 I'd like to welcome everyone to the Purdue Engineering Distinguished Lecturer for today. My name is John Sutherland. I'm the Phasenfeld Family Head of Environmental and Ecological Engineering, and at this point I would like to introduce Dr. Wayne Chen, who will introduce our speaker, our Distinguished Lecturer for today, lecturer. Dr. Chen is the Riley Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Materials Engineering, and is the Associate Dean for Research and Innovation. Wayne. Thank you. Good morning. Welcome to this Purdue Distinguished Lecture. The lecture invites actually the world renowned faculty and the professionals to Purdue Engineering to encourage thought-provoking conversations and ideas with our faculty and students regarding the grand challenges and opportunities in their fields. So today it's my distinct honor and pleasure to introduce Professor Tammy Bond from Colorado State University. Professor Bond's research has followed a threat from combustion to atmospheric chemistry and climate, to technology change and the future scenarios, to the intimate relationship between technology and human choice. Her research group has spanned considerations as small as a particle skin and as large as a national transportation system in the quest to characterize the dance between humans, the energy use, and as atmosphere and climate. Dr. Bond first earned two degrees in mechanical engineering, I think the first one from University of Washington and followed by one from Berkeley, then went back to University of Washington to earn an interdisciplinary PhD. Then she pursued an NOAA climate and global change postdoc after 16 years as a faculty member in civil and environmental engineering at UIUC, our neighbor across the cornfield. And a short stint as the Leverhulme Visiting Professor at the University of Leeds, she was recently appointed as the Walter Scott Jr. Presidential Career and Energy, Presented Chair in Energy, Environment, and Health at Colorado State University. She is a fellow of American Geophysical Union and 2014 John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow. So her presentation today will be from Hearth to Heavens and Home Again. Professor Bond. Sound? Yes, thank you. Thank you everyone for coming today, it's a pleasure to be here. And 20 years ago I was giving job talks and I called it from Hearth to Heavens because I was burning things and looking at how they affected the climate. And so I thought that this lecture would be a good way to talk about not only where I came from but now where I'm going and why I do what I do now because I did not think that I was going to be looking at this when I was a graduate student or a postdoc 20, 25 more years ago than I want to think about. I want to start with gratitude to all the people who have funded me and been patient with me over the years, including many federal agencies and nonprofits and foundations. Not all of this work looks like a research, some of it looks like implementation. And so I'm really grateful to everybody who is allowed of that span. Fire. Fire is a runaway reaction that we have somehow managed to, well, not really control but contain and the dawn of humanity as defined by anthropologists is when people, when the animals that began to walk on two legs when they began to control fire. So that's the fire makes us human, believe it or not. You thought that what made you human was your bag of emotions and philosophy, but no, fire is what makes you human. For the most part, we've managed to hide it away in the last couple of hundred years. So people first put it into whole hearts and then they put it into engines and got power out of it and then started the industrial revolution that leaves us where we are today with an atmosphere that's got more carbon in it than it used to. Conservation of mass, the carbon and the fuel is turning into CO2 and it's in the atmosphere. And so we've hidden it, but we didn't manage to suppress the tailpipe and that conservation of mass or conservation of carbon means that eventually we're going to fill up this bubble that we live in with CO2 and the climate will respond to that. And that's what I'm going to talk about today. So I'm going to tell you what I'm going to tell you. I've got three stories. First of all, does reducing black carbon emissions, I'll tell you what black carbon is in just a little bit, does that make a substantial improvement in climate? And my answer is going to be sometimes in a little bit. Is improving the burning of solid fuel one of the solutions? My answer is going to be, well, if you want to take climate as a global average, which a whole lot of people do, then not so much, but is that the right thing to do? Are we asking the right questions? And so at the very end, what are the root causes of emissions? We want energy services. We don't want to burn stuff. Well, sometimes we want to burn stuff, honestly. But most of the time, we just want the service that energy provides. We want to live in this industrial society. We want convenience. And so we need to develop framing and skills to provide those services in a way that's got less environmental impact than it used to. So let's start with the heavens bit. Does reducing black carbon emissions make a substantial improvement in climate? So here's a figure which many of you will have seen again and again from the intergovernmental panel on climate change. And they summarize current what's called radiative forcing. And that's a funny number in watts per square meter. All you really need to know is what's big and what's small. Watts per square meter is about, oh, how much energy did adding this species, this chemical species to the earth system, how much energy did that add to the earth? And then the earth has to adjust and so then it has to change its temperature. So a positive forcing means that you added more energy and the earth has to heat up a little bit to get rid of that energy. So as you