 Good afternoon. Good morning or good evening. Welcome to this Stockholm Environment Institute webinar, which is being held together with GIZ, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, and UN Environment on this first United Nations International Day of Clean Air for Blue Skies. My name is Johann Schulanchena, and I am a research leader at the Stockholm Environment Institute, and I'm heading the work on air pollution. I would like to point out that this webinar is being recorded. This webinar focuses on the actions we need to take to address air pollution as we come out of the COVID crisis. We have seen what an important drive of the health impacts of COVID-19 have been for strong national and international action and cooperation to solve that particular health issue. Today we focus on the huge impacts that air pollution have on human health and with the large stimulus packages being discussed to recover from COVID-19, we need to grasp this opportunity to ensure that the investments are used to reduce emissions around the globe that lead to air pollution. But we don't just have a massive air pollution problem, we also have the climate crisis and we have agreed to achieve the sustainable development goals by 2030. Fortunately there are solutions that can solve several issues at the same time, so we need to be smart and develop coherent strategies that can address multiple issues. Today, as well as holding this webinar, SEI and GIZ are also launching a policy brief on the importance of planning to reduce air pollution and climate change at the same time, which you can find on the SEI website. We have an excellent panel of speakers and have planned question and answer sessions as well. We have split the webinar into two parts with a Q&A session after each part. To draw this in, I'm going to have to be strict on timing and we remind speakers when they are nearing the end of their time. So let me introduce the speakers for the first session. First we have Geraint Davis, who is a member of the UK Parliament and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. He will be followed by professors are Andy Haynes from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Then we will listen to Helena Maline Valdez, who is the head of the CCAC Secretariat based at UN Environment in Paris. And the last speaker will be Dr Eleni Iacobythu, who is a lecturer from Brunel University in London. I will introduce the speakers in session two at the start of that session. Four participants who are listening to this webinar, I would like to inform you that we have a Q&A function, which is in the top right hand corner of your screen. Please could you tell us who you are, which organisation you belong to in that, so we know for our information. Also please feel free to ask questions in the Q&A as the webinar proceeds. And we will have staff from SEI as well as the speakers who will be responding as we go through the webinar. You can either ask an open question or target an individual speaker, but please state your organisation in the questions. And we're also going to use these questions to define which questions we will take up in the verbal Q&A session. So without further ado, we're going to now start with a film which has been produced by the all-party parliamentary group and Geraint has supplied to us. So please could we first have the film and then Geraint Davis will present his thoughts afterwards. Over to the film. Well, behind that very merry film are some fatal facts. 900,000 people this year have died from coronavirus. 7 million people are dying every year from air pollution. Millions and millions more will die from climate change from forced migration, hunger and conflict. We're only one degree ahead of the 19th century temperatures. But of course, over Europe is two degrees, over Arctic is three degrees, which accounts for the fact that 850 8,500 tons a second of ice are melting from Greenland. So we face a catastrophe in our lives and our children's lives. And it's great that we've got this opportunity to join the dots between COVID air pollution and climate change today. Because the reality is coronavirus is increased in terms of death rate by air pollution. We know from Harvard that they estimate something like 88% more deaths occur for one microgram of PM 2.5 per cubic meter of air. So now 15% the research in the Netherlands suggests. So if we just reduced the amount from say 14 to 13 in London, we'd get 15% less deaths. We also know that increases the infection rate. As we've heard from Queen Mary's College, the ACE2 receptors in your nose and your throat, which take on COVID are accentuated in the event of air pollution in the particulates themselves may actually carry the disease. So clearly we need a clean air strategy out of lockdown. And the question really that my group had asked is what does that look like? And in simple terms as that film showed, firstly, it means working from home, not getting back in the car and going back to the office to workers means encourage working from home, increasing connectivity, increasing training, staggering work, reducing congestion, staggering entry into school, making school safer. It might be the case we should have six days of school, four days per pupil, which would of course mean that two thirds of the pupils at any one time to increase social distancing. Clearly we don't want people idling outside schools. We want better indoor air quality in schools. We want more cycling. We want more to pedestrianization. We want more, not less, public transport, more frequent, more socially distance, cleaner and with masks. We want private transport, the grid for electric, for hydrogen sped up rather than held back by the fossil fuel industry. We want fossil fuel cars banned by 2030 at the very latest. We want scrappage schemes. We want fuel duty. People don't want fuel. We do need fuel duty alongside better public transport and scrappage schemes. We need green trains, green planes, green ships as well as green cars and we need less travel. We can do more work from home online. Do we really need HS2? I know it's a bit controversial, but do we need it? We need masks wherever people assemble in office, in work, at play, in school. We need renewable energy, whether it's tidal, solar or wind. We need to ban wood and coal burning domestically. It counts for 38% of PM 2.5. We want to impose World Health Organization limits in our legislation. 10 microgams per cubic meter per 2030 should be an environment bill. It isn't agriculture. We should reduce ammonia, which in fertiliser, which increases its own particulates. We should ban fracking. Fracking 5% of the methane is leak through fugitive emissions. Methane 85 times worse than CO2 for global warning. It should be banned. Our carbon footprint in our consumption should be reduced by more local production, less carbon intensive imports. We need a fiscal strategy in our budgets to focus on getting down carbon. And we need you can wrap up that. I am wrapping up. We need a strategy on indoor air quality as well, where we spend 90% of the time to actually get rid of the harmful chemicals. We also need to get rid of microplastics. There should be a tax on plastics, target for aggregate production, air monitors outside every school to drive consumer opinion and a safe Brexit, which is Paris compliant. COP 26 is Britain's chance to impose the idea of trade, which puts carbon head and shoulders above everything else. I know I'm out of time. The world is out of time, so let's get together, save lives, save the planet and save our better future for all our children. Thank you very much. Well, thank you very much for that rousing, rousing speech there. And so I'd like to pass quickly on to Professor Sir Andy Haynes. If you could, Andy, if you could take it on after that rousing speech from Gerard. Sure, thanks very much, Johann. So I think we've given a great introduction by Gerard Davis, who's really very eloquently made the case for emerging from COVID along a healthy and zero carbon trajectory. What I'm going to do is to make the links between air pollution reduction, health and the sustainable development goals and the SDGs. Can I have the first slide please? The SDGs and the next one. The SDGs are, of course, a global set of goals, 17 goals, 169 targets, which pretty well all the governments in the world have signed up to, although many of them have not pursued with the intensity that they should have done. The SDGs helped to frame the development agenda over the coming decade of 2030. And all those SDGs, of course, number three, good health and well-being is very much at the centre of them, but number three is very much about health care delivery. It doesn't mention air pollution, but it also focuses very much on health care delivery. But I want to make the case that many of the other SDGs are also vital for health, for sustainable development and for a low carbon future. So, for example, if we look at number two, goal two, that's about ending hunger, achieving food security. And of course, we know the climate change is a major threat to food security around the world because crop yields are going to decline as a result of climate change. So moving towards more sustainable diets, protecting nature and using our land more responsibly is a vital part of climate change mitigation, improving health. Next slide, please. This slide just shows you how moving towards healthy dietary guidelines, such as those specified by the WHO, will result