for households with more vulnerable populations such as with young children or with individuals who are disabled and rely on electronic medical devices. Next slide. There are similar stories when we think about the distribution of technologies that accompany the energy transition. Next slide. Here we know from a robust and growing literature that these technologies such as electric vehicles, solar panels, battery storage, for example, even smart gadgets, small gadgets, appliances, they are disproportionately owned by wealthier and white households. But what might be more concerning because we might predict that a priori but more concerning is that the government incentives the government funds for these different technologies also disproportionately flow to the same households. Right. This is a case of not necessarily understanding the reality, thinking that we might give an equal amount giving an equal box to every individual, but it's the case that only some individuals are able to take advantage of these circumstances. We also know from the literature that early stage innovation rarely considers low income users and their unique barriers to the use of these different technologies. And in some cases studies have found that they are actually more expensive and less often available in marginalized communities. And there are very big implications here for modeling for the future as we think about the impacts of this disproportionate spread of technologies where those who are wealthier have access. Those who are less wealthy don't have access and there are shifts in the rate design over time where those who are less have less eventually cross subsidized those who have more. Next slide. Now we can see similar stories across fossil fuel communities so in our work in Appalachia and coal community next slide. We have found, as you have all you're probably all very aware of extreme hardship extreme personal hardship family hardship individual hardship as a result of losing ones employment opportunities, losing entire regions of economic opportunity within a region, losing one sense of identity and culture, losing ones family, and having to seek out new opportunities where opportunities might not exist. Next slide. Now, we can actually map this vulnerability we can think about fossil fuel communities and map other forms of vulnerabilities or other sensitivities that might be pre existing or part of our, our reality our fabric. We can see that their entire pockets across the United States when we use these other measures of sensitivity, actually pulling from the justice for the initiative and their measures that they're using where their entire communities that might be particularly vulnerable to these transitions. Next slide. Now this doesn't end with fossil fuel community or with coal communities it also extends to auto worker communities which I think was mentioned earlier today, where in our work field work in the American heartland we found that there are similar sentiments of auto workers who believe when they shut down for example that they will lose their job, they will lose their culture they will lose their community. Next slide. And if we look across the entire life cycle of a given technology part of this clean energy transition here thinking about electric vehicles. We already know that the consumers tend to be predominantly of higher income. We also know that those who work within the supply chain might believe that they will be left behind. And if we look at the two tails of this life cycle. The beginning and the end we also know that they're extreme inequities, extreme disparities across social demographic group that transcend across the United States into the rest of the world including for example cobalt mining and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and e waste facilities here is pictured in Ghana. Next slide. With a note of optimism and this is just a very short list of some new policy developments that are specifically focusing on and targeting social economic equity recognizing the disparities that are pre existing and thinking about solutions going forward. Last slide. Here are just two examples, recent examples from the Biden administration executive order 13985 as well as the justice 40 initiative, both of which have very clear directives to acknowledge these disparities and to use government resources to try to address them mitigate them going forward. Thank you. Okay, and then. Next, we'll hear from Jason. Okay. So, first of all, thank you so much to my colleagues for the interesting presentations, and I apologize again that I'm not able to be there in in person with you all but hopefully that will change next time. With this presentation I'm going to focus on the question of how public policy can be used to achieve my mitigation objectives, but at the same time supporting and improving social outcomes. And for this I'll be highlighting recent research that is represented in the IPCC is latest integrated attachment. And with the observation that climate mitigation is not only about what kind of energy we use. It's also about how much energy we use the scale of energy use is critically important. Because the more energy we use of course more difficult it is for us to achieve a sufficiently rapid decarbonization economy. And indeed this is a core principle of climate economics. Next slide please. So, particularly important for high income economies, high income economies have extremely high levels of energy use more than three times the world average. Energy use in the USA is higher still about 65% more than in other high income countries. And this accounts for the USA is extremely high per capita emissions, it's disproportionate contribution to cumulative historical images and also its difficulties in achieving sufficiently rapid decarbonization. Next slide. To briefly put this into perspective. The IPCC established that the global carbon budget for a 67% chance of staying under 1.5 degrees with 400 gigatons from the beginning of 2020. Now the US is 4.2% for the world population and this gets a for a 