can see on here, CO2, carbon dioxide, which is the thing we want to make when we burn things, is the biggest radiative force right now with about 1.8 watts per meter squared. The other thing I want to show you is the bar for black carbon, which is not as big as CO2, but about a third as big. And so it's not, it's not dominant, it's not insignificant. What is that black carbon stuff? Well, if you collected it and put it on an electron microscope slide and looked at it very, very closely, this is what you would see. You would see a clump of little tiny spirals stuck together. Some scientists have called it grape-like. So it looks like a bunch of grapes. Each one of those tiny little spheres has, if you looked at it even more closely, would have a bunch of graphitic plates around it. Now in basic chemistry, you learn that graphite was one of the forms of carbon, that it is made of closely spaced layers. And because those layers allow electrons to run around, and because they're close together, you might remember a little bit of quantum chemistry, some of you, where if you have energy levels that are really close together, it can absorb light by taking it, taking in the energy of the light, and jumping up to the next level. The sound familiar at all? Okay, and if you have lots of those levels really close together, you can absorb as many wavelengths as you want. And so that's what black carbon, that's why stuff is black. What black carbon is, is the ability to absorb many, many wavelengths of light. So if you put it in the atmosphere, one gram in the atmosphere is like putting a little space heater in the atmosphere, just one gram, that's about half a dime. And that stays in the atmosphere for about a week, and then it gets washed out, mainly by rainfall. If you burn things, you also, again, make CO2. CO2 stays in the atmosphere a long time, because its removal processes are relatively slow, and so that's not like putting a heater in the atmosphere, that's like putting a tiny little bulb in the atmosphere, but it just stays there forever. So the climate problem is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time. And I'm gonna show you, if you emit enough stuff to absorb one watt, what's gonna happen? The blue is gonna be the short-lived thing, black carbon, in the atmosphere and out. And CO2 in the atmosphere, that's the orange stuff in the atmosphere and it takes forever to die away and it keeps forcing. And if you're worried about climate change, that's because in your 100 years, when you are gone and your children are either getting pretty old or also gone, that CO2 is still there. And so if I look at this figure, I say, well, I'm worried about the CO2, right? And you should be. On the other hand, remember what I said about those energy levels and how strong black carbon was. And so if I just emit one gram of black carbon and one gram of CO2, what's gonna happen? Well, black carbon stays in the atmosphere a long time and it goes boom. And then the CO2, well, stays there forever but it doesn't absorb very much. You can't even hardly see it on the graph. So now which one am I worried about? Well, maybe I'm worried about black carbon, but it's kind of gone. So if you turn it off, you didn't really get any light, right? So what if you add that forcing up over time? What if we integrate that curve? So the top figure is gonna be the same as it was before and then the bottom one is going to be an integral or a sum of all the energy that's been added to the atmosphere. Here we go. That was supposed to work. Video person, can you click on it? See if it works? I'll be super sad if it doesn't work. But at least I know how it's supposed to look. There we go, there we go, okay, thank you. So there goes the black carbon absorbing, one gram of black carbon absorbing, a lot of stuff. And the CO2, even if you add it over 100 years, you can't see the forcing of one gram on that figure. So which one am I worried about? Well, I'm not sure anymore. Now on the other hand, if you burn one kilogram of fuel, you're making a whole lot of CO2 and not very much black carbon, right? Because the goal of combustion is not to make particles. That's what we don't want. So if we just amount about as much as a kind of oldish diesel truck or a little fire, let's look at what happens. So let's just burn one kilogram of fuel. And no, okay, that one. Here's what happens. The black carbon emitted and the CO2 emitted. So the black carbon comes out and does its absorption and the CO2 comes out, stays in the atmosphere, keeps forcing and so if you add up the stuff from one kilogram of CO2, what you're gonna see is that the black carbon starts absorbing right away. Eventually a CO2 catches up with it. They're on the same scale. So now which one am I worried about? And you're gonna say, well, the black carbon's gone so I don't care if it did do any forcing. But you know what? For that short time it's in the atmosphere. The Earth actually takes up that energy. So what happens to the temperature of the Earth? Something like this. So the Earth is kind of an integrator. It's not a perfect integrator. It doesn't just do an integral but because it takes up heat. And so that boom that you saw with the black carbon from the one kilogram of fuel takes up some heat. The Earth absorbs that energy and that persists for about a generation. By the time the warming from that black carbon dies away, your children are professionals. Now, do we care? Climate is a long-term question. So in the long-term, in a hundred years, maybe we still don't care about black carbon. Maybe we only care about CO2. But you are living now. And even if that doesn't bother you, your children are living in those 20 years when the effects of what we call short-lived climate forces are in the atmosphere. So which do we care about now? Let me take you back to that. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty from 1992 which everyone seems to forget the United States actually ratified. Yes, this is a treaty we signed on to. The objective of that convention is stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference. And so there's a lot of discussion about what dangerous interference is but basically stabilization, that's the objective. So if I look at that, I say, no, we do not care about short-lived climate forces because we don't even want to stabilize them at all. We want them to go away and they wouldn't be stable anyway. Principles, let me just remind you that we did sign on to a document that said lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason for postponing action. And it also says that it should cover all relevant sources of greenhouse gases and blotty blotts. So think about your sources, your sinks and that's what a lot of people here in research as well as elsewhere do. And it says furthermore, that it should be comprehensive. And this word comprehensive is something I'm gonna emphasize throughout this talk. Now what does it mean by source? Source means any process or activity which releases a greenhouse gas, an aerosol, which means particles, or precursor of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. And so all of a sudden we're counting everything, not just the greenhouse gases, not just the things that are stabilized in the atmosphere, but the things that release gases, aerosols and what have you into the atmosphere. And so we have, first of all, we have an agreement to stabilize greenhouse gases. Secondly, it says don't ignore stuff, right? Be comprehensive. And thirdly, it says, oh, and you better count the aerosols too, doesn't say to stabilize them, but it says look at everything. Now in 1992, that was before people were even looking at the effects of aerosols on climate change except very, very roughly. And so this predates all that research. But it did say you should think about everything. So currently there is ongoing action to address short-lived climate foresters, the Clean Air and Climate Coalition is an international group of people who are working on particular sources of gases and aerosols that are short-lived in the atmosphere, particularly black carbon and methane. And that's sort of a high level policy thing. Let me bring you back to this comprehensive though. Comprehensive including all or nearly all aspects of something. And I'm going to use that to do what scientists do very well, which is make things really complicated. So black carbon absorbs light and warms the earth. But other particles that don't absorb cool the earth. So black carbon does that absorption for reasons we talked about, but any particle that's in the atmosphere that doesn't absorb light also reflects light or bounces it away and most of those particles bounce more light away from the earth and would ordinarily be bounced. And so that's actually cooling the earth by preventing energy from getting there. So stuff that isn't black cools the earth. Now the same activity, the same thing can make black carbon and not black particles. And for reasons known only to atmospheric chemists, everything that is made of carbon but not black is called organic carbon. Sorry chemists, it's a thing we do. So that candle is making black carbon. The reason that candles glow orange is because there are tiny little bits of black carbon at the flame front that are glowing. That's what you're seeing. When you see orange stuff, that's black carbon glowing. It's a little black body that's radiating. If you were to blow out that candle, what would you see? You would see a bunch of smoke, but it wouldn't be black anymore. It would be white because that wick would still be hot and we'd be drawing the wax up and the wax would be vaporizing into the atmosphere and condensing and those little fuel particles are not black because there's no flame to create the chemical reactions that make them turn into the black carbon. And so that candle, depending on whether it's lit or not lit, can make black carbon or organic carbon. Furthermore, black carbon, organic carbon and other particles can alter the brightness of clouds. So with few particles, you get these big fat droplets. When you have lots of particles, you can distribute the water among more droplets and then they're brighter and you reflect more light. There will not be a quiz on that bit. What you can do is see how that affects the brightness of the earth. You can see the energy balance of the earth changing because you can see the reflectivity of the earth changing. This is a photo from the space shuttle and that is the east coast of Asia that you're seeing the land mass and out of Asia is coming a continental plume. Now in the center of the graph or the photo, you can see that there's particles, just a stream of particles flowing in the outflow across the continent and because you can see them, you know the reflectivity of the earth is different. That's why you can see them. The ocean would be dark without them and it's brighter with them. And over on the left side of the graph, you can see those particles affecting clouds, clouds that might not be there or that might look different if those particles weren't in the mix. So that's particles affecting the, what we call the albedo or reflectivity of the earth and that right there is climate forcing. There's more reflectivity, so cooling. But wait, I just had this great idea where I was looking at black carbon, seeing how quickly it absorbed and I was gonna remove it from the atmosphere and then that would cool earth. But if I take the particles out, wait, it's not gonna, they're already cooling. What am I doing? So in order to consider all the stuff that comes out of combustion, and the candle was a simple example, we wrote a super, super long paper. And in my view, anyone who tells you I read that paper is not telling the truth. However, what we try to do when I wanna acknowledge my fabulous co-authors because it took us four years to write and a lot