in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, largely because of reduction in methane, because we consume large amounts of red meat and dairy products, which of course are associated with methane production. Vegetarian diets, of course, have a greater reduction, but it doesn't mean to say that we have to move totally towards vegetarianism. Even somewhat a reduction in red meat, for example, would have a substantial beneficial effect on methane production. And also increasing intake of fruit and vegetables, nuts and seeds will also produce very major health benefits. Next slide. So when we've done on the UK diet shows that if we could follow the WHO nutritional guidelines, we could reduce our per capita, per head emissions by about 300 kilograms per year of CO2 equivalent, that's largely methane, of course. And there would be a substantial benefit in terms of life expectancy, about eight months increase something of that order by eating more fruit and vegetables, somewhat less of red meat and other other sources. Next slide. And then we've seen the eat lancet commission, which has put forward its idea of a planetary health diet, which they suggested could prevent 10 to 11 million premature deaths by mid century, something like that and lead to a sustainable global food system. And in that diet, they suggested we need to eat less animal source protein, and there's dairy, lots of whole grains, and again, fruit and vegetables, certainly 500 grams a day, probably more 600 grams, perhaps, and also much less sugar, of course, as well. So the combination that they suggested could be tailored to different dietary patterns and different cultures and provides a kind of guideline towards which we can aim. Next slide. So STG3, as I've said, epitomizes and really focuses on universal health coverages, but also talks about reducing air pollution because it can cut child deaths and of course, non communicable disease deaths as well. Heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. And as we've already heard, these are the kind of conditions that predispose to poor outcomes from COVID. So they increase the risk of death from COVID. Next slide, please. Goal five is about achieving gender equality and certainly many parts of the world where solid fuels are still burnt to generate cooking for cooking purposes and so on. Household air pollution kills about 1.7 1.6 million people a year, something of that order. And also searching for the fuel exposes largely women to the risk of violence and also takes up a great deal of time. So moving towards clean fuels can have multiple benefits in the home. Next slide. And of course, goal seven is about providing electricity access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. And that can reduce the premature deaths by several millions, as I'll show I think in the next slide. Next, please. So the next slide does show you indeed the number of deaths that could be prevented from phasing out fossil fuel burning. We believe about 3.6 million deaths here, something of that order are related to the air pollution generated when we burn fossil fuels. And the map shows you where the benefits would be greatest over Asia, that's China, India, Europe, North America, less so over Africa because they burn less fossil fuels. But if we include other sources like agricultural burning, like the pollution that escapes from households, then there are substantial deaths as well, all around the world due to these various human related sources of air pollution. So there's a big health benefit if we move towards a zero carbon, zero combustion economy. Next slide. And then finally, running out of time, goal 11 is of course cities moving towards low carbon clean air cities, but also moving towards more active travel, which in addition to the air pollution benefits can also provide major physical activity, activity benefits as well. Next slide. I think I'll skip over that, but it basically shows that there have been big benefits for diabetes and the whole range of other conditions related to centralism. And then finally, of course, goal 15 is about promoting the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems. We also know that probably several hundred thousand lives a year are lost because of the air pollution from forest burning and other types of landscape burning. So protecting forest cover can reduce air pollution as well as having other health benefits. So I'll stop there. Next slide. I think the final slide. Yeah, so I'll stop there just by concluding that there are many benefits of moving towards a low carbon or zero carbon economy. And if you value if you put economic values on those benefits, then they will, in many cases, offset totally the effects that the costs really of moving down to zero carbon strategy. So just to emphasize, as we come out of COVID, we should do so on a zero carbon strategy to reduce air pollution and protect health and also achieve the many economic and social benefits that we can do from moving along that trajectory. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Andy. So you really eloquently talked about all of these linkages between these different stable development goals. And now I would ask Helene Amelie and Valdez to emphasize the work that the Climate Clean Air Coalition has done to try and integrate these issues. Helene, you need to unmute. Yes, hello. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for this excellent introductions. A lot has been said already. Maybe I can just move quickly straight into my presentation. The purpose of integrated planning for air pollution and climate change is what we in the Climate and Clean Air Coalition has been advocating for since 2012. And it's on its sharp edge right now during the pandemic, but it's also on its sharp edge because of the climate crisis. Next. So most of the air pollutants and greenhouse gases are co-emitted from the same sources. So therefore, air pollution and climates are two sides of the same coin. So it's very important that policymakers, and we saw some excellent, heard some excellent views from the parliamentarian who opened this meeting, it's important to look at both impacts and benefits from air pollutants and greenhouse gases because of these sources. And an integrated approach to climate and clean air action can allow us to then, at the one hand, assess the net impact of the change in emissions on global temperature and local air quality. We can also quantify the multiple public health and agriculture impacts benefits of those changes that Andy Haines was talking about right now. We will have the benefit of hearing a presentation about this methodology by both Chris and our colleagues in Mexico. Next. So when it comes to the pathways that we chose, we are really on an unsustainable path still. And we were so even before the pandemic hit us. During lockdown, we celebrated in some places blue skies for the first time since very long, like in the Himalayas and many of the cities of Europe and around the world. But without transformational changes, these emissions are quickly returning. And when we look at the needs and the unsustainability of the path we have right now, we are already in 1.2 degrees warming since pre-industrial times while we need to stay way below 2 degrees and towards 1.5 degrees. So we are almost at the threshold already. Seven million premature deaths per year from air pollution is our normal number, let's say, and the climate change and the burden of the seeds from pollution continue to be the most important environmental threat that our species faces today. Also pollution, smog, black carbon and co-pollutants are, well, especially the ozone is impacting more than 100 million tons of crops every year. We jeopardize the food security coming back to Andy Haines, a connection to the sustainable development goals. And this, of course, is something that needs to be up front during the recovery policies right now in the stimulus programs implementation and connection between health, air pollution, climate and the environment. Next. So we know the solutions and the technologies. It's also about lifestyle and choices, but it's not enough with lifestyle and choices from individuals. It's really about systemic changes of industry, of energy sources to more towards and towards renewable energy, and many other things. It's also about being prepared in advance to improve public health systems everywhere, work on addressing vulnerabilities and inequalities, which is, of course, part to define the sustainable path we need. If you look at this graph, which is our CCAC, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition's, let's say, it's our framework and fundament that we stand on, it's not enough. Of course, we should not do business as usual. It will lead us to a temperature increase that goes three, four, even five degrees above pre-industrial levels. It's also not enough to focus only on those pollutants that are short-lived in the atmosphere like methane, which is, methane is 40% almost of the global forcing after CO2, tropospheric ozone and black carbon. It's not enough. It's not enough to do one or the other. We have to do all of it and we have to do it fast. It's about avoiding the tipping points here, tipping points, both when it comes to public health impacts, but most importantly, what this graph is showing us is the temperature that can lead us to catastrophic tipping points. So, next, I'm trying to be very short because there is much to say about all of this. So what we