Recent Carbon Trends, IEA

“Driven by higher energy demand in 2018, global energy-related CO2 emissions rose 1.7% to a historic high of 33.1 Gt CO2. While emissions from all fossil fuels increased, the power sector accounted for nearly two-thirds of emissions growth. Coal use in power alone surpassed 10 Gt CO2, mostly in Asia. China, India, and the United States accounted for 85% of the net increase in emissions, while emissions declined for Germany, Japan, Mexico, France and the United Kingdom.” IEA

IEA

Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew 1.7% in 2018 to reach a historic high of 33.1 Gt CO2. It was the highest rate of growth since 2013, and 70% higher than the average increase since 2010. Last year's growth of 560 Mt was equivalent to the total emissions from international aviation.

The increase in emissions was driven by higher energy consumption resulting from a robust global economy, as well as from weather conditions in some parts of the world that led to increased energy demand for heating and cooling.

CO2 emissions stagnated between 2014 and 2016, even as the global economy continued to expand. This decoupling was primarily the result of strong energy efficiency improvements and low-carbon technology deployment, leading to a decline in coal demand. But the dynamics changed in 2017 and 2018. Higher economic growth was not met by higher energy productivity, lower-carbon options did not scale fast enough to meet the rise in demand.

The result was that CO2 emissions increased by nearly 0.5% for every 1% gain in global economic output compared with an increase of 0.3% on average since 2010. Renewables and nuclear energy have nonetheless made an impact, with emissions growing 25% slower than energy demand in 2018.

For the first time, the IEA assessed the impact of fossil fuel use on global temperature increases. It found that CO2 emitted from coal combustion was responsible for over 0.3°C of the 1°C increase in global average annual surface temperatures above pre-industrial levels. This makes coal the single largest source of global temperature increase.

The global average annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere averaged 407.4 ppm in 2018, up 2.4 ppm since 2017. This is a major increase from pre-industrial levels, which ranged between 180 and 280 ppm.

IEA report (2018) here.

Start up advice: Do things that don’t scale.

thoughtful insights from one of the world’s leading VC investors, Paul Graham:

”One of the most common types of advice we give at Y Combinator is to do things that don't scale. A lot of would-be founders believe that startups either take off or don't. You build something, make it available, and if you've made a better mousetrap, people beat a path to your door as promised. Or they don't, in which case the market must not exist. [1]

Actually startups take off because the founders make them take off. There may be a handful that just grew by themselves, but usually it takes some sort of push to get them going. A good metaphor would be the cranks that car engines had before they got electric starters. Once the engine was going, it would keep going, but there was a separate and laborious process to get it going....”

read his whole piece here: 

 http://paulgraham.com/ds.html

UK life expectancy and healthcare spend vs OECD. NHS success story?

UK life expectancy expanded - in line with the OECD average (more or less, there was a little catch up) until recently where (like in a few countries) it seems to be flattening. This is a blunt but well understood measure of a population’s health.

A similar type of trend can be seen in childhood mortality. Although experts can gripe with the data, the overall trend is likely robust. There is also some catch up from OECD average from a poorer start.

This is a good achievement by the UK given what the UK has spent on healthcare since the 1970s.

My general observation here is that the UK has underspend / invested less in healthcare but has managed to obtain an average to above average results.

The under spend as % GDP has been 2 to 4 percent points lower than OECD peers on average. This has been going on since the 1970s. (The World bank data is from 2000, sourced from WHO)

There are many factors that combine to impact life expectnacy and health. Correlation is not causation.

However, I think there is enough data and evidence to suggest that given the amount the UK has invested in health (and social care and education) that if the UK wants to continue the positive trends in health, it will likely have to spend more or at current levels of spend the health out comes will - in my view - likely to continue to tail off.

In this sense, the UK’s NHS has been a unique system that has enabled outsized gains in health outcomes for the amount of spend over the last 50 years.

OECD data.

I can’t make a nice graph widget, but I can show how this % spend on GDP goes back to the 1970s. so this is arguably about 50 years of under spend, at even the lower end of 2% of GDP that’s somewhere in the region of £500bn to £1,000 bn (yes 1 £trillion) in culmulative under spend compared to what would have been spent on the OECD average %.

(Now whether it would have been well spent or what else the UK spent the money on is another debate - maybe the OECD over spent given its outcomes… but given the UK is uniquely low (though Italy is close in some years and has slightly worse outcomes broadly) .

You can see how Germany is approx matching the UK since 1970 on life expectancy and trend (OK it did slowly gain beofre mathcing), but was spending much more of GDP to achieve that.