of patience. What we tried to do was look at not only black carbon and the story, how it absorbs light and how we could remove it from the atmosphere and thereby change global warming. But we tried to look at all the effects and I'm not gonna go into all those effects including the clouds. By the way, if you are a climate or cloud scientist and you want to have a lifetime of work, we outlined all the ways in which black carbon might affect clouds and there they are. That's not this talk, it's a different talk. So here's what we found. When we added up the direct effects of black carbon, we got some number and then we added all the other effects on clouds and we got some other number and then we have this giant number for climate forcing of black carbon which is different from the one on the IPCC slide because they only do the direct effects and people slice and dice in different ways. And so that's maybe half as big as CO2. And so that's a story like wow, we should go after black carbon right now because if we take it all out of the atmosphere then we save a lot of the warming. Now we still have to worry about CO2 but it's the thing that we can do as one of the tools to combat climate change. But remember I told you that the same thing put out both black and organic carbon and if you just switch it off, you're gonna switch off both of them. So when we added all the other stuff that comes out with everything that's producing black carbon, not all the aerosols in the world but just turn off all the black carbon sources, we got something like this. Like no climate forcing or net zero with huge error bars. And so if you want a story like just shut all the black carbon off and you will save a whole bunch of global warming, the answer is whoops because you're gonna turn off everything else too. So the answer came down to this. If you have sources that are mainly producing black carbon because they're not all the same then you might be able to select those sources and they couldn't be a component of reducing climate change but you have to be careful about which ones. CO2 continues to build up, reminder and black carbon is a little bit of a solution but it's not like let's do black carbon and not CO2. So now I was interested in what we could do. Which of those sources can we turn off? I'm basically a person who likes to burn things and so I wanna acknowledge a huge number of students and postdocs who contributed to this work that I'm gonna show you over the years but my question was basically can we improve or reduce solid fuel burning and is that one of those solutions? Is that one of those sources where you can remove black carbon from the atmosphere and it'll have a climate benefit and that was a great story. That was like we're gonna save the world, right? And so I was interested in not just what happened in the climate but in terms of that picture what levers of change do we have as engineers? Those particles might have a short life in the atmosphere but when you buy a truck you keep it for a long time and so you've committed to emitting the black carbon that it's gonna emit. And my question was what about little fires? So we've got a lot of fires in the world today and you don't think of them as fires but they're secretly fires. Power plants are huge and household stoves are small and there's a whole bunch of stuff in between. I'm showing you this on a log scale because I was told that you're engineering students and you can handle it. Or students, postdocs and faculty should I say for those who are not comfortable with log scales just know these are orders of magnitude. It's like the Richter scale like an earthquake that's nine is 100 times greater than an earthquake that's seven. And so in fire power there's a, the power plants are huge, right? Now, and if you look at the CO2 emissions that come from each of those types of fires or sizes of fires, power plants are like 25%, household stoves are 10%, they're all kind of on the map but nothing dominates. But if you look at what produces black carbon, the little fires and the trucks produce the most. Why is that? Because power plants really, really wanna burn clearly and they've got people with money for whom a 2% improvement in efficiency means a lot of money and so they've really been improved. Whereas the people who are burning all the small fires haven't been able to afford to do that. Those small fires in homes and developing countries or low income situations also have a health cost and this is a huge story. This is actually a bigger story than the climate. Four million approximately premature deaths per year from household air pollution. And so the great story was can we save health and climate by bringing improved combustion into small fires in households? So in order to do that, we ask the question what are the characteristics of particles that are relevant to climate? Like how much black is there? Now, there were lots and lots of measurements from power plants because they're here in this country, they're easy to access, they don't fluctuate as much and so there's kits and inspectors and platforms to go out and measure those things and EPA had a huge tabulation of measurements from power plants. Now if you are a power plant person you're gonna say the characterization is not great, you're probably right, but there was almost nothing on small fires. So over the course of about 10 years all the students listed participated in building these little emission boxes where we could go out into rural areas and measure emissions and we got it to the point where we could operate for around 24 hours, battery operated, filter capture, real time data. And so what we found, first of all, was that the laboratory measurements that we had been using to feed all of our emission inventories were kind of garbage. Particularly the laboratory emissions shown in this graph were much lower than what we measured in the field or in actual people's homes. And