Episode 187: Katie Auth, Energy for Growth Hub
Today's guest is Katie Auth, Policy Director at Energy for Growth Hub.
The Energy for Growth Hub is a global solutions connector, matching policymakers with evidence-based pathways to a high-energy future for everyone.
Katie leads the Hub's work to strengthen international energy policy and investment by bilateral and multilateral development funders. Previously, she served as Senior Development Finance Advisor at the USAID and was a member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies Africa Policy Accelerator. Before that, she was Acting Deputy Coordinator of the US Government's Power Africa initiative, working to catalyze public and private investment in sub-Saharan Africa's energy sector. Before joining Power Africa, Katie served as a Senior Analyst for Climate and Energy at Worldwatch Institute. She analyzed power sector reform and investment in the Caribbean and West Africa. Katie is also a co-host of the Hub's podcast series High Energy Planet with Research Director Rose Mutiso.
I was eager to sit down with Katie because her work at the Energy for Growth Hub is important in the climate fight. Katie explains why energy poverty is a climate problem, the hub's work to address policy, and how she got into her role. We also dive into making climate a non-political issue, Sustainable Development Goals, and key initiatives the US must adopt in the future. This is a must-listen episode.
Enjoy the show!
You can find me on twitter @jjacobs22 or @mcjpod and email at info@myclimatejourney.co, where I encourage you to share your feedback on episodes and suggestions for future topics or guests.
Episode recorded November 29th, 2021
In Today's episode we cover:
An overview of Energy for Growth Hub
Katie's role and what led her to work at Energy for Growth Hub
How Katie came to be climate motivated
How Katie thinks about the problem of climate change and energy poverty
Historical context and understanding of why so many people lack basic electricity around the world
The best ways to address energy poverty and how to factor in cleaner choices, emissions, and externalities
The political opposition to the clean energy transition
What sets the Energy for Growth Hub apart from other organizations in the space
How policymakers "think bigger" according to Katie and the team at Energy for Growth Hub
Sustainable Development Goals and their implications
How the Energy For Growth Hub thinks about the consumption patterns of the wealthiest nations and their emissions
What holds the US back from creating energy alternatives available
Key climate initiatives and priorities for the future and how the US can meet future climate deadlines
Katie's reaction to climate scientists say we have ten years to act on the climate crisis
A discussion on how to make climate change a non-political issue
Links to topics discussed in this episode:
Energy for Growth Hub: https://www.energyforgrowth.org/
-
Jason Jacobs: Hey everyone, Jason here. I am the My Climate Journey show host. Before we get going, I wanted to take a minute and tell you about the My Climate Journey, or MCJ as we call it, membership option. Membership came to be because there were a bunch of people that were listening to the show that weren't just looking for education, but they were longing for a peer group as well. So, we set up a Slack community for those people, that's now mushroomed into more than 1300 members. There is an application to become a member. It's not an exclusive thing, there's four criteria we screened for. Determination to tackle the problem of climate change, ambition to work on the most impactful solution areas, optimism that we can make a dent. And we're not wasting our time for trying, and a collaborative spirit. Beyond that, the more diversity, the better. There's a bunch of great things that have come out of that community, a number of founding teams that have met in there.
A number of nonprofits that have been established, a bunch of hiring that's been done, a bunch of companies that have raised capital in there, a bunch of funds that have gotten limited partners or investors for their funds in there, as well as a bunch of events and programming by members and for members, and some open source projects that are getting actively worked on that hatched in there as well. At any rate, if you want to learn more, you can go to myclimatejourney.co, the website and click the become a member tab at the top. Enjoy the show.
Hello, everyone. This is Jason Jacobs and welcome to My Climate Journey. This show follows my journey to interview a wide range of guests to better understand and make sense of the formidable problem of climate change and try to figure out how people like you and I can help. Today's guest is Katie Auth, Policy Director of the Energy for Growth Hub. The energy for Growth Hub is a global solutions connector, matching policymakers with evidence-based pathways to a high energy future for everyone. I was excited for this one because energy poverty is such an important issue that one is not necessarily intuitive, especially here in the West, where there has been energy abundance for a long time.
And it's also an issue that's adjacent to climate change, just as important as climate change and also, there's a lot of overlap as well. So it was super helpful in this discussion to put this topic front and center, talk about how it intertwines with climate change, the implications of energy poverty as you think about climate solutions, and of climate solutions as you think about energy poverty. And we of course, talk about the Energy for Growth Hub's work, what Katie does within the organization, and the best ways to address energy poverty in general. Katie, welcome to the show.
Katie Auth: Hey, Jason, thanks so much for having me.
Jason Jacobs: Thanks for coming. This is my first meeting post Thanksgiving break.
Katie Auth: Cool.
Jason Jacobs: So, I don't know if, if-
Katie Auth: [Laughs].
Jason Jacobs: ... I'm firing on all pistons here, but it's a good excuse to get the day started right.
Katie Auth: Yeah, we can make turkey jokes if you want to.
Jason Jacobs: [