17 gigatons share of this carbon budget, not shown by the first red line in this graph. The blue line shows us cumulative emissions from 2020 and note that this is cumulative not annual emissions with the continuation of existing mitigation trends based on the past few years basically reduction in annual emissions of 0.1 gigatons per year. So the US will have exceeded its fair share of that carbon budget by the end of this year. And will thereafter be appropriate thereafter be appropriating the fair shares of other countries, the US fair share of the carbon budget for 1.7 degrees will be exceeded in the year 2026. This is a problem, both in terms of climate instability, as well as in terms of the equity principles that are enshrined in the Paris agreement. With such high levels of energy use, it will be extremely difficult for the US to decarbonize fast enough to honor its fair share of the Paris agreement, which is of course to keep global warming. And I quote well below two degrees Celsius, even with strong improvements in efficiency and technology. Excellent. I believe sufficiently rapid decarbonization in high income countries will likely require what the IPCC refers to as demand side strategies. In other words, strategies to reduce excess energy use. This was a major focus of the IPCC is working group three in the last assessment report on mitigation. Now this brings us into tricky territory. This is important for human well being and for the economy. We need it for food, housing, transit hospitals, and for the production of necessary goods and services. But the relationship between energy use and social outcomes is not fixed. It is mediated by public policy. Excellent. This explains why some countries have high levels of energy use but relatively poor social outcomes, while other countries have much lower energy use but relatively good social outcomes and the United States is an example of the former. Despite having one of the highest levels of energy use in the world, much of the population does not have access to basic goods such as decent housing, adequate healthcare and nutritious food. And of course that age standardized all cost mortality in the US is worse than in most other countries in the OECD. By contrast, UK performs better than the US on major social indicators with 60% less energy use in Malta life expectancy is four years longer than the US with 80% less energy. So what's going on here. The relationship between energy use and social outcomes. What matters is how income is distributed, how the economy is managed, and what kinds of provisioning arrangements are in place for essential goods and services. Next slide. So several empirical studies show that it is possible to achieve very high social outcomes with moderate levels of energy use by relying on three key interventions. The first advance please is to reduce inequality. Highest income brackets in society have extremely high levels of energy use, the majority of which is irrelevant to human wellbeing and social outcomes. So I have in mind things like private jets large cars yachts mansions frequent flights and so on. The economist Thomas Piketty has put it reducing the excess energy use or purchasing power of the rich with progressive taxation on income and wealth is one of the most powerful time mitigation policies that we can introduce and also has strong positive effects on a wide range of social outcomes. Next please. Improve democratic quality. We know that greater democratic control over economic policy at all levels means production ends up being geared more toward prioritizing human needs and improving well being. It also means that resources tend to be shared more fairly, thus delivering better social outcomes at any given level of energy use and output. And then finally ensure universal access to high quality public services. And here I have in mind healthcare education affordable housing, public transit clean energy water internet and so on. These goods and services are necessary for survival and for basic social participation countries that ensure universal access to these goods are able to achieve better social outcomes at any given level of energy use compared to countries where these goods are generally commodified and less accessible. So this approach, by the way also stabilizes the cost of living and insulates against inflationary pressures. So if we accept that a reduction in energy use in high income nations is necessary to achieve climate objectives. And if we want to improve social outcomes at the same time, we need to reduce the excess energy to the rich. While increasing people's access to the goods and services that are necessary for human well being. And note that this policy approach has the added benefit of avoiding or preventing the adverse distribution effects that may arise from carbon taxes and similar mechanisms. So the next step is to pay attention to how these goods and services are constituted and this brings us back to the IPCC's demand side mitigation strategies. Working group three calls not only for improvements in energy efficiency and it shifts to better technologies, which is obvious, but also for policy changes in key sectors, including food mobility industry and housing. Next slide. What does the underlying science is summarized in this 2021 article in nature climate change and headline graphic that I have up here is a little bit difficult to understand at first glance but it basically boils down to showing that the energy demand mitigation strategies can reduce emissions in key end use sectors by 40 to 80%, which is obviously substantial. Next slide. So for food, the main interventions include reducing production of red meat and improving access to nutritious sustainable diets in line with recommendations produced by the Atlantic Commission, reducing food waste across food supply chains from farm to supermarket and shifting to regenerative farming methods. This approach improves nutrition while reducing energy use and emissions. For mobility, the main intervention is to reduce aggregate production and use of private