so the lab tests are way down there, you see in the field that you've got traditional stoves, you've got a little better stoves that were supposed to be improved but actually the median's about the same and then you have these improved stoves once you put a chimney on it creates buoyancy and then that cleans up the combustion but nothing gets to the point, to the low point that people were measuring in the lab. So that meant that one, all the fluxes used for the models that produced our estimates of effects of small fires on the world were wrong and two, the designers were designing for the wrong thing. If you look at the real time data, they show why. And the people here camp, right? You go out and you burn wood and so I don't really need to tell you why, I just have the sort of scientific proof that you can rely on. When you add fuel, you get a huge puff of emissions, sometimes it's black and sometimes it's not black and none of that stuff was really in the lab measurements. And so the lab measurements would look like those areas where you see between 175 and 180, like the fires humming along and then you'd add a piece of fuel and it'd go and there's actually a huge debate about should we really include that in stove design and certification? I don't know, it's most of the emissions. Should we include it? What do you think? And so what we did was we analyzed event frequencies using real time data, so we chopped those real time things up into bits and that whole idea of looking at emissions in real time is still something that we and others are developing. Before everything was an average, right? So we chopped it up into bits and then we put it on a cumulative plot and basically what you find is that you can reproduce, the lab reproduces the part where the fire is constant and the difference is in those big puffs. This is getting to be more to mapping of signals and so we're looking at the traditional stove the first three plots over on the left are the traditional stove, stove without chimney, all this stuff is in the field and what we're seeing is that there's, let me just point out the lab has much higher efficiency and so you can see it's all clustered up in the upper left where the high efficiency and blacker particles occur. In real homes what cooks do and you would too if you were cooking there is use these giant chunks of wood rather than what's used in the laboratory for testing which is like this. It's recommended in the test. Why do they do that? Because they don't want to keep feeding their fire because they have kids to chase and they have other things to do and feeding the fire is not their priority and it is that large wood that makes it possible to make those big puffs. Again showing some probability distribution I promise this is my last probability plot for those of you who don't like this stuff. The black particles is much more bounded than white particles so over, let's see, over on the right that's an absorption emission factor and can you see how those are all kind of laying on top of each other? Those are different fields, field projects, Nepal, Tibet, you know places at high altitude and you can see even though the scale is log normal you can see that they're all very similar. In other words the distribution of black particle emission rates is pretty similar around the world. Pretty similar among stoves even though they're highly variable but if you look over on the left the scattering, the white particles the things that cool climate are not the same and what happens is as the burning gets worse you make a whole bunch of particles that can't be burned and that are emitting fuel just like that candle you saw and so the thing that becomes unconstrained is the emission of white particles and so you've got constant black particles and then when you really don't know what you're doing your fire is crazy bad the fires you would want to clean up the things that are actually emitting the most particles are white and that means if you reduce that fire if you clean up that fire you'd reduce a few black particles and a lot of white ones which is net climate warming oh that is not the answer we wanted not the answer we wanted at all we wanted the great story but we can save the climate and we can also save health yeah so after 10 years we can save health but probably not climate however in the department of life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans having spent a few years sort of knocking around rural areas and household energy I began to notice some things and my students noticed some things and probably anyone who spent any time abroad trying to do things begins to notice am I doing what I came here to do? so one of the things and one of the great stories that actually came out of this work without intending to is that kerosene lamps not solid fuel burning but kerosene lamps of almost pure black carbon why? because when you burn fuel to create light you have to make it into those little glowing bits and so you tend to make black carbon so that is a climate solution right there field as found turning 8-10% of the fuel into black carbon almost pure black carbon almost nothing white and the other thing that happened is I've just spent a long time watching household energy so first of all I had this great idea like I was going to be a scientist that had a table, a look up table and you'd have this fuel and you'd have that device and you'd be able to look up a number and you'd be able to replace one messy stove with a clean stove and then we'd have advice for climate modelers and we'd have great emission inventories that is not what happened what happened is that life is messy right people always mix fuels even when you think or they report they're burning coal they might be starting it with corn cobs or plastic or something awful and that is not represented anywhere in the emission representations we have we looked at what people are using energy for why did we