IQ not useful for much...

Nassim Taleb criticises most IQ research.  

““IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent (with a lot of noise), a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects.

Designed for learning disabilities, and given that it is not too needed there [ ] it ends up selecting for exam-takers, paper shufflers … The concept is poorly thought out mathematically by the field (commits a severe flaw in correlation under fat tails; fails to properly deal with dimensionality; treats the mind as an instrument not a complex system), and seems to be promoted by

• racists/eugenists…

• psychometrics peddlers looking for suckers …

• It is at the bottom an immoral measure that, while not working, can put people (and, worse, groups) in boxes for the rest of their lives.

• There is no significant correlation (or any robust statistical association) between IQ and hard measures such as wealth. Most “achievements” linked to IQ are measured in circular stuff s.a. bureaucratic or academic success, things for test takers and salary earners in structured jobs that resemble the tests. 

• Some argue that IQ measures intellectual capacity — real world results come from, in addition, “wisdom” or patience, or “conscientiousness”, or decision-making or something of the sort. No. It does not even measure intellectual capacity/mental powers.

The whole discourse is worth reading if you are interested in the area.

In summary: IQ is useful to pick up learning disabilities - although there are many other ways to do that. It is not helpful for addressing many real world problems and challenges. On top of that, it is abused by racists making it problematic.

The full discourse by Taleb linked here.

On climate change risks: https://www.thendobetter.com/investing/2017/9/18/nassim-taleb-climate-change-risk

Taleb commencement address. And on the ethics of stuffing.

Small teams vs large teams and innovation effects

Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology |  Nature

Analyses of the output produced by large versus small teams of researchers and innovators demonstrate that their work differs systematically in the extent to which it disrupts or develops existing science and technology.

Me: Large teams do more incremental innovation. Small teams do more break-through innovations (which last further into the future, when it works…). Ties in anecdotally to what we know about large company innovation vs smaller tech and biotech innovation (and the high risk, high reward nature of smaller teams / companies). But you need both for a healthy innovation ecosystem.  It seems to be that small teams (less than 8, and say, solo or duo teams) look at older, promising ideas that weren’t developed and take those forward, but also that combining ideas from several fields is effective between 1 and 8 team members, but then falls.

Nature letter here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0941-9

Full paper accessible here:  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1709/1709.02445.pdf

Univeral Basic Income, Finland experiment

A trio of articles looking at the Universal Basic Income idea and recent trial in Finland. Plus link to the Finiland page.

Tiny Indian state wants to pay its citizens a universal basic income | South China Morning Post / WaPo

If successful, the experiment by Sikkim, one of India’s most progressive states, would help alleviate poverty and address the challenge of job automation

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/south-asia/article/2182595/tiny-state-india-wants-pay-its-610500-citizens-universal-basic

Universal basic income in India is a tantalisingly close prospect

Biometric ID cards and the squeeze on the rural poor are propelling the idea forward | Financial Times  

https://www.ft.com/content/a7ef07ec-2a00-11e9-9222-7024d72222bc

Finland's grand universal basic income experiment raises more questions than it answers | WIRED

Universal basic income might make people feel less stressed but doesn't necessarily fix unemployment

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/universal-basic-income-policy-universal-credit

Me: Along with a “job guarantee” idea, UBI started off as a fairly radical idea with now some significant small scale experiments behind it. I’m cautious as to how much other places can extrapolate from Finland, but overall it neither seems to help nor hinder your job prospects, but makes you feel happier. Maybe that’s enough given the highly admin intensive and relatively poor long-term outcomes for the current “job seeker” type benefits/sanctions, despite policy-maker backing.  

“In Britain, intensifying the use of sanctions and introducing harsher penalties associated with being sanctioned has been largely ineffective  at increasing flows from JSA into sustainable employment.” doi:10.1093/cje/bex088 Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA) benefit sanctions and labour market outcomes in Britain, 2001–2014 Martin Taulbu et al. (2018)  https://academic.oup.com/cje/article/42/5/1417/4827894

Link to the Finland experiment here: https://www.kela.fi/web/en/basic-income-experiment-2017-2018

New Zealand looking at non-financial capitals, more than GDP

The NZ PM talking about the problems with GDP and suggesting NZ should look at a broader set of indicators and changing the way it should make decisions, including a well-being budget in 2019.

Living standards | New Zealand Treasury

“Our vision is focused on higher living standards for New Zealanders. Achieving this requires growing the country's human, social, natural, and financial/physical capitals which together represent New Zealand's economic capital. Our vision is to be a world-class Treasury working for higher living standards for New Zealanders.”