vehicles and focus on improving access to modern high quality public transit systems. Also cycling and active mobility, which is exemplified by several high performing cities in Europe right now. This allows us to improve mobility with less energy. Next slide. For industry, the main intervention is to limit tendencies for planned obsolescence and ensure that products are longer lasting and repairable, such as for example with the right to repair rules that are soon to be soon to be implemented in the EU. So if the goods in our refrigerators last twice as long, then of course we will use half as many, thus cutting energy use in those industries in half. It is a huge gain without any loss to our access to the goods that we need. Next slide. And then finally for housing, main intervention is to shift away from mansions and wastefully large houses, ensure longer lasting buildings and pursue national policies to improve insulation and install more efficient heating, cooling and lighting systems. Now, note that policies for expanding public transit systems and modernizing housing stock and make major positive contributions to employment. None of this has been modeled yet in integrated assessment models, but there's research underway right now in Europe to try to to try to modify I am to make all of this possible. I also want to mention that another additional significant benefit of this approach is that it dramatically reduces the extract the material extractivism to build out sufficient renewable energy infrastructure. So to wrap up, let me note that according to recent research focused on the UK steps like these could reduce energy use in that country by half while improving social outcomes and ensuring good lives for all, which is an extraordinary finding. If applied to the US, the same measures could in theory bring energy use down by even more than this, making it possible to achieve much faster decarbonization in line with the Paris agreement mitigation requirements and also in line with its equity principles, again with strong positive benefits for social outcomes. Thank you very much. Okay, so now we have many minutes for questions. So, well, if you will, if you have a question you can raise your hand. Let's start with Heather. Oh, thank you so busy trying to do the video can't do video and audio at the same time clearly. So, I wanted to make a couple of comments so these are really great presentations. One, one thing I just I wanted to kind of connect the dots a little bit between this conversation and the macro conversation. In one way which is that I think that one of the things that we've been thinking about a lot in terms of the policy is the need for sectoral and regional analysis as we do the macro work. And one of the things that that given the shifts in industry that we're likely to see is some sectors having big supply side constraints or shocks while other sectors experiencing high unemployment. I think you know, we as we've lived through the past couple years of the pandemic we've seen that in a variety of different ways but you know right now we know that there's a lot of labor shortages and some of the key sectors that we need to be producing to execute on the infrastructure law and even the chips well the same and yet we have high employment well at the same time you have communities that are very worried about what this transition will mean on the energy shift. So it's just something to as as the macro folks are thinking this is going to be a 10 year problem that we might want to think differently in the short term than we do in the long term. And then my other comment, I really I thought these three presentations were just excellent. And yet I was really struck in Jason's last slide with how many of those things for those to be economically effective you would have to pair them with different, massive rethinking the United States of our social insurance systems of work hours work rules. And so, just, you know, as we go through this transformation in energy systems, are we also thinking about transforming the way we work, how many hours we put in doing less. It's a lot to do all at once and I just wanted to throw that up as a, as a question. I really enjoyed those presentations and I use a number of those pictures so thank you for that work to Jason, do you want to comment. I can respond very briefly. So, yeah, in terms of the questions about employment and so on I think that's well at least in the literature and ecological economics and in some of the modeling that has been done in that field. They rely pretty heavily on two main mechanisms. And the first is, is, is basically work work time reductions and effectively reducing the working week or other mechanisms to reduce work time, and then basically share, more evenly right. And then the second the second major policy to rely on is, is basically a green job guarantee, which can be used to to to ensure smooth transitions out of sunset sectors into more necessary forms of forms of production socially necessary. So, in my in my reading literature those of the two kind of main policies that modelers rely on. I might jump in on your on your first point, very well taken thank you and I, I keep thinking what's the role of equity in in the modeling exercise that we're doing and I think that there's a role for it but I think that some of these efforts have to happen simultaneously. And so I think exactly as you say thinking about the sectoral the regional components, they can happen in complementarity and in collaboration with the teams that are also looking at the macroeconomic modeling and feeding information back and forth. So I just wanted to reiterate your point there that I think I don't think that I think it's a mistake to think that we can just load everything into a model. Can I jump in real quick, in terms of the response to that. So, I think there's an inherent idea that right now, the way things are working is we're making the market is allocating everything perfectly and we're all turning the decisions that are coming out of great and anything that we do to