not do this before why do we have a whole industry of people creating better stoves without first going out and saying what energy do you use in your house what do you use energy for and so we saw a lot of big stoves like 30 liter stoves used for animal food cooking or used for alcohol making what about a moral dilemma do you want to improve cooking for alcohol making and productive uses farm uses and those needs were not being served so there's also I could give a whole talk about failures of adoption but the fact that we didn't ask people what they wanted in the first place was kind of telling and then finally access to clean and convenient energy enables education, enables people enables development lets a woman have a business where she's making cash so that she has a say in the household what is the value of that that's not anything I set out to measure you know we developed a measurement kit that said well you didn't solve the climate problem but then people who work on climate know that it's not all about global averages yes it's going to get a little bit hotter but the rainfall is also going to change the clouds are going to change the growing seasons are going to change that's what people care about and so why am I deciding whether somebody should have a stove based on a global average of white versus black that's kind of weird and so there are two answers to the question for wood burning if I'm selling to somebody who's a donor who just wants to have results and there are people who say I just want co2 equivalent tons just get me lots of them and I wouldn't buy I can't sell that story for wood burning because the black versus white and all the complications kerosene lamps yes sure go fund all of them but why did we pose the question that way in the first place so we need to repose what are we doing why should we intervene at all and if we do why is our measure so weird thing that happens at the top of the atmosphere and gets averaged over the whole earth that is what global warming potential is so are we asking the right questions I don't know what are the root causes of emissions so right I went from the earth and what are the effects to what are we doing what levers can we pull and having been in households for a while you know the levers you can pull are not taking out a thing and putting in a thing what are the root causes of emissions I want y'all to take a minute and think about what what is your major cause of energy use you have an answer heating okay, heating anyone else heating water do you know what your major energy use is yeah cooking is your major energy use okay when you think about your household now I've kind of prepped you a little bit too much but try to get off the energy thing what is the next thing you want to do to your house to improve it the next thing you want to do anything you want to do to your house big aquarium, yes okay, oh more energy yep I thought you were raising your hand is that a five minute warning does anyone want to not give me a five minute warning and answer the question sorry remodel yeah, I want to pay my bathroom right so when you think of your house you might have energy in that list and it might even be first but you don't think of your house as an energy delivery mechanism you think of your house as a household a place where you shelter a place that makes you happy and warm and part of that so Stephen Pine who's a fire historian talks about the migration of fire indoors and says hearth and house have rarely remained separated for long together they make a home you think of your house as your home safety happiness comfort that household is a web of systems of few of them relate to energy and when we walk into somebody's house and we say let me fix your energy they'll listen to you for a minute but that's not how they experience home even if we just talk about the energy somebody said heating somebody said washing in many countries you need energy for clean drinking water food safety that's why we cook lighting and big one earning money many of us go elsewhere to earn money but for people whose primary residence is at home you can enable yourself to earn money if you have access to convenient energy people don't necessarily want energy they want services in turn those services are connected to human needs most of you are probably familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of human needs I didn't make these large enough to see but there are actually a number of frameworks of human needs and some people have very lately in the past couple of years been involved with mapping those human needs to energy services and I'm going to give you a very cluttered slide showing three of the major framings one is Martha Nussbaum's body's framework one is Max Neve's human needs and people are doing work to map why people use energy to those human needs now I've gotten a little bit away from the climate thing and I've gotten a little way from the fire thing but when it came time to say what levers can we pull on climate and then fire and then energy we had to get back to the services and then the services had to get back to why people do things which relates to needs and so I'm just going to flash here somebody that I met during my wonderful stay at Leeds who's working on mapping human scale energy services to different needs and the issue when we go in and do interventions is that subsistence is what we're thinking but as soon as that's fulfilled we'll go on to things like belonging and recognition and energy relates to all of those too okay so I've shifted from carbon energy supply energy demand and this at the top is what I thought I was going to do right we'll do these physical processes it affects carbon partitioning there's this physical world but in fact all of that stuff is modulated by human needs and that's what we're going to do with these operations oh no because I'm an engineer hate that you know so we like to think of things as