really want, which path will we take? What we really want to achieve is what Andy Haines said, we want to achieve sustainable development for all, Clean Air for all and sustainable development for all. So by selecting a pathway and having the tools to model what those pathways will look at in terms of rates of emissions could lead us to either a rate of millions of deaths and losing millions of tons of tons of crop yields in the next few decades, which is the upper scenario, or we can have a lot to be gained by moving down to the lower trajectory and it's much better changes to achieve many societal goals if we take these decisions in an integrated way in terms of planning and implementation. So this is why we recommend to choose this pathway of multiple benefits and integrated benefits for all. Next one. Could you wrap up now, please? Yes, I will wrap up now quickly. So addressing poor air quality and climate change, we can go to next one actually immediately. I wanted to quote our Secretary-General António Térrez and my UNEP director, Executive Director Inge Anderson who just spoke in an event just recently, but we can talk about this later because it's really about getting rid of fossil fuels, looking at cities, etc. We can talk about that later today. So to wrap up on the Climate and Clean Air Coalition support to integrated planning, this is an initiative that we have now been able to, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition has grown from six countries to 70 countries and we are now in hundreds of participating agencies and NGOs. We have been working with 70 countries to help them in this integrated planning and the final final slide, please. And by working together in coordinated ways we hope to use also this clean air day that is today the 7th of September every day to start to use this as a milestone to share information beyond countries, cities and agencies around the world. There is no, as we know, there is no global framework for clean air and air quality except for in the UNECE region. Is this something we can achieve together through integrated planning and through political decisions moving forward? Thank you Johan. Thank you very much Alina. So there are many linkages between you know climate and clean air and also with the SDGs and I would like to now ask Dr Eleni Iacovidou if she could make a link then to other aspects as well. So Eleni would you please give your presentation. Thank you for the introduction. Yes so I'd like to make the link of all these great things that you've mentioned the previous speakers mentioned in regards to clean air and pollution to the issue of plastics and plastic waste. So if we move to the next slide we'll see that the plastics are used in many applications and the biggest application is the plastic packaging that is used to transport different products and goods to us such as food and liquids and other goods and recently the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how dependent we are on plastic components and products because these plastics have been used in the production of personal protection equipment in the production of other medical devices that are used to protect people as well as ensuring people in the various services that we are using in terms of protecting us from getting the virus. So if the plastic is such a useful material with so many applications that is flowing in our market what's the problem with this material? It offers so many benefits so why can we how does it contribute to the air pollution and the next slide shows that relationship between the extraction and use and the management stages involved in the plastics life cycle that actually gives us an indication of where the problem is. The problem is everywhere is on the making, on the use and the management of the plastic waste that is produced in our system. Why? Because they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and eventually to climate change. For example in a recent study by Shenadal they suggested that the production of crude oil and its refinery process in order to produce plastic polymers, plastic polymeric resins that is used in the plastic making contributes to 68 million tons of CO2 equivalent and that gives you an indication of how big the problem is and then we go into the transportation of these polymeric resins into the manufacturing processes and then the various products into our economies and then we have the production of plastic waste and that's where the problems begin again because the way that we are disposing this plastic material is important as well as the management. In the developed world we have recycling, we have incineration with or without energy recovery and we have landfilling all of which contributing their own way to the climate change impacts depending on what kind of technologies we have but that's where the the issue is in the developed countries we may have some technologies in order to ameliorate a little bit how much greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere during the management of plastic waste. When we don't have infrastructure to deal with the material, the plastic waste components that we don't we can't recycle what would what do we do we ship them to other countries and the next slide shows that the material the plastic waste that we do not process in developed countries is shipped to southeast asian countries for recycling but that's that's a misguided recycling process that's where major problems occur that contribute to air pollution because these countries to where we ship our plastic waste for recycling don't always have the infrastructure and capacity to deal with our plastic waste and often they resort to dumping these waste to landfills that are not controlled and first we have the slow degradation of plastic waste materials that release toxic pollutants to the atmosphere or most likely they burn the plastic and the next picture shows the magnitude of the problem. The next slide shows that we have this open burning that takes place for plastic waste that is in the form of packaging for example imagine bottles pots trays and tops that are burning these open dump sites but we also have the burning of plastic components that are retrieved from the electrical and electronic equipment for example and these are heavy in additives and other pollutants which when the plastic is burning they are releasing the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse gases and climate change and then of course we have the litter that is slowly degrading into the environment releasing harmful substances and finally what I'm trying to get at is that via the next slide is that what we really need to do is to think about how we can change that picture how can we manage and retain the plastic materials that we depend on in our economy for longer and that's where a systems-based approach can help us to understand where interventions can be made in order to mitigate the but the harmful impacts of these materials in our economy and how we can maximize the value that we can capture from the plastic materials that we placed in our system. Thank you very much Elaine that was very interesting so we have a number of questions that have been posted and we have some and there are some things that really you know I thought were very interesting. So I'd like to ask a question first of Geraint. So you represent people in Wales relatively contributing a small amount to climate change now do you think that the story of air pollution and health can generate enough critical mass to mobilize the support we need to help all the other different goals including the Paris agreement. Do you feel Geraint that you know this interest in health is a turning point in terms of getting people to be interested or not? Yeah I mean I think people are reviewing the way they live and they will respond in sentiment to clean out way out of lockdown but I think the essential thing is not to blame people and expect too much of people but to recognize that governments of all the levers to provide a fiscal framework to make people do things. If you for instance tax as we've just heard if you tax plastics so the cost of a plastic bottle is twice three times as much people might use them more often and they'd use sustainable alternatives if you increase the cost of fossil fuel to drive and subsidize public transport they would do that. Instead the government just stands back and says do the right thing and it's simply not good enough. We spend more on fossil fuel subsidy than the entire GDP of the UK and France combined it's simply not sustainable. So talking about doing the right thing Andy I was wondering if you could expand on on some of those solutions that provide multiple benefits and I was I was kind of interested in the slide that you didn't have time to to present on. Do you think you could look at those some of those solutions that you're alluding to for hitting all these different sustainable development goals? Well one of course is cities I mean we're seeing a lot of activity at the sub-national level. A lot of mayors for example with a lot of ambition to decarbonize their city economy as much as they can and also capitalize on the health benefits of doing that. So in cities for example there are a number of strategies you can implement some of them we've already heard about. Obviously active travel is a great way to get people exercising we know about on a global scale over five million people a year die of essentially lack of exercise