 Raya, I agree to substitute Sturgeon Bastel who could not make it, so can you share the screen, Raya? Yes, let's do that. Let me do my powerpoint screen. Sorry, you should think when the screen is opening. Okay, very good. Just to interrupt me if somehow my sound goes away or something. Thank you. And I guess I'm in between you and the lunch break, so I also try to be brief and thanks for the introduction and as Jakob said, so I jumped in on behalf of Stuart who, the person also comes and cannot come in person, so I have to join for Bologna actually, so not so far from 3F, but see why she didn't come in person. So it's sort of the reason why I kind of jumped in because me and Stuart, who is Stuart Basten is an expert on fertility. So he's a demographer, so I myself am a demographer too, but my main work, I mainly work on the relationship between population and the environment or climate change, but to me I look at the impact of climate change on different outcomes of nutrition, migration, health and so on. And recently, my interest is also wondering whether climate change would have some impact or some relationship with this facility. So Stuart and I, we haven't really quite started our collaboration yet, but the idea is down. So I guess to bring you with some idea on why fertility may be linked with climate change, so I thought thinking about the broader relationship why population is related to climate change may be a useful concept. So in the figure, as you can see, so from the left-hand side, it's about how human activities, how our production and consumption, the way we use transportation, the way we consume food contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and then to global warming or climate change. So that's one relationship. So pretty much people tend to talk about population size or sometimes there's a difference within the population and how composition, distribution and how that affects climate change on the one side. So on another side, I'm not sure how hot Friester is, but we know that this year we have experienced early heat waves in South Asia, in Europe, in June, and also currently North America because of the experiencing heat waves. It's not unprecedented that it came in earlier in the climate scientists also have done some translation and show that we need to be aware that we are experiencing also actually with the human climate change. So in fact, we are already experiencing climate change, we thought something anymore this time in the future or this time in terms of geographical distance from Europe we are experiencing right now. So one could also already talk about serving the impact of climate change on different types of, on health and well-being and different types of outcomes. So in the heat wave in Europe, someone already did the calculation that it's at least led to about 1,500 access societies on this economic level alone. So it does affect our health and mortality. In the other type of context we may think or so that some extreme climate events like drought, for instance, will affect crop use, it will affect incomes and it will affect the livelihood of people who depend on agriculture. And in some cases, migration may be used. So when we, when we met this figure actually back in 2017 we were thinking that, yeah, climate change, hopefully the population dynamics expand by mortality, sufficient migration, but maybe climate change doesn't have an effect on the fertility that was back then. But now, maybe it's not wrong with those who think that apart from other drivers that expect some fertility intentions, fertility patterns, indeed some of the extreme climate events that we're experiencing or that people understand or perceive may also affect fertility. So that's the idea of the link. Let's come back to another side. That's why fertility matters for climate change, because fertility is one driver of population. This equation is, it criticizes a lot, but it gives you some kind of the simple relationship between the environmental impact and population. So environmental impact is a function of population, which is typically measured by GDP and technology, which is how we saw things in people, how efficient the technology that we have per unit of consumption. If you plug this equation and use the kind of sort of the empirical data to measure, yeah, population does play a role, but probably one of the factors that explain that or have small ways in terms of environmental impact is absent. With GDP, we know that the consumption or carbon emissions varies greatly by the level of income. Still, population is one component. And I think many of you have attended this half of end of June yesterday that you were talking about population changes and future population. So, since population plays a role, so maybe not as much as GDP in terms of environmental impact, but still how many people are there going to be in the future. So, who also to a certain extent, the human impact on climate change, so how climate change scenarios would unfold, would to a certain extent also, how many people are we going to have and also who are we going to have in the population. So, why now why why fertility methods to see to understand the future population, but we need to know three things right because that's three demographic components that needs to mean population change. If we know the number of women in time T, the women of reproductive age in time T, typically in the five year time period that we do projection in time T plus five I'd say, we have a productive age week, we kind of kind of check how many number of students are going to be in the prime period, but similar things, what time to understand population change so people were born to either die. It's also another component of understanding population change and of course migration people who move in and move out in a certain phase of the country. So typically, so we need to understand three things in the future population. So mortality and migration tends to be the important driver of the slightly or short term population change with the structure is one good example is mortality, for instance, the COVID-19 pandemic is a more or less unprecedented shock that led to in certain