CHR News Desk | New Delhi
Household air pollution was responsible for an estimated 3.2 million deaths in 2020, including over 237,000 deaths of children under the age of 5. The combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution are associated with 6.7 million premature deaths annually. Exposure to household air pollution leads to noncommunicable diseases such as stroke, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer. Women and children, who are typically responsible for household chores such as cooking and collecting firewood, bear the greatest health burden from using polluting fuels and technologies in homes.
Around 2.3 billion people worldwide—about a third of the global population—cook using open fires or inefficient stoves fueled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung, and crop waste), and coal, which generates harmful household air pollution.
The Climate Health Review interviewed Christopher Beaton, Director of the Energy Program at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, to explore the intersection between energy, climate change, and public health. Beaton discussed the types of energy being supported in different countries and their effects on noncommunicable diseases and climate change.
Key topics included the global accessibility of clean cooking technologies, the challenges of scaling up renewable energy, advocating for clean energy investments to phase out fossil fuels, and the necessary policy measures to reduce health costs related to fossil fuel air pollution. Beaton also shared insights on the future of decarbonizing energy production and ensuring that the transition to cleaner technologies does not lead to further environmental destruction and human exploitation.
Hello Chris, welcome to this important discussion on the intersection between energy, climate change, and public health. We at Climate Health Review are honoured to have you.
Thank you for having me.
Q: Chris, can you talk about what energy types are being supported in different countries, and how has this affected NCDs and climate change?
A: Governments provide all kinds of support to energy—from subsidies to investments by state-owned firms and loans from public banks. But often, this isn’t well aligned with objectives on NCDs and climate change, both for indoor pollution, outdoor pollution and greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Indoor air pollution—largely, smoke from traditional cooking fuels, like firewood—causes respiratory disease, and can contribute to deforestation. Many governments have started subsidizing bottled cooking gas (“LPG”) to help. But even with this, many people still use traditional fuel for a share of cooking, so the dangerous pollution hasn’t gone away. LPG is also a fossil fuel, so subsidizing it is costly, and not a long-term solution.
Outdoor air pollution is another major cause of disease and is one of the biggest sources of GHGs, from gasoline and diesel in cars, to burning fossil fuels like coal and natural gas for electricity. Lots of governments support fossil energy to reduce living costs or improve energy security, but frequently this incentivizes increased use of fuels that generate harmful outdoor air pollution and GHGs.
Globally, support for fossil energy surged to a record $1.7 trillion or ~2 percent of GDP in 2022, as governments supported consumers and businesses during the global spike in energy prices caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It’s hugely costly in financial terms—in G20 countries alone, capital expenditure by fossil fuel SOEs and energy utilities reached USD 350 billion in 2022, an 8-year high. And this data on support is just the tip of the iceberg. As well as removing support to fossil energy, we should ideally be taxing fossil energy, to account for health and climate costs. According to IMF estimates, this under-taxation was worth an additional USD 5.7 trillion in 2022, ~6% of global GDP.
Q. Access to clean cooking has remained a challenge. Is access to renewable energy an issue globally? How do we scale up the numbers?
A: Around 2.3 billion people lack access to clean cooking. Many more continue to use traditional fuels at the same time as modern fuels. Access to renewables often comes down to electricity access, which is a problem for 600 million people worldwide. Subsidizing connections and consumption has been successful in some countries—but there are also big lessons to learn.
First, many subsidy programs benefit everyone, even richer groups, and this makes them very costly. They have to be targeted. Otherwise, the subsidy per person is too small to make energy affordable for the poor, and there are no resources left for supporting progressive initiatives. Second, subsidies alone are clearly not enough. Governments must think about broader policy tools, including education, to change behaviour. Third, in the case of LPG, we can’t rely indefinitely on a fossil fuel. Governments need to support the next generation of cooking technologies, such as induction, to bring down costs and make them affordable for all.
Q: Can you talk about your advocacy on investment in clean energy for the eventual phase-out of fossil fuels?
A: We’re calling on governments to shift public financial flows away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy. We estimate that fossil fuel subsidy reform alone could reduce global GHG emissions by 6%, and channelling just a share of savings into clean energy and efficiency would increase this to 12%. Savings can also help promote energy access. Back in 2018, spending on fossil fuel subsidies was over 7 times the annual sum needed to achieve universal clean energy access. Given 2022 surges in support levels, the ratio is now likely even larger.
India is a good example of this in action. Since 2014, fossil fuel subsidies have fallen over 70%. In the same period, clean energy subsidies more than quadrupled, and India is now planning to tender for 50 GW of new renewable energy capacity additions per year in the run-up to 2030. There is always more to do, but these are big steps in the right direction.
Q: What policy measures are required to dramatically reduce the health costs of fossil fuel-related air pollution and tackle climate change?
A: Governments should immediately end public support for oil, gas and coal, and set a clear timeline to reform inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in a socially responsible way. There are numerous global agreements on this but national implementation has been sorely lagging. In climate negotiations last year, in the Global Stocktake of progress to date, governments agreed that inaction on subsidies is a big problem, and agreed to follow through on commitments “as soon as possible”. In particular, governments should ban any new forms of support for fossil fuel production, and earmark a share of any savings from reform for clean energy and just transition. Lastly, they should improve transparency on all kinds of support for energy, while developing clear national action plans for reform.
Q: What can you see on the horizon in terms of decarbonizing energy production?
A: It’s going to come much faster than many people are expecting. Clean power now outcompetes fossil alternatives in many countries. We should be worried about “stranded assets”—all the large fossil investments which may suddenly have zero value. This is another reason to reduce government support for fossil energy. Public money shouldn’t be going into assests that are exposed to all these losses.
Q: How do we ensure that the rush for cleaner technologies does not come at the cost of more environmental destructions and human exploitation?
A: This should certainly be addressed. Batteries, for example, must be produced ethically and without environmental harm, from mining to end-of-life waste. But we must also not forget that fossil fuels cause absolutely devastating human exploitation and destruction—poor working conditions, lung diseases and violated landscapes from mining—to all the armed conflict, toxic pollution and spills from oil and gas. So it isn’t a reason to slow down transition to clean energy. In this case, the grass really is greener on the other side.
Thanks, Chris, for sharing your insightful perspectives on energy, climate change, and public health. It was wonderful talking to you.