of sedentary lifestyle and really the only way to get people active on a mass basis is by walking and cycling. Attaining the gym of course isn't going to work it's not going to be sustained. So public transport people have to walk to the bus stop walk to the to the tube station or whatever. Walking and cycling are essential real components of any kind of recovery strategy and I think we are seeing a number of cities around the world now prioritizing the emergence of walking and cycling and what you need to do to get people who've not walked and cycled very much before is to make it safe to do so and that means making the air cleaner but also reducing the risks the the risk of accidents and so on. So these are things that city policymakers can do. We also know that there's a lot that can be done in terms of the built environment so in housing for example you know our houses are extremely inefficient so by retrofitting housing that could provide major job opportunities as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and we've shown that if you did that in the case of the UK if you retrofitted our housing stock you could probably prevent at several thousand premature deaths a year from reduced pollution levels in the house as well as less cold and so on but you have to take into account if you just seal up houses you can actually increase the level of air pollution in them so you actually have to have combination of insulation, double triple glazing and better ventilation so these are just some examples of some of the things that you could do with a determined government that was really aimed to capitalize on some of the multiple benefits from decarbonizing the economy. Yes I'm also struck by Eleni your presentation which really asked us to rethink our approaches you know so you're looking at the drivers and some of the solutions to multiple problems as well now as it says in the Q&A do you believe that these linkages have enough visibility can it help to emphasize the air pollution angle of plastic waste as well as all the other things perhaps you could expand on that. I don't think they have enough visibility and I don't think that people I think that the climate action movement for example is very much focused on the impact of climate change and it's a little bit of I come from Sweden and I was there not long ago and I could see all this shaming and blaming and it's a lot and there is a lot of fear about the future so I think there is less there is less emphasis on what we can actually do to change and as has been said by previous speakers it's obviously not so much what an individual can achieve alone but it's definitely what an individual can achieve by putting pressure on policymakers and also be aware of these connections of climate health and other benefits what does it mean when I burn my waste how much waste do we all generate individually that we could avoid how much do we recycle and compost to reduce both the waste the waste mountain and at the same time by not either burning or or releasing the biogas and methane that is the result of of organic waste I don't think people in general realize what it takes and and also I think we need to focus our attention a lot on what's possible what the solutions are and and what the opportunities are and from trash to to treasure for example that kind of messages and the lifestyle changes that that that we heard about before when it comes to to food etc so a little bit less catastrophic scare because people get paralyzed as well it seems so catastrophic that maybe we can't do anything at all about it so by bringing in some of those multiple benefits and and clear messages on what we indeed can do and then put that pressure on policymakers and understand when and when when some of the decisions are taken that might put some some constraints on our movement let's say the 15 minute city would be fantastic to live in a city where the city dwellers could walk or or move around in public transport and be able basically to solve their issues within a range of 15 minutes this is something that Paris where I'm now living is trying to achieve and the mayor here gets a lot of heat because of this because then of course there are some trade-offs always so by by by proposing this proactive solutions and having a movement of people behind it because there is a positive personal gain basically for a global and local political direction to take so that's what I think is still missing and we can do a little bit more as either as activists but also as scientists as advocates and as the United Nations of course too to try to really put emphasis on what works and what it takes to make it happen and now is a great moment where we can either go one way or the other from the brown and the green let's say we have this multiple billions and trillions of money that is now going to be reinvested into the economy after this lockdown period and I don't see immediately how this will lead us to a better future if there is not a lot of pressure making it happen and showcasing what what the multiple benefits look like. Thank you very much Helena and I was just finally Eleni Iacovidu who perhaps this idea of a systems thinking do you feel that there is enough systems thinking going on or do you think this could be a game changer if we highlight those aspects? That's a very good question and I think that there is people have started looking at the system-based approaches which is really great but we need to be careful that we don't repeat the same mistakes as we did with the circular economy that has turned out to be something as of more like a model rather than a pathway to a better future. So this systems-based approach is the only way to help us see how one intervention at the production let's say part of the system can impact the what happens at the management step of the system. So how does design of plastics for example can help us retain that material in the economy for longer without necessarily impacting on humans, on the environment, on the economy as well. So it's about using the systems-based approach to promote sustainable development as the ultimate goal and the sustainable circular economy as far as it is possible to be achieved. Well thank you very much so what I'd like to do now is to move to the second part of our webinar. So here I'd like to introduce a few more speakers for the second session. We will start with Dr Chris Malley who is a colleague of mine at Stockholm Environment Institute who is a senior research fellow at SCI York Centre at University of York. He will be followed by Dr Luis Gerardo Ruiz Suarez from the National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change Enoch in Mexico. We will then listen to Joande Aue a senior environmental engineer at the World Bank and finally we will have Dr Sarah West who is the SCI York Centre Director at the University of York and we will then have a chance to have more questions and answers and I would like to ask all panelists to be answering of the questions which are posed in the Q&A and to anyone listening to use the Q&A function to put forward any ideas or questions you have for the people who are speaking today. Then finally we will have some reflections from Dr Patrick Bucher of GIZ and I'll close the session. So could I ask Chris Malley could you make your presentation please. Thank you very much Johan and thank you very much. It's very nice to be here. We've heard a lot about the health impacts that air pollution has and very clearly from Helena about the opportunity of linking air pollution and climate change. In my presentation I'd like to talk a bit about how the Climate and Clean Air Coalition supporting national action and planning or SNAP initiative is working directly with national governments to try and operationalize and achieve the air pollution and climate change benefits. I want to summarize this opportunity in one slide that I think is really effective on the next slide on one figure sorry. This is research from the European Commission Joint Research Centre that shows that if we take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is consistent with the Paris Agreement target of two degrees the associated reduction in air pollutant emissions will avoid over a million premature deaths by 2050. With current emission reduction pledges in nationally determined contributions were on course for about 300,000 avoided premature deaths. So really our mission, our goal in the SNAP initiative is to get as close to that blue line or even higher in terms of maximizing the air pollution benefits that can come from achieving the long-term temperature targets outlined in the Paris Agreement. On the next slide we talk about how we achieve this. We achieve this by trying to build capacity within national institutions for planning on reduction in air pollution and climate change mitigation. There are over 30 countries who are involved in the SNAP initiative of the CCAC at the moment and each of those countries have finalized and endorsed national action plans to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases or to reduce short-lived climate pollutants and in this round of revisions to climate change commitments in the lead-up to the Copping Glasgow in 2021 we're working with 10 countries to enhance their climate change mitigation ambition through actions that directly improve air pollution locally. I'd like to talk about three of the factors that I think are important in increasing action in countries on integrated