Me: NZ (along with others) has been looking at a broader framework than GDP for a while now. The NZ PM is now pushing further ahead in asking the Treasury to think about other non-financial capitals such as human, social, natural etc. It’s an intriguing and possibly a positive development. It ties into many recent blogs on intangible capitals, Cowen’s idea of GDP+ and the idea companies have a lot of other capitals to draw upon.

https://treasury.govt.nz/information-and-services/nz-economy/living-standards

https://www.budget.govt.nz/budget/2018/economic-fiscal-outlook/budget-2019-focus-on-wellbeing.htm

Blog on Intangible Capitals here

Blog on GDP+ amongst other Tyler Cowen ideas here: https://www.thendobetter.com/investing/2018/11/21/tyler-cowen-vision-of-free-prosperous-and-responsible-individuals

Significant Major cross-discipline EAT-Lancet Commission paper on Sustainable Food

Major cross-discipline EAT-Lancet Commission on Sustainable Food has published its findings (Jan 2019). I give a summary review. With a fairly broad scientific consensus, the report establishes 3 significant items.

The major items the paper establishes are

• A healthy reference diet

This diet is considered to sustainably feed likely world populations from 2050 and beyond, and give a broadly correct amount of nutrition. The paper evidences that there would like be

• Health benefits from this diet

In rich nations, this would be from better nutrition helping obesity and cardiovascular disease and the second order benefits of this. And in poorer nations, this would be from decreasing malnutrition.

The diet mainly due to a extremely large pivot away from red meat also establishes

• a sustainable agriculture supports this diet

Where the environmental impacts of such a proposed diet are kept within likely carbon budgets and other planetary considerations.

While the report mentions several cultures that eat within the reference diet, in my view, a major weakness is little acknowledgment of the scale of socio-cultural change this diet suggests. To me, a cross-disciplinary socio-anthropologist or cultural philosopher would have made a great addition as a major component of why we eat what we eat is conditioned by social and cultural value.

-The reference diet is high in vegetables and low in red meat, sugar, potatoes and processed foods.

This healthy reference diet largely  consists of:

• vegetables,   fruits, whole   grains, legumes,  nuts, and unsaturated  oils,

• includes  a low to  moderate amount of seafood and poultry,

• includes no or a low quantity of red meat, processed meat, added sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.

Summary values are in table above.

If you look at the carbon impacts of various foods, you can see below that the move to vegetables over red meat is very positive for the environment. This is also because of the second order effects of growing grain to feed beef or other animals, which is environmentally intense both in land use and energy use. (See Fig. 4 below)

Source: Eat-Lancet (2019)

The “Business as usual” modelling shows the huge impact from animals on greenhouse gases.

There are strong second order health effects deriving from this as well - many fewer deaths - although I suspect keeping within the energy intake limit and cutting out added sugar and processed foods would achieved a fair amount of this benefit.  Cutting out processed foods and added sugar and eating about the correct amount of calories is almost universally favoured in all diets (even low carb, high fat diets as fat is high satiety) Still the economic benefits of lower health costs, and a more productive workforce.

In terms of where we need to get to…There is a long way to go (See below). Rich nations eat too much red meat and potatoes. Parts of Africa are too reliant on low nutritional-value cassava (starchy vegetables).

The overall paper is a fascinating read as it takes in the intersectional nature of food and the environment and health and proposes concrete guidance that enables a growing population. As I mentioned earlier, its weakness is in not weighting the cultural change factors in a strong enough way. For instance, many Americans and Europeans know they eat too much to be healthy but there is a learnt cultural attitude and difficulty in enabling change. Still, at least a good road map has been laid out. In terms of behaviours everyone can play a part in, food waste is important no matter what diet or scenario is chosen (grpah below).

I end on the important summary messages below from the paper:

Unhealthy and unsustainably produced food poses a global risk to people and the planet. More than 820 million people have insufficient food and many more consume an unhealthy diet that contributes to premature death and morbidity. Moreover, global food production is the largest pressure caused by humans on Earth, threatening local ecosystems and the stability of the Earth system.

Current dietary trends, combined with projected population growth to about 10 billion by 2050, will exacerbate risks to people and planet. The global burden of non-communicable diseases is predicted to worsen and the effects of food production on greenhouse-gas emissions, nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, biodiversity loss, and water and land use will reduce the stability of the Earth system.