context in certain time period before the vaccination, for instance, it did lead to higher number of excess mortality which can be presented it can in the short term period change also the population type of short period, but for the important long term medium to long term driver it is that much and that brings back into the idea of why fertility is one of the key driver of the future populations and how many people are we going to have in the future, linking it with the concept of environment or resources or how many people are going to be if people may grow, may increase exponentially, but we have the limit in terms of the land that we have, we have the limit in terms of water that we have or the amount of food that we have. So the idea that people started talking about is how many people, how many are going to be and is there a limit in the space of the capacity that we have in the population. So now when non demographers talk about population and kind of change, it's sort of the idea of the mouse's idea concept of exponential population growth but food doesn't grow as part of the population growth. So it's sort of come back in the literature right now but tend to come out of non demographers when people talk about the relationship between population and kind of change. So sort of, and as I was saying, it's one medium to long term driver of the population. So the idea of thinking about all the population population control family planning. It was unpopular but it sort of started coming back again on the agenda as well. Now that the impact of climate changes has become more and I think you, many of you have attended and talked with her yesterday. I think her talk thought it's a bit more on population aging so sort of, so we, we also, when we think about global population. So we're talking about the world of on the one hand that's one side of the society is which probably are trying to deal with low population aging or maybe the client number of population on the one hand, and when the web sometimes in the narrative when they, when they talk about the population impact climate change which I was saying already that people maybe from poorer region are not consumed as much but they have higher population growth. So on the other hand, the issues of overpopulation also tend to be on on the gender. So the sort of the population policies cannot support in true direction, right, addressing lower population and also higher population. So recently, there have been one study that's trying to put on the table the idea that, well, actually, if we reduce the number of children. It may really save the carbon footprint today that if there is some of the calculation showing that we can do many things to reduce our carbon footprint, many of the activities we do. If we can try to use electric car, for instance, we can eat plant-based diet and this would reduce the carbon emissions that we do. By the way, things like recycling or changing the life of the political ones do have some impact, but it's really my one. But they have shown that having one fewer child, so one child less of this space on the consumption of people in high income is one child who has higher consumption as well. But anyway, having one fewer child would contribute to reducing about 60 carbon metric per year. And just to give you an idea of what does one carbon metric refers to. So one carbon metric is equivalent of 2.5 flights from Rome to Amsterdam. So having 60, that's a lot and that's per year, that's another one. So with this study coming out, it's sort of, as I was saying that the idea of in the world of thermography, the talk about population control, population planning was kind of popular in the 70s, 60s, 70s, and became less popular in the 90s, but actually after the National Conference on Population Development in Cairo, the type of narrative when we talk about family planning or reproductive health, it's more about empowerment of people to achieve the number of fertility that the people want. So for the giving access, giving empowerment, education, giving education or access to contraception, but not to go and then coerce the family limitation of planning. So in a way, the message, if we send out the message and saying that a high population, if we reduce, reduce carbon emission, we say climate change, it can be dangerous because it cannot come back again to the type of practice that was done back in the 90s in terms of reproductive life. So now the question that went forth, and this is forth by Stuart, because he was not on fertility intention, is can kind of change have a kind of soft amount of effects, meaning that it's not that the policy is just to limit the population, but maybe the experience or the perception about the danger of climate change for instance can really kind of affect the reproductive situation making. So some of you may have seen the back in 2019 and this movement, there's a movement called births, right, which is kind of the sub-variation of the extinction rebellion. So there's a group of women actually, let's say some person in the UK kind of establishing a movement of not wanting to have kids or children due to ecological crisis. And it seems to be that the number of people who expect this reason, if we ask what's your plan, what's your family plan in the future, some people may say that I don't have kids and climate change may be put as one of the reasons. But to understand how this perception that climate change may affect the safety preference, we have to understand the complexity of the community decision. So it's not that one could also think that you can take the data, take the data on temperature changes, rainfall changes and look at how people respond and how the people respond. One could do that. But we also know the more of us know that particular decision is more complex than that. Because first of all, it is how a person and individual condition or perception or social norms or culture attitudes can determine the belief about having children. And then, so not only the belief about having children would affect fertility intention, but also your socio-economic or demographic condition. Because it does, it depends if one really think of wanting