air pollution and climate change mitigation. These aren't exhaustive but I think are useful and are things that have been useful in the countries where we're working. On the next slide the first one is providing quantitative evidence of the potential benefits of different policies and measures that reduce emissions and of greenhouse gases and air pollutants. SEI's low emission analysis platform tool has been extensively applied to estimate emissions of greenhouse gases and of air pollutants for future scenarios for the implementation of different policies and measures and with support from the CCAC over the last five years we've extended this tool to allow you to look at those emission scenarios and quantify the benefits in terms of reduction in air pollutant in PM2.5 exposures and benefits for human health. Benefits in terms of reduction in global average temperature change and that has meant that national institutions have been able to develop their plans and summarize them in key statistics. The next slide shows Garner's national action plan to reduce short-lived climate pollutants. It includes 15 specific mitigation measures that they are taking including those included in their nationally determined contribution. The implementation of these 15 mitigation measures were estimated to avoid 2,500 premature deaths by 2030 from reductions in outdoor air pollution exposure to reduce the crop yield loss from air pollution exposure by 40%. It's not just human exposure to air pollution that has impacts it also is important for food security and to reduce Garner's contribution to global temperature increases by 55%. Providing this quantitative evidence of the impacts and benefits of these integrated air pollution and climate change plans helps to achieve the second key factor shown on the next slide which is building a coalition of support for taking these actions. And I think the Maldives, the work that they've done in developing their first action plan on air pollutants provides an excellent example of this. The graph on the left, the green, the dark green line shows that by implementing the Maldives climate change mitigation commitments they could reduce PM 2.5 emissions across the Maldives by 35%. But this allowed them to then identify the additional actions over and above what they had already committed to on climate change which was mainly actions on land and marine transport that could further reduce emissions. And by demonstrating these benefits from taking action in the transport sector, our colleagues in the environment and the Maldives jointly launched and endorsed this plan with the Ministry of Environment on the left of that picture and the Minister of Transport on the right of that picture. The third key factor that I want to highlight today shown on the next slide, oh no sorry I'm going to stick with this key factor for a moment and just highlight Nigeria's National Action Plan on Air Pollution but still on this slide, thank you. And just to highlight that in Nigeria's National Action Plan on Air Pollution which is estimated to avoid 7,000 premature deaths per year whilst achieving half of their climate change commitment under their NBC is now being jointly implemented by three institutions by the Ministry of Budget and National Planning and the Cabinet Office as well as the Ministry of Environment. And this is because it's been demonstrated that this plan directly contributes to the six criteria in Nigeria's National Development Plan. The final factor that I want to highlight on the next slide is getting high level political endorsement and commitment to action. When we think back of that opportunity of reducing a million premature deaths by 2050 by achieving the Paris target we receive a lot of encouragement about actually being able to do that in the real world from the nationally determined contributions that are being published this year in this cycle of NDC commitments. Chile has committed to reduce greenhouse gases with a vision for full decarbonisation by 2050 but they're in their NDC that was submitted in April they made a second commitment to reduce black carbon emissions by 25% by 2030 specifically because of the air pollution and climate change benefits that can result from that and particularly the air pollution benefits from low income people who are cooking using biomass for heating in their homes. And the encouraging thing about Chile's NDC commitment is that in the analysis they did the most cost effective mitigation measures like electric heating in homes and electrification of the vehicle fleet were those that can achieve the air pollution reductions. Thank you there are many other examples of this and for anybody interested in finding out more about how NDCs can be enhanced through actions to reduce air pollution I would encourage you to look at this guidance document that outlines four specific opportunities. Thank you. Thank you Chris now I'd like to turn to Dr Luis Gerardo Ruiz-Tawara from Enec in Mexico where a lot of policy has been implemented so Luis Gerardo could you please present your talk. Yes sir this one please or do I share? If you if you ask for the next slide to be changed they'll do that one. Yes please next slide next slide please. Okay here I'm going to show you a success story about air pollution mitigations with impacts on health and also some interest on climate change. Here in this view we have the maximum value of on daily ozone in in Mexico City in the metropolitan area of Mexico City from the 1990 to the 2020. In this axis we have the different air quality management programs and different actions. The black line is when we activate the level of concentration needed to activate the contingency program that implies restrictions on mobility and some activities that have been going down with time. On the little table we have the health benefits we have due to sorry I'm not showing the precursors for ozone but they also show that they also have to decrease to get to get this trend in ozone. In PM 2.5 from 1990 to 2015 there was an 18.2000 avoided premature deaths due to PM 2.5 and due to ozone 4.1000 total and 22.3000 avoided that and also we have another welfare benefit that is the increase in life expectancy for a beer for PM 2.5 1.3 also 1.9 total 3.2 years and for adults that already spent part of their life in a high pollution city. In modest game point eight years and for each one of these pollutants. So that's the success but it's not even I'm showing you the mean values but the variability is quite hard because it depends on where you live and how do you move around the city. Next please. Here is the result of a study on the using this system of life cycle approach the estimated carbon footprint during use about 50 years of a house of new income law of new low income housing in Mexico for larger cities and the mega law police for larger cities is about 40% of the total carbon footprint is due to the use of transport. Smaller cities have a 70% and that's and that's and also it means that they spent a lot of their income on that on transport working class people spent a lot of a lot of their income on that and you see the the other energy use electricity and even cooking it it's almost impossible to see it in the in the in the in the bars yes so there is a lot of work to do next please. Here is a another study which I will participate in these two in these two studies I have the fortune to want to be in there and here on the left we have a exposure a study of a personal exposure study in one a long one is straight in the south part of Mexico and we see and walking walking the exposure of walking yellow is in one way and orange is in the same street and in the opposite way walking cycling public buses a common car gasoline car and a hybrid without air conditioning so these are the the dots are the maximum values cycling you are more responsible to that because there is not a separate lane for cycling and also but anyway some studies says that and despite of that and there is a gain on cycling but but the point is nobody goes cycling or walking if they if the trip in the trip to work and takes two hours you have to go people will take public transport sometimes people change of to both to metro and then to and then to another another way of moving in from 1920 from from 2000s to 2010 the census data shows that the distance to work increase in average in the megalopolis one kilometer one way so it is two kilometers one way and back but there are 10 million one-way trips to work 20 million 20 million that means 20 million kilometers per day extra one minute yeah okay next please so uh that means people people have to spend too much time in in in public transport we need to address that some integrated policy that we are taking is we are there is a coming a commitment to reduce black carbon in the indices the general long climate change includes greenhouse gases and short-lived climate pollutants and short-lived climate pollutants are explicitly included in programs and associated for mitigation there is a push in the public service to integrate aid quality and climate programs at sub-national level and also the urban development and the ecological land use programs and to integrate or at least harmonize them and then we have some efforts to complete joint criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases emissions inventories because we think that it is key to to integrate the planning and we are also starting efforts to include experimental monitoring to validate