Transformation to healthy diets from sustainable food systems is necessary to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, and scientific targets for healthy diets and sustainable food production are needed to guide a Great Food Transformation.

Healthy diets have an appropriate caloric intake and consist of a diversity of plant-based foods, low amounts of animal source foods, unsaturated rather than saturated fats, and small amounts of refined grains, highly processed foods, and added sugars.

Transformation to healthy diets by 2050 will require substantial dietary shifts, including a greater than 50% reduction in global consumption of unhealthy foods, such as red meat and sugar, and a greater than 100% increase in consumption of healthy foods, such as nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes. However, the changes needed differ greatly by region.

Dietary changes from current diets to healthy diets are likely to substantially benefit human health, averting about 10·8–11·6 million deaths per year, a reduction of 19·0–23·6%.

With food production causing major global environmental risks, sustainable food production needs to operate within the safe operating space for food systems at all scales on Earth. Therefore, sustainable food production for about 10 billion people should use no additional land, safeguard existing biodiversity, reduce consumptive water use and manage water responsibly, substantially reduce nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, produce zero carbon dioxide emissions, and cause no further increase in methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

Transformation to sustainable food production by 2050 will require at least a 75% reduction of yield gaps, global redistribution of nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser use, recycling of phosphorus, radical improvements in efficiency of fertiliser and water use, rapid implementation of agricultural mitigation options to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, adoption of land management practices that shift agriculture from a carbon source to sink, and a fundamental shift in production priorities.

The scientific targets for healthy diets from sustainable food systems are intertwined with all UN Sustainable Development Goals. For example, achieving these targets will depend on providing high-quality primary health care that integrates family planning and education on healthy diets. These targets and the Sustainable Development Goals on freshwater, climate, land, oceans, and biodiversity will be achieved through strong commitment to global partnerships and actions.

Achieving healthy diets from sustainable food systems for everyone will require substantial shifts towards healthy dietary patterns, large reductions in food losses and waste, and major improvements in food production practices. This universal goal for all humans is within reach but will require adoption of scientific targets by all sectors to stimulate a range of actions from individuals and organisations working in all sectors and at all scales.

And important strategies identified:

Three lessons can be learned from other examples of societal responses to global changes. First, no single actor or breakthrough is likely to catalyse systems change. Second, science and evidence-gathering are essential for change. Third, a full range of policy levers, from soft to hard, will be needed. ...we outline five specific and implementable strategies, which are supported by a strong evidence base….These strategies are:

(1) Seek international and national commitment to shift towards healthy diets. The scientific targets set by this Commission provide guidance for the necessary shift, which consists of increasing consumption of plant-based foods and substantially reducing consumption of animal source foods. Research has shown that this shift will reduce environmental effects and improve health outcomes. This concerted commitment can be achieved by investment in public health information and sustainability education, and improved coordination between departments of health and environment.

(2) Re-orient agricultural priorities from producing high quantities of food to producing healthy food. Production should focus on a diverse range of nutritious foods from biodiversity-enhancing food production systems rather than increased volume of a few crops, most of which are used for animal production.

(3) Sustainably intensify food production to increase high-quality output. The current global food system is unsustainable and requires an agricultural revolution that is based on sustainable intensification and driven by sustainability and system innovation. This change would entail reducing yield gaps on cropland, radical improvements in the efficiency of fertiliser and water use, recycling phosphorus, redistributing global use of nitrogen and phosphorus, implementing climate mitigation options, including changes in crop and feed management, and enhancing biodiversity within agricultural systems.

(4) Strong and coordinated governance of land and oceans. Such governance includes implementing a zero-expansion policy of new agricultural land into natural ecosystems and species-rich forests, management policies aimed at restoring and re-foresting degraded land, establishing mechanisms of international land-use governance, and adopting a Half Earth strategy for biodiversity conservation to safeguard resilience and productivity in food production. The world's oceans need to be effectively managed to ensure that fisheries do not negatively affect ecosystems, fish stocks are used responsibly, and global aquaculture production is expanded sustainably given its effect on and linkage to both land and ocean ecosystems.

(5) At least halve food losses and waste, in line with global sustainable development goals. Substantially reducing the amount of food lost and wasted across the food supply chain, from production to consumption, is essential for the global food system to stay within its safe operating space. Technological solutions will need to be applied along the food supply chain and public policies implemented to achieve a 50% reduction in food loss and waste.

Link to paper here in Lancet

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext

And a summary on the EAT site.

https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/

Blog on living longer through diet:  https://www.thendobetter.com/blog/2018/1/6/how-to-live-longer