a you know a system it's a box I put wood in a box I get smoke out of the box what's in the box if there's a fire in the box I'm good with that right if there was something else in the box and I want to understand how much I go measure it right what if there's a person in the box does that mean you go kick it over to social science sorry not my field anymore but that's driving what's coming out of the box and that's where we are now and so getting back to this comprehensiveness thing we can't ignore that we can't ignore what's in the box and so yes there's a lot of social science that and I'm not going to become a social scientist but we are in an age of data we are in an age of collaboration and these things are beginning to work together so that's where I'm standing now how is hold energy and it's consequent emissions which are still massive are deeply entwined with human needs, dignity and participation and without those challenges so what are the root causes of emissions human needs for energy services those are the root causes of emissions supplying them as a partnership and I'm going to end by summing up the stories of today black carbon emissions make a little bit of different climate solid fuel burning is maybe not a solution for climate but a solution for lots of other things if you ask the right questions and the root causes of emissions to the heart and the home and human needs thank you thank you we have time for questions they're going to bring the microphone to you awesome so my big question is then what do I do with this data like I don't I'm not someone who really knows climate change or climate stuff very much so it very much feels like this is an amazing story but what do I do with it now so do you have any suggestions of what's maybe the next step and okay well we know these things where do we go with from there okay so is your question what am I going to do with it or what are you going to do with it suggestions of what we should do with it I guess suggestions of what we should do with it let me go let me go broad here first I'm going to tell you what I'm doing with it we are working closely with communities to identify new ways of helping them identify the need for energy services so that people who do engineering can respond to those needs in service rather than as technologists and those ways of working involve there's a whole field of participatory action but in addition creating spaces in which the voices can be heard and so broadly what I think people need to do as engineers if they will and I will speak specifically to people who want to serve that lower income segment whether it's here in the United States or abroad learn how to engage so that you can put your considerable expertise and tools in service improving environments and living quality for people who don't have a lot of resources is one of the hardest things we are tasked with it is not easy but relatively easy to make a product for somebody who will buy it it is really actually very hard to make things that serve people who don't have resources who don't have maintenance who don't have power and so the first thing is is it mostly engineers here or is it I don't know but let me speak to the engineers here not that I want to exclude anyone else you are good at designing for constraints you are really good at designing for constraints figure out what the constraints are I think that's something I had to do the hard and rocky way like oh I've been observing these houses and I thought it was about climate skip that step figure out the constraints figure out what people want have an awareness of environmental impact and then reduce environmental impact by providing service but take the long way in to figure out what is of service and what matches people's needs and what speaks to their aspirations those are the constraints that we have to design for question over here my question is I think black carbon emission this is my first time I've heard about the black carbon emission to the atmospheric global climate impact probably what I would like to ask is as far as I'm concerned with my limited understanding on this I haven't seen any locomotive research on the like black carbon capture or black carbon utilization because as far as I'm concerned a lot of those locomotive researchers are talking about carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide but is it because of the like small impact to the on the short term impact mostly from the black carbon that they don't really pay attention on that as I see your research is still in the stage of the measurement only or are you also to the capturing the utilization and can you also mention how the carbon pricing see up to the level of utilizing or capturing the black carbon I think you asked about four questions there so let me try to address the ones that I remember number one I haven't heard of it so in countries that have stringent air quality regulations like ours black carbon is a particle and so it comes under particulate matter regulations most people have not felt the need to regulate black carbon separately because it's captured under particulate matter regulations and so that's why you don't hear about it in the United States because there are no equivalent discussion with CO2 because it's actually not listed in the Kyoto protocol and so you could put a price on it with the global warming potential but there are six gases listed in the Kyoto protocol and you won't get paid for reducing anything but what's listed in there now there are I believe that it's in California's climate change regulation we're considering putting it in their climate change emission reporting but that's still kind of early and then it's not clear what to do with those reports because it's not in the Kyoto protocol what about capture technologies I think you asked and how does carbon price affect it so the best thing to do with black carbon is it's a particle you don't have to