to have children, but maybe if you're currently unemployed, so we need to leave you also know that the safety is rather low, also because maybe people even cannot afford to leave parents in home quickly and so on. So your sort of socio-economic conditions kind of would be too many of your outcome. And on top of that, so when we have the social norms of that moment when we have the economic crisis and the fact of the on top of that may be time to change their safety. So to make, to making such a link empirically, it's a difficult exercise that's what I want to say, because so many things these communities. Now the question is, since we started hearing people saying that they don't want children because of climate change, can the social norm with this part of the driver of fertility intention change in the future? Typically to shine on this is common, but in some places, for instance, for instance, for instance, it's a full shine norm because of typically if you have experienced high mortality and you have some preference, so maybe the norm would be high end. So now, now the question is, can it be that way that climate change may affect social norms? That's the studies on this topic, since it's really new. The evidence are scattered. So there's some for instance, the smaller studies of people aged 27 to 45 in the US, 2600, seven people who responded to the survey. There are some evidence showing that the majority of people actually expect that they are concerned, sort of the groups are here, that they are concerned about the common footprint of having children. And in particular, in the orange five people that are particularly concerned about that kind of impact the children with experience. So we try to get together what kind of studies that has done in this way. So this is the questions that are asked to people about that perception about maybe the concern of a medical concern, what it does be their facility intention, the link with children. So we thought it would be measuring the actual number of children that this actually has. So it's only about the perception. And then one thing that perception can translate into the actions of things we hear, but it's not always 100% translation in that way. So the evidence is pretty much mixed, or there's some evidence they found in the Canadian students. But that's a study by our colleague, Maria, that's a big test. You think you're about a meter data, so it's a European, about 30 European countries. They don't find the inside interaction with people with stress and concern about the environment also expressed that they want to have less number of children. So the empirical evidence is, it can be all over the place at the moment. Another thing that one has to keep in mind when you ask the people, especially when you ask the young people, what is that, what do you see that facility intention or ability preference. If you ask someone who's 20 years old, 25, let's say, regardless of climate change, people would change the way they answer the question. Later on, when they became older, when they hit more of the reproductive age or the limit in that, that could be. So what do you don't know, this is news, and it says, I can do this, by the way, I could ask the young people of today, but then I would have to wait until 10 or 10 in the next 10 or 15 years to see if that is actually transferred into the actual community. So that's one important thing to keep in mind. I was showing more of the evidence from the localities type of countries, but that's a very recent study by PhD students and she didn't look at sub-Saharan African countries. So this study used the, not the perception of climate change, but the experience of temperature changes and precipitation changes and they found that with the experience of anomalies or higher temperature, then the normal reference period and also higher precipitation, not low, but rain forward, but higher one, that lead to lower desire, family desire, or lower desire to have additional shine and also delay in the timing of next shine. So we can think of different mechanisms actually that explain why that kind of experience may affect fertility preferences. I would go through this just almost at the end of my talk, so I have three more slides and I will be done. So I was showing more of the evidence from the study that look at fertility preference and intention. There are some studies, not many, that look at how experience of temperature changes affect fertility. So now it's the actual fertility, not the perception. It seems to be, so again we would need more studies, maybe 10 to 15 to be able to say something more concrete, but it seems to be that the experience of heat tends to suppress the fertility. It can be because heat that affects the quantity, so the ability to get pregnant. So that's the evidence from the US or the graph on the left hand side. But some other studies looking at unit and data, for instance, showing that it does heat that suppress the chemistry, but only in some subgroup of population. In fact, in a wealthier and better educated women, they experience better intentions to have another shine. So we still not sure yet what would be true. Maybe we can think that highly educated people can adapt that to climate change and that doesn't affect so much that fertility. So this is the last slide to the last slide before the last one. So what do particular patterns look like under climate change? Theoretically, so this is very theoretical. It can increase. For instance, if once being that if you experience climate change, you would need to increase your income if you're farming household for instance we may need an extra shy labor. If having children can be in a labor asset, then perhaps you can increase. Or there are some practices of what they call the case replacement. So typically after experience of shy, the parity may be due to certain naturally factors like earthquake and tsunami. Or if you, it's called all the hoarding effects, if you foresee that infant mortality or shyness, how you would be high, you may overcompensate by having more number of children. I kind of think so it's sort of worthy to have to start tracking the data. I think that I did in the next