greenhouse gases short-lived pollutants and precursors as part also for MRB on climate on climate and aid quality programs and if I have a half a minute pollution also impacts on people on crops not only people and on in the central part of Mexico these these are the loss of on crop yields due to also an exposure and some some of them have about about 25 percent loss so we need also to address that so thank you well thank you very much for giving us that snapshot of what's going on in Mexico City but we do have other success stories in other parts of the world and so I would ask you one day our way from the World Bank to to please give your presentation and you may have to unmute yourself yes thank you everybody it's a pleasure to be here today to participate in this seminar on behalf of the World Bank so as requested I will be presenting on financial examples of financial support successful cases of financial support for air quality management and climate change mitigation and how come it is that the bank has become the world's leading financier of air quality management and climate change mitigation interventions worldwide so I will start by presenting some successful cases next yes and first of all it's important to understand why as an institution the World Bank is interested in the topic of air quality management and climate change mitigation and that's because the poor populations the poor poorer segments of society are usually the ones who carry the heaviest burden of this and you can see that the number of debts are higher in the low income countries at low income levels next next next you have to click this one yes thank you oh yes thank you so here this is a a chart which is from India and it basically shows the distributional impacts of air pollution and as you can see the low income groups are the ones that carry the heaviest health burden even though they have the lowest emissions they also spend the largest part of their incomes on energy so it's a very inequitable problem in different parts of the world as you can see next at a global level the bank did a study recently which shows that the cost of health damages mortality and mobility associated with ambient air pollution alone cost five point seven trillion dollars which is equivalent to about four point eight percent of global GDP next so what is the bank doing what are we doing to help our clients we have four different types of products that are listed here we have analytical work and technical assistance lending products for investments for supporting policy reforms and we also have what is called programs for results we work across different sectors of the economy in as much as they have a relationship with air pollution and climate change next in the past two decades also lending and technical assistance that the bank has used to support its clients has been valued at over 52 billion dollars and this includes about 14 billion dollars just targeting air pollution about 50 percent of the climate change projects also have air pollution co-benefits next next so what have our clients achieved really our rule as a bank is to support our clients they are the ones who achieve these results and as you can see here in different cities across the world there have been countries that have achieved significant improvements in air quality different time frames of course and I would dwell a little bit more on that in the next slides next in Mexico City as you can see here GDP was growing economic growth over the period 1989 to 2016 you can see that GDP was on the increase and even as GDP was on the increase air quality was improving so next slide please next slide yes and in that same period Mexico City was able to reduce ambient concentrations of particulate matter by 70 percent in this same period so it shows that achieving growth and reducing air pollution are not at loggerheads they are both achievable thank you next slide in Lima Peru as well over this period 2003 to 2012 in the Lima-Cayao area which used to be very highly polluted area the government was able to reduce air pollution by 50 percent in Lima-Cayao and the bank was able to help the government with some analytical work that looked at different interventions for addressing air pollution next in China the results have also been very impressive this is from the Jing Jing Ji region of China where the government was able to achieve about a 40 percent reduction of pm 2.5 over a five-year period next Mongolia as well we've had very impressive results by the government prior to 2009 the concentrations were well above 200 micrograms per cubic meter and those have been significantly reduced just even below 100 in terms of the annual averages next so what have we learned in all of this in supporting our clients one thing that we've learned for sure is that policy operations help they are effective in helping countries to achieve reductions in air pollution of course the time frames may vary and so it's very important for the resources and the investments to be made to achieve the results the bank can provide financing and knowledge but it's also important that the country invests its own resources in achieving the results next we've learned that we need to do more faster and better in terms of investments supporting monitoring and analytical work and information dissemination and also in helping countries to strengthen public policies and undertake institutional reforms next half a minute left sorry half a minute left okay so one area that we know that we need to do a lot of work is in the area of monitoring in sub-Saharan Africa this is a priority for the bank because of the dearth of monitoring next next in terms of policies some of the policies that we know that work include removing subsidies to pollution and taxes on externalities next we know that fiscal policies can phase out regressive subsidies that promote pollution next next we also want to intensify training dissemination for air quality management next we need to do more also with respect to information dissemination to help to strengthen constitutions and constituencies and social accountability for air quality management and we hope that we can also learn from some of the experience for example with awareness raising and development of responses to addressing marine pollution next thank you very much thank you very much there were some very positive messages there but also an awful lot to do but I think that this issue of air pollution affecting the poor that's something that the next speaker is going to focus on as well so Sarah would you please give your presentation yeah thanks Johan so I'm Sarah West I'm the Center Director at SEI York and I've been working for the last 12 years on bringing diverse voices into research and decision making as we've heard so far there's great work going on changing national and international policy around air pollution but we need to remember to talk to people on the ground in society next slide please to better understand how policies may affect them how their behaviors will influence the intended policy outcomes and how to ensure that we support the most vulnerable in society and in SEI we've developed inclusive approaches to develop solutions that work for many stakeholders and have all the co-benefits that we've already been hearing about so I'm going to talk about two pieces of work in particular one working with residents of Makuru in formal settlement in Nairobi and the other working in Kampala and Nairobi these are both collaborative pieces of work with SEI York Africa and Stockholm staff working together with researchers from Kenya and the UK with NGOs government officials and community members next slide please over the past five years SEI has built a network of researchers practitioners and community members who have been exploring air pollution in Makuru in formal settlement monitoring exposure to air pollution using citizen science approaches and conducting mini projects to better understand people's lived experiences of air pollution and begins to develop solutions to it next slide please we use workshops, interviews, storytelling, participatory mapping, theatre and music to explore people's experiences of air pollution through these approaches we that is researchers and community members uncovered high levels of exposure to air pollution and gained an understanding of the complexity of the challenges in the settlement an example of this is the drainage channels in Makuru next slide please which were named by questionnaire respondents as a source of air pollution at first we didn't understand why but through the research we found that the extremely poor water sanitation provision in the settlement means that these channels are filled with rubbish from homes including bags containing human feces which is causing high levels of ammonia lack of official waste collection next slide please leads to burning of waste in unofficial dump sites a policy to ban waste burning could be introduced which would reduce the high levels of particulate matter pollution seen in these areas but then what would happen to the waste using approaches such as forum theatre next slide please which brought together local policymakers other stakeholders and community members allowed us to explore these complex issues in a direct but non- confrontational way our first project in Makuru sparked the creation of the Kenya Air Quality Network a forum to bring together policymakers researchers and other stakeholders to improve air