shift it is a cost. It's really important to examine that assumption because right now, for example, climate risks are pretty clearly understood by certain market actors, and they're developing proprietary data sets to make sure that their assets are protected. But these tend to be richer more powerful big companies, for example around the coastal real estate market it's pretty clear that certain mortgage lenders and insurers now have the data in house and are doing this modeling to understand it. So people who don't have access are the ones are going to be left holding the bag. Those people who are living in small communities, lower resource communities. So the question about equity is central here because people are making decisions right now based on the risk that they clearly see coming. The transition risk the climate risk, but for the large part the rest of the public is being left in the space of not having the information and if they have the information they don't have pathways out of the risk. They don't have the fungibility of their assets they're trapped in the risk. And that's why public policy has a very important role to play here both on the climate resilience and the just energy transition pieces of this. We see lots of CEO the fossil fuel company is getting golden handshakes, it's the workers for left high and dry. And that's where we have to focus our efforts as this transition happens. Thank you. Yeah, I first, the police support the idea of not not taking this off the table the idea of more substantive transformation. But I just wanted to make a point that one thing that could link some of these presentations is that in addition to to differential impacts due to inequality. There can also be consequences due to inequality per se, and I'll just give one dynamic from the US. One is that when income inequality rises housing costs rise slightly but not to the same degree I mean the inequality in housing prices and so what happens is, you can have a substantial increase in the proportion that is spent by housing at lower incomes than you do at higher incomes. So, when Jason was talking about reducing inequality as a way to lower direct emissions from high income people. There's another impact as well is that it improves the ability of people at lower incomes to to make a living because they can afford housing. And that is is a huge chunk of their expenditure. And that one can have a macro consequence without actually needing to look at the distribution so that's, that's a, that's a comment. And the speakers want to respond. Chris. Thanks so much. I really enjoyed all the presentations and one thing that's striking to me about the framing that all of you brought forward. Is it when we look at distributional effects that the individuals and communities that are impacted by climate change impacts face very similar issues to the individuals communities that are displaced as a consequence of climate change solutions. I wonder if, if all of the speakers can comment on whether they, they see making the interest of those two communities as, as the right way to view the world, and whether that has implications for the way we think about the, the politics and the solutions to climate change moving forward. I mean, from my perspective that that's, that's absolutely true. If you're thinking about a just transition. You really have to think about the people who through no fault of their own are finding themselves on the front lines the edge of this crisis whether it's the physical risk or the transition risk. The difference I would say from a macroeconomic perspective, the jobs question is one that we actually is, is, I think time bound and can be handled through very specific policies around diversifying local economies investing in transition funding and communities, etc. So the piece about those most exposed to climate risk, some of those risks are so extreme that you really need to be thinking about people on the moon, because they can no longer continue to live safely in those places, and it's a risk that's just going to keep for us as emissions increase and the temperature increases. So, well, I think it absolutely that the plight of these communities and these people is very similar. I think that time dimension of how we'll have to address these problems through proactive policies looks a little bit different. So, the front lines of the climate piece or the transition piece and the jobs aspects of it, both require policies though and both are being neglected right now. I'll jump in. I took your question as being two parts. One is, are these risks compounding so are the risks to climate change, those who will be affected by climate change the same as the risks to those who will be affected by our changing mitigation adaptation. And I would argue, yes, in particular, those communities that are traditionally underserved and marginalized. So thinking about households, for example, using the example that I used of houses that are struggling with energy and housing insecurity and so forth with an extreme incidence of, of weather events and with climate change we will see the same households face the more extreme price, well they will face the price shocks but they will be less able to absorb the price shocks as others so I would say yes they are compounding and overlapping. And then the other question is, is this the right framework I think I heard you use the word right. And here I challenge us all in this room. I mean part of it is our normative take part of it is our subjective our personal view but I personally have the view that we should consider and uphold recognition justice as a primary objective, and that we need to acknowledge who it is that has been advantaged or not advantaged, both present and past, and that we can use our tools our government tools and our other tools to assist these communities. Now, everybody in the room might not agree and they might not think that that's the right approach but I think it's that and technique, we can uphold these justice tenants at the same time that we can also uphold objectives