five to 10 years because there are so other changes that affect the community. Climate change may happen if these consequences on fertility based on two kind of channels, the physiological effects as I was saying earlier that that's some evidence pointing out that extreme hot temperature can affect the community. So that's kind of almost a right effect on the physiological condition. Or it also a bit changes in your info pattern is can increase the risk of malaria infection and that can affect the mother health. Or it can go indirectly such as food security, reduction in cross-use, such as food security, the nutritional status of mother and that again can affect the reproductive health that can direct climate change. So it may lead to negative consequences of fertility. And then we have the birth strike type of arguments, this type of social effects, the concerns about climate change in two sides, right? So you may not want to have children because you're concerned about the human impact on the global climate and emissions. Or you're concerned about not wanting to bring a child into the world, which is full of uncertainties and then you may not have such a beautiful future. So one may not want to bring a child into the world. And so it can have that effect as well. So I'm going to stop here. And as I said, that there's many things to be done. And I thought I just started my ESG project that look at the impact of climate change on population dynamics, because I want to understand sort of linking a big and work as well as to understand how future population would look like. Do we need to account for the impact of climate change in the population or not? So my project aims to look at how can change affect fertility, mortality and migration and then put all the empirical evidence together and try to formulate that how do we need to account for these changes into our population protection. So I just want to say that we don't have the conclusion. My guess is that climate change may be a possibility, but I have to complete this project. I'm going to stop here. Thank you. I can stop sharing the screen as well. So do we have questions? So I think lunch is approaching. So yes, as a question. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Mutarak. Great, great talk. I would I wanted to ask about the institution, the role of institutions. So obviously you're thinking that that institution player don't have such a role in influencing fertility. And but we know like what killed the fertility from the ICPD in 94 was actually the Catholic Church who put a veto on saying like, OK, we don't touch how people do have children and how they will. So do you think this has changed? So like, is there so not only governments having an influence, but like all of our institutions surrounding? What do you think? Thank you. You know, I think that I keep on referring you in my talk. No, no, no, no, certainly. I think I would be silent on the institution, but it's certainly one part of the drivers. But now, since the narrative have changed a bit. No, that institution, I think you think of the Chinese government in terms of the think of foreign government. We're going to try to promote higher fertility with all sorts of incentives. We know that it doesn't quite work because, OK, only once I can make people have more students, you cannot really, at least in the current world that we live in and we hopefully it's not going to happen in the future. In a kind of dystopian way that you cannot cause people to make it. Right. So institutions play a role in the third hand extent in making incentives, but how much. But on another side of the present facility, I think because we have human right, we have reproductive right. I think in that sense that it has been done in the past, as the church went around and promoting or almost for the realization in certain countries, not at least nowadays. It's not amazing, but I think the institution plays in direct role, but we think the policy that we have seen in place, it doesn't hit the target. That's how I see it. I see that you cannot tell the people that I give 200 euro more per month and then to give the child care incentive. Because if people don't have jobs, they're not going to have children. OK, thank you. So I have a question. Yes, and so you show this figure that is a result of the highest impact on climate change is having one baby more. So I was wondering whether this refers to developed countries or to developing countries or it's a uniform effect. So what that paper used is very exactly what it refers to. So they did the kind of a systematic research taking the evidence so they quantify how much the carbon footprint is that you can tell to it, but it's only developed countries. And if you read the paper, they also break out to different developed countries. And in that sense, the US, because they're living in the US and not having a child would even reduce more of the carbon emission compared to a person in Japan. OK, what do you expect the result would be in developing countries? I don't have the number on the top of my head, which I should have. I think that the total emissions now is from from Africa. Probably the global emission probably after the country to what about 5% or at most maybe 10% so it's a surely going to be lower. Now the top people also argue that, yeah, you demographers in sense to say that maybe population size or the only problem but we have also taken to a thousand Africa. So take the wall out because that's that it's around everything because we're getting also unreasonable protection of getting rich and consumption will change. But still one could also think that if consumption pattern will change in lower income countries. Probably it's unlikely that that everyone's going to have a big car watching the two visualize sites and where we have what I just think that we could still be lower. And hopefully, and I think it is urgent that we really need to change the way we can see renewable energy but also other things that can come to that. Thank you. So I see no other questions. So thank you very much again for this very interesting talk. And so we stop here and reconvene at 2pm. Thank you and enjoy your time.