quality in Kenya and finding from these projects fed directly into that group next slide please the second work I want to highlight is where we have been developing delivering the co-benefits of improving air quality urban mobility and road safety here we worked in Kampala and Nairobi to include marginalised and vulnerable groups in decision making here again we used a mixture of creative participatory approaches thank you to explore these issues so for example 3D visualisations arts and storytelling amongst other things to engage children non-motorised transport users including women and the elderly Matatu or minibus drivers and shopkeepers to co-design road safety improvements next slide please in Kampala we worked closely with the Kampala City Authority and gained permission to install Africa's first 3D pop-up zebra crossing outside of school to highlight to motorised vehicles the need to be aware of pedestrians and slow down in Nairobi we generate demonstrated methods including 3D models and next slide please placemaking events how the busy Latiki street could be improved in order to provide space for different road users and working with a range of state holders in these ways we're able to demonstrate how the street could look and function in order to improve mobility health and safety and bring economic benefits to local businesses and the mayor of Nairobi approved the redevelopment next slide please this reduced congestion and improved air quality next slide please and as can be seen by this slide showing data of particulate matter over the course of the week with the lower lines showing the area around the improvement and the blue top line represented of what the street was like pre-traffic calming in addition improved mobility through the busy CBD segregated pedestrian and cycling lanes which in turn provided additional road safety measures next slide please also the shopkeepers said that they had seen an increase in footfall as people were able to access their shops more easily in short the creative and participatory approaches we use at SEI have enabled us to better understand people's lived experiences of air pollution to co-develop solutions which have worked for multiple state holders and can deliver important co-benefits thank you thank you very much Sarah so I think there's been some fascinating talks here and I think it's clear also that air pollution is really becoming a social justice issue it would seem that the poor will be more affected in the future more affected both by air pollution and climate change and whilst rich countries sorting out air pollution poorer countries have high levels or they're increasing I was just wondering if I could just ask a general question about what what do you think we need to do more of to ensure that poor people are not going to be suffering air pollution in the future I was wondering if I could first ask you and if you have any ideas of you know what are the most important things to ensure that the sort of people who are the poorest in the world don't suffer air pollution well I'll start with two very basic things one is there's a need to really understand just how bad the problem is where these people are and what you'll find is that is in that most low income countries there is no monitoring so there is no understanding of just how bad the problem is so that's 101 ground zero for addressing problem of air pollution where poor people are affected another thing would be just improving on public awareness of the problem in as much as the problem exists and it is a cause of death it's a big huge economic burden many people still are not aware of how it affects their health directly and so I think improving, strengthening public awareness is very important and helping to build the constituencies that are necessary in order to demand for action on air quality so those are two basic things and do you feel there is enough one of the questions from the chat you know do you feel there is enough resources being put into air quality management at the moment you see what I would say to that is this globally I saw also that you had responded with or some Chris I think had responded with the report saying which says that globally the results suggest that there is not enough financing from the World Bank's perspective you know the bank as I was saying has been trying to do a lot of supporting of air quality management and climate change mitigation actions over the years and there has been quite a sizable amount of resources that has gone into this as I said earlier about over 50 billion dollars in those two decades just from pollution and about 14 billion on air quality management but there needs to be more done and the Bank cannot provide all the financing we wish we could but countries also have to invest their own resources in this and it's simply because you know it's not a question of just monitoring and that's the end of it there needs to be a long term sustained approach to actually being able to keep your air quality levels at concentrations that are not harmful to health so governments have to be ready to make those investments in the long term I mean maybe related to that there is a question you know is this response to COVID-19 there's a massive global response does that mean that the response to air pollution might gain higher interest amongst people and amongst policymakers I mean Gereint I was just wondering in the UK context do you think that air pollution is going to go up the agenda because of this interest in health impacts well it could do it depends how much the media take hold of it so far in Britain there's been some analysis of you know why for example have Bain communities got higher incidents of COVID death and clearly one of those is the fact that they live in more congested housing in more polluted areas and this has been skirted around to a certain extent elements of the media have picked it up but the issue really is joining the dots and letting people know where then people will respond obviously they are concerned about air pollution Britain in particular in London and in the mayor election it was the number one political issue so it is beginning to take off but we need to drive it forward by providing the data for for instance parents outside schools so that they all lobby the local councils so they won't be lobby you know idling outside you know outside the schools waiting for children and etc etc the political pressure needs to be facilitated partly by the media giving the ammunition and the data being available for people to raise air quality up up the agenda and COVID is this particular moment in time that we can use the appalling pandemic to our advantage if you like for both climate change and air quality and what about in Mexico as I understand it Gerardo air pollution is a major political issue there and there are two questions you know so to what extent is there enough pressure on politicians to to react to air pollution and the the improvements that you've seen in Mexico City have they also been translated into action in other cities and in Mexico as well so if you could answer that please okay about about other cities just recently recently has been a pollution has become a public issue in other cities before it was a problem of those living in the megalopolis but now in other cities medium size and big cities in Mexico air pollution is is an issue and also it has been increased by the COVID in the first question about the poor people and more more exposure to to air pollution I think there are three three ways of the one is regulation let's say and for example quality of fuels that's and that's one that's one the other is like public transport policy is a public transport especially electric public transport might might reduce quite a lot of exposure of the users of the of the transport but there is a driver underneath driver of all these that is the the urban and that is you basically do due to the lack of a state policy on housing what what has happened for the last let's say 15 years then the state abandoned this government not but previous government has abandoned a public policy on housing and it was left to the market so poor people go far away and and city was has another places was was was been emptied but then so maybe the glass goes far poor people goes far away so I think a state public policy on housing that and pushing for a more integrated society more more integrated city where different social groups are able to live near together might make us more resilient and and a more sustainable cities more livable cities so I think I think there is a there is a great opportunity on on that side thank you Karado so I was one of the other issues that's been brought up is the issue of you know making sure communities are represented you know the poor people have a voice Sarah I don't know from your experience where do you think that we need to put more effort I think I think for me what we really need to try and do is to try and yeah give give people who don't have a voice bring them into the research process and there's lots and lots of ways that you can do that but we've there's been a bit of a chat going on on the question answer session and I think for me it's how do you scale up those things because we've had some really interesting work done in SEO over the past kind of five years or so but how do you learn from that and encourage that learning between different spaces so we can raise awareness of air pollution in a particular area we