such as efficiency. I second what my colleagues have said and I think the only thing I would add is that some is that I think some of the principles that have been explored and the literature that I described briefly there is simply that's you know the more people have access to to livelihood security and necessary public services and secure employment etc. This is critical when it comes to any disruptions that may be brought about by further climate impacts right like as as things disintegrates progressively in the coming decades. I think it would be in a community that has robust public provisioning systems to make sure that's that's that does impacts are mitigated for you and your household so I think that that's quite important to pay attention to here right like this has a kind of the equity dimensions work two ways. It is useful. Eric. Thanks, my question I guess is for Jason as a very thought provoking set of comments. Reducing inequality. Reducing the incomes that rich people have because they spend that on wasteful social spending waste wasteful energy spending. Do you do you literally mean reducing the incomes of rich people so they don't spend this much money on energy or reducing the incomes of rich people and redistributing it to poor people, because if the energy and security issues that Sonya was talking about are real and I believe they are, then poor people spend a higher fraction of their incomes on energy. And so redistributing income from rich people report people drives up total energy consumption. Well, the important thing here is that clearly we should agree that everyone can have access to energy for for necessary living right so we want to establish a kind of energy floor that should be a key principle and that should be a key principle. So to follow energy and security permanently, which can easily be done. And then the next bit is simply about scaling down access purchasing power the rich I mean the way that phones pick at the frames this is effectively using progressive taxation to destroy that purchasing power right and so I wouldn't think of it in terms of improving the lives of poor people is going to is going to make climate change worse. We have to be able to accomplish two tasks at the same time one is improving the lives of working class people and the other is to to reduce access energies I think we can do that together. The kinds of policies that have been explored by working group three. I could just jump in I think there are two things happening here it's about closing the energy poverty gap, but it's also about expanding access to cleaner forms of energy and more efficient forms of energy and systems change so it's not swapping a car for rich person with a car for someone from a lower income family but it is about investing in mass transit investing in sustainable forms of developing cities it's all of these things together. What some have is segregated system where some people have privilege and are essentially gobbling up the remaining carbon budget, while other people don't even have the subsistence amount of access to energy. What's happening right now is, is not just about today. It's a legacy of the rich and the powerful within countries and across the world, who have gobbled up the lion share of the carbon budget, and are now fighting to even give crumbs to people who are just coming to raise their standard of living. It's it's it's inequity on top of injustice is the only way to describe it so no reducing inequality is fundamental it's not an add on it's actually fundamental to solving this inequitable climate crisis, expanding access to those who don't have it affordable energy access and making sure that we're expanding clean energy energy efficiency all of those are the same simultaneously. There's a question in the in the chat or for for Jason from Mike McCracken. And so I'll read it Jason, the key to moving to new energy systems is to electrify everything and then decarbonize the grid, which seems much easier than many of the sectoral items mentioned. Why not mention electrification policies and decarbonizing the grid. This is for granted something that we should be doing and this is also working group three takes granted right the idea that we're all focused here on on electrification and and decarbonization of the energy system. The problem is that the energy system and high income nations it's so big because of a very high energy demands, but it makes it difficult to achieve sufficiently rapid decarbonization. And so if we find ways to reduce access energies, energy that does not contribute at all to to two people's well being or to social outcomes. Then, then this allows us to achieve faster, faster to your organization of the energy demands. So, that's the approach that working groups he has taken. I think Solomon. I have a great question for for these panelists but also some folks who spoke earlier I'm just generally curious that the last cop meeting. Lawson damage was discussed, like as one of the major breakthroughs the very end, but has escaped conversation today it seems sort of close to the topics being discussed so I'm just curious if anyone here is aware of like good macroeconomic research on the implications of the lawson damage framework, or perspectives on how that should be done in a way that would address the equity concerns. I'm happy to jump in this was an issue I worked a fair bit on at this last call. As you know, some of this, the lawson damage is sort of that extreme edge of climate impacts that are beyond the means of ordinary adaptation measures. So now, we can see it rapidly accelerating around the world. So the question is, are countries most responsible for carbon emissions that are fueling climate change, willing to help create pathways out of sad loss of damage for lower income and a fund was established at COP as you know but if there's no money in it and there is no agreement on a framework yet about how to marshal the funds and make sure they go get to the right people and places. I'll just add it's not just about money, because many, many people