The lack of access to modern energy sources subjects people to a life of poverty.
If you don’t have artificial light, your day is over at sunset.
This is why the students in this photo are out on the street: they had to find a spot under a streetlight to do their homework.
It’s a photo that shows both the determination of those who were born into poverty, but also the steep odds that they have to work against.
Energy poverty is so common that you can see it from space.
The poorest regions in the world are dark at night, as the satellite image shows.
But to understand one of the world’s biggest problems that comes with energy poverty we need to take a look in the world’s kitchens:
In high-income countries, people use electricity or gas to cook a meal.
But 40% of the world – 3 billion people – do not have access to these clean, modern energy sources for cooking. What do they rely on instead?
The visualization below is the WHO’s answer.
The 'Energy Ladder' shows:
The poorest households burn wood and other biomass, like crop waste and dried dung.
Those who can afford it cook and heat with charcoal or coal.
Burning these solid fuels fills the room with smoke and toxic chemicals.
They expose those in the household – often women and children – to pollution levels that are *far* higher than in even the most polluted cities in the world.
It leads to a range of health impacts as I discuss in the post.
The death toll from indoor air pollution is estimated to be between 2.3 and 3.8 million annually.
Humanity suffered and died from indoor air pollution for thousands of years.
As the name ‘traditional’ fuels implies, these were the sources that our ancestors in premodern days relied on.
The impact of manmade air pollution is documented in the remains of hunter-gatherers that lived in caves about 400,000 years ago.
High levels of air pollution have also been documented in the preserved lung tissue of Egyptian mummies.
Accounts of air pollution are common in the ancient world.
In the post I quote the philosopher Seneca who wrote the following in the year 61 after leaving Rome:
The premodern energy systems that bothered Seneca are a thing of the past for those who live in rich countries today.
But globally 3 billion people today (40%) do not have access to clean, modern energy for cooking today.
It's also a major environmental problem.
Globally about half of all wood extracted from forests is used to produce energy, mostly for cooking and heating.
But it is very much a solvable problem.
It is one of the many reasons why growth and electrification are so important for people’s wellbeing and health.
One thing that I emphasize in the post is that it is still a very long way to go for many world regions.
The @IEA estimates that by 2030 there will still be 2.4 billion people without access to clean cooking facilities.
Is there anything that can be done in the meantime to improve this?
A chart from a very interesting, ongoing research project of Roger Fouquet at the LSE lse.ac.uk/granthaminstit…
He estimates the 'Net Domestic Consumer Surplus' – as a measure of economic welfare to complement GDP – for the UK over the last 300 years.
It's a very ambitious project – he has to do extensive historical data work to reconstruct the consumption of goods and services over the last three centuries.
As Roger mentions in the link above, he is looking for funding to finish this work.
Do you know a person or an institution that would be interested to fund this research project?
For several energy metrics of key importance, *only* the @IEA publishes global data.
Below is a list of them.
The issue is that despite the fact that the IEA is largely publicly funded, they put this data behind paywalls.
They are therefore not part of the public discourse.
The fact that the @IEA charges thousands of Euros per dataset is due to their funders (the energy ministers) requesting that the IEA finances part of their budget through the sales of data.
During the rapid outbreak the test positivitiy rate also increased rapidly. This has now largely stopped.
I'd interpret this as suggesting that the gap between confirmed cases and total cases was increasing for a long time, but that this isn't continuing anymore.
To understand a global pandemic we need global data.
But even more than one year into the pandemic some of the most basic international data on COVID is missing.
Just because there is no international organization that brings this data together.
A thread.
To make it concrete, let's consider one set of measures for which international data is missing.
Cases, hospitalizations, & deaths *by age* would be very useful measures for decision makers, for epidemiologists, and really for everyone who wants to understand what is happening.
For a disease like COVID – for which the severity of the outcome is so dependent on the age of the infected person –, these metrics are absolutely key.
(e.g. differences in the mortality rate accross countries are to a good part due to different age profiles)
Confirmed cases are always only a fraction of all cases as not every infected person is tested and diagnosed.
The question is, how large of a fraction?
The IHME model for India suggests that the number of total cases is 29-times higher than the number of confirmed cases.
As you’ve seen in the chart above the latest data from the model is for April 11.
If the ratio between confirmed cases and total cases has stayed at 29, then the 233,074 cases that India confirms now correspond to 6.76 million cases daily.
(233,074*29=6.76M)
All these epidemiological models, including the IHME model, are far from perfect and that's important to keep in mind.
Two months ago India confirmed 11,300 cases per day.
This shows the rise of confirmed cases since then.
A straight line on a logarithmic axis tells you that you are looking at exponential growth with a constant growth rate.
Now India confirms more than 200,000 cases a day.
This is how the rate of positive tests changed in that same period.
A strongly rising positive rate tells us that the testing efforts are not keeping up with the size of the outbreak.