try to capture it in the same way you do CO2 because the first thing you can do is burn better which people have already figured out how to do and the second thing you do is put a standard particle control on and that's what happens with diesel trucks so that it already is a part of regulation but right now it's not coming under climate change regulations although it affects climate change the same is true of sulfur from power plants sulfur particles have been masking climate warming but nobody puts them in climate change regulation even though they're a pretty big lever on forcing right now so I don't know if that answers all your questions but some maybe and there's no trading and it's probably not a good idea one over here thanks for fantastic talk you didn't mention renewable energy do you think renewable energy might meet some of these needs okay so do I think renewable energy might meet some of the needs and I think you're specifically referring to household needs and I didn't mention that as a possibility so there are many energy solutions and the thing that you have to do is match the cost with the quantity needed so solar panels for example with LED lights are widely distributed and very successful at replacing some of those kerosene emissions and so that's a way that emissions are reduced with renewable energy we've had in general a lot less success with the cooking part of the equation because it's 10 times more energy and when you get to heating or water heating it's maybe another factor 5 more energy again and so scaling up renewable energy or accessible energy technologies to be able to provide those larger quantities of energy is something that people need to work on and so you'll see a lot of solar distribution plans but when even if you were to invest in those are those people telling you yes and this will provide 3% of a household energy not really so thinking about that supply demand match along with how you're delivering the energy and where you're getting it from is part of being holistic or comprehensive additional questions comments in the previous panel there was a professor here talking about I believe that's maybe not the solution but it's a solution in the right direction for cooking needs that could be instead of wood burning go to solar yes okay so there's a question about solar cookers is that a part of the equation there is a long discussion to have about solar cookers there are people who very strongly believe that it is a part of the solution and they tend to be rather poorly supported part of the reason is the same reason that we struggle with renewable energy is the match between when you get the solar energy and when you need it and so people who need to cook before they go out to the fields for example when it's still dark don't want to use the solar cooker the adoption rates tend to be low do I believe it's part of the solution again we have to think about what people need when they need it and how to provide it you have a follow-up question to your first question okay so essentially what you're saying is the solar cooker well maybe it was a really good idea and could really solve some things because the person who invented it didn't take into account those human aspect needs which you talked about at the end of your lecture it's not being adopted and thus it's not as good a solution as it originally seemed to be that's a nice summary thank you which you're you're hired I am looking for a summer internship we can talk it's very sunny in Colorado let me tell you time for maybe one more question I'm not sure exactly how to frame this but I've been thinking a lot about whose role it is to really realize that the dialogue needs to expand between just engineers and their project managers what is like some approaches you've taken I think in the previous talk you mentioned that maybe you didn't deliver exactly the same goals oh no that was this one the same goals that you were asked for by your managers maybe you realize that there was like more of a social component that you needed to integrate like how do you expand that when you're asked to do one thing but you realize there's so much more to it do you bring in more people to the conversation or do you kind of expand the scope of your own work oh that's a really good question so the short answer to your question is with great difficulty because so I've spent now probably eight years trying to find the right social scientists because within social sciences of course many flavors and then within each flavor there's people who have different methods and so my journey through that expansion I would also characterize as rocky but because I got people who told me no that's not a thing we don't do that nobody does that okay if somebody tells you that they're wrong everybody everything has already been done you just need to find the person who's doing it but that's not easy so it's for me it's been a matter of sort of hacking and learning keywords and then going oh no there's a whole journal about this it's not that novel and then trying to find the expert who really wants to also answer that question so the ideal match is the person who has asking an interest in you in that question from a different direction but it's hard to find that and let's not even talk about the funding right it's a challenge because it tends to be very disciplinary even when it tries to be interdisciplinary but it's a challenge that we all have as researchers I think that we're in a society with a structure in an environment that was set up to make great progress within disciplines and now the benefit is going to come from combining disciplines but you know even the notion of well we need two graduate students one with expertise in each then you double the size of the project and so I feel like I'm still learning how to do that I don't have a great answer you confessed you didn't have a great framing answer let's thank Dr. Bond one last time