are going to be displaced by climate change around the world and so we have to create a kind of human rights framework. So that people who are displaced don't face racism and xenophobia as tends to be the case today in the world when people try to migrate for a variety of reasons. This is not just a cross border issue this is happening within the United States right now there are many communities in the Gulf South. For example, that are already facing loss of land at a record rate, and are essentially just moving next door where they're still exposed to the risk and have very few resources. We don't have a national policy that people living in wildfire prone brown prone flood prone areas that are facing similar risks. So the global challenge is also reflected right here in the United States and it does require a concerted national policy we can't leave people individually on their own to muddle their way through what is a really large challenge. Where can they get to safety and how will we invest in those places to create opportunity. It's not just about where you leave but where do you go, jobs, schools infrastructure so that people can actually build new lives in a place of safety. I think we have time for one last from Bob. Thank you all for really interesting panel I guess I want to give you all a chance to draw connections back to the earlier panels of today you know our role as a round table is really to make suggestions as to how to improve the analysis of macro economy and the way climate is reflected in that so things like the question of how do we make sure the baseline that goes into, you know, budget projections fiscal projections and so forth reflects the rich complexity of the climate issue including the equity and distributional questions associated with it. I'd like all of you to take, you know, given what you heard this morning from our stakeholders and the economist panel. What do you think is the most important thing to take it into account has, you know, their colleagues at OMB or CBO or the Fed think about how to how to integrate climate change into their job. I'll go ahead and take a first stab and that is that I would challenge us to think about equity as part of the modeling exercise but also to think about how to complement our work here with other work that's ongoing. And also as Rachel said to think about what our baseline is and to understand the reality of our baseline that it might not be based on a perfectly equal or place of equilibrium across all social demographic groups and all of society. So the first of all of things. The first would be to pay attention to fair shares of the Paris carbon budgets which are in most time combinations and not doing right now right so when we talk about mitigation that's compatible with Paris I think that it's essential that we think about the equity principles and combinations need to be carbonized much faster than the global average. So that's the principle in the Paris agreement. The second thing is I think that our models should, in addition to taking account of equity should take account of people's, of people's access to essential goods and services, right and this is, this is quite often obscured by GDP, even distribution accounts right in the sense that in GDP $100 worth of tear gas is exactly as valuable as $100 worth of health care. And so it's important also to understand not just aggregate production but also whether people have access to the goods and services that are really critical for for living a decent life. So I would say I think that's including working group threes demand reduction strategy options as as some of the scenario runs for the for the climate macro models I think it would be really interesting to see the results of that but I haven't seen it done very thoroughly yet, but I know that that will be included in the next generation of of attempts. I guess the one quick thing I would add is that I knew that sometimes the frame that's presented is. If you care about climate change and then you start adding equity and justice to just adding stuff and you're making it more complicated. And actually, I think the fundamental insight from this presentation is that they're very complimentary goals. And the climate challenge itself is fundamentally about equity when you think about that carbon budget that's rapidly running out and who's had the chance to consume and who hasn't you realize that this has always been about equity it is about emissions. Yes, but it's always been about equity who gets access to that scarce carbon budget. And right now what's happening by default, is it is the rich and powerful. So, it's a mistake to look at this is just an emissions challenge and I think this group here understands that. So when we set up a solutions what's really interesting to me and from the research that folks here have shared is it's actually very if there are solutions that work on multiple dimensions. A short turn away from fossil fuels actually can help address environmental injustices public health challenges address climate change, create fairer economies, create better better energy systems. So that's what we have to be looking for the multi solving piece of this. So, let's put aside that frame that adding more stuff makes it more complicated and more difficult. Let's add more stuff because guess what we have solutions that work on multiple dimensions and those are the ones that will actually get to the core of solving the climate crisis in a fair way. Okay, so I think that's, I don't see any more questions. And so we'll pass it on to the co chairs. So I can't really say it any better than Bob did, which is, which is to say this was this was super and a lot for people to think about and I hope everybody mulls over this in thinking about our work going forward we just learned a ton today. Okay, so we'll take it on board, and it will inform what we do going forward so I very much look forward to our discussions tomorrow, as we think about how to, how to take all of this information to improve our task. That's it see you at 10. Thank you. Thank you.