can make some changes in a particular city but then how does that you know cascade across the world this is a global problem we need to solve so I think for me it's how do we encourage that learning between the policymakers between the decision takers and between citizens in different cases as well because I think citizens do have a real power to try and enact change and I don't know if Garant has any experiences of that but I think you know if if the community drive towards something they really want something it often happens I think you give the example Garant of in appearance outside schools knowing something about the air quality and then campaigning to do something about it and I think trying to have those actions cascaded out so that they're happening across the world and having those those impacts will be therefore much greater so that's where I'd like to see a bit more focus is terms of how do movements happen how do things become from sort of one community raised awareness how does that become a global movement for change so maybe I can then just throw open a question to anyone who wants to answer it before asking Patrick to sum up and give us some final reflections and that is the one about you know we have today the United Nations international day of clean air for blue skies and how do we keep that momentum going rather than just sort of like bring it up once a year I mean actually having this focus is one way of keeping it going because it'll happen every year but you know could I just throw it out to anyone who wants to answer how are we going to keep the momentum on air pollution going we'd like to answer can I make a very quick comment and and that is clearly we need to be out there encouraging people to who care about this to write to their paper to write you know get their neighbours their friends their communities to get engaged and get people to keep on talking about it and rather than just talking to themselves about it and once people do know about it and their children are at risk in their own schools whether it's indoors or outdoors for example and they want that to be for example their local council in the run of the local council action that should be a policy that should be monitoring etc just keep on keeping on and what you find is politicians you know sadly they just want to get re-elected and be popular and if they think that's something that pushes the right buttons they'll listen and if they're not told that they'll just assume everybody loves driving around in their cars and sitting in congestion and the status quo and Helena you had your hand up briefly would you like to yeah in addition to those wise words I just wanted to say I think we what normally helps to create this kind of movements is to have some champions out there and to really celebrate what works and it's like a snowball effect you start with there was some questions in the question and answers how do you get cities to learn from each other how do you get citizens to learn from each other industry to steal each other's business models to make it effective etc so I think it's it's really about visibility and it's about leadership and recognition of the leadership and also it's almost like shaming and blaming as well no you have the on the one side the positive the carrot and the stick and I think having an international day is a good it's something that's good to have because we can use it a lot in the international community to motivate and and also make this visible for those that are on the ground that might not get the visibility that's required the second best would of course be to have some kind of a much more binding global effort but maybe that's not something that is in the making very shortly and we shouldn't think that that would also change we have the Paris Agreement we signed it after 21 years of negotiations and we have still not really started to operationalize it after 25-26 years so I mean we don't have that time so everything now needs to be quick and and as we heard politicians are not so long lived so we also need those fast kind of positive messages so thank you very much Helena and so I'd like to turn now to Patrick Bucher from GIZ and listening to all of these fascinating talks and the discussion I'd like you to give us some reflections of what you have heard and what you think yeah thanks a lot Johan it has been really a fantastic 90 minutes now very informative extremely I think extremely up to date a very good overview of where we are at the moment I think it has been quite clear from all the presentations that there is no alternative to having a real big change so building back better is actually a real let's say I mean there is no alternative to it we have heard that we have to get away from fossil fuels we have to think or start thinking about our diet I actually had never heard about the planetary health diet so that is my take home message for today and so I think we have heard a lot of really good information which I guess we expected as well to hear the thing is we heard that we need systemic change and I think there is the real challenge I think it has been quite clear as well from the presentations that only if the governments and the different sectors and the individuals the citizens work together only together can we achieve really this vision we have of a better world of a better and fairer world and I think you know I would like to pick out some sectors as well that have been and I can probably tell you what has been going on in Germany recently so there has been another analysis in terms of which sectors have done more and which have done less in terms of climate change mitigation and as well air pollution reduction and agriculture and building sectors have come out as the worst sectors so they really have to do their share and I think together with government and individuals we can then achieve this change however and that is something and I really liked what Sarah said there as well I think we have to think about as well how to reach people and I think we have to be very very realistic there so there are certain people both in governments in the industry in the public we won't be able to reach we have to accept that there are certain people like for example Donald Trump you will never be able to convince him that air pollution is a big issue so and I think we have to just accept that but there are a lot of people who are still who either don't know about it or who really can be persuaded that this is a really interesting and worthwhile subject and I think there we have to think more how to better reach out to people and I think we need as well psychologists and sociologists to think about this and I think one of the big problems and this is the uncomfortable truth I think is that most of us who are highly educated have as well a very high income and we contribute most to climate change and to air pollution and I think we have to lead by example as well you know we can't we can't go out to those people who cannot afford to to spend their with the holidays in the Alps or the summer holidays somewhere even on a different continent and just tell them you know what they have to do if we don't start in our own backyard so I think we have to really start and be very honest with ourselves what we can do and how we can lead as well by example only if we can lead by example we can as well persuade I think larger um let's say larger part of the society that at the moment don't have I mean don't have a very large carbon footprint and I think we have to be very honest there and I think you know coming back um to to this day I think it is very important to have such a global day because we can reach out and we we can raise awareness for the issues and I think that is really a very important function of this day and I think we have to be positive we have that as well but we have to be as well honest you know we have to be really honest and and tell people that there is a reduced time or let's say a limited time we can actually now push for this change you know building back better what is the timeframe we have to to build back better and we have to be honest as well that we have to act now and I think we all have to gather you know we have to act and we have to be honest and we have to bring scientists the politicians and people from the different sectors together to to look for sustainable solutions that are just environmentally friendly and as well I would say as well from a political point of view there has to be as well sustainable so we we need to to to as well you know we we need to get those politicians we have to elect those politicians who really believe in that change and I think I stop there thank you very much Patrick so I would like to thank all of the speakers who have been fantastic today in giving their talks and their responses and also to all the participants thank you very much for for joining us and I think the next 10 years the next 10 years are crucial for climate change to stop millions of people dying every year from air pollution and so there is an urgency so we can get together at the next Clean Air Day but we don't we can't afford not to keep acting and doing all of the the wise things that people have suggested in this webinar between now and then and going on for the next few years to try and achieve the goals that we want so thank you very much and I think we'll close five minutes late I hope that hasn't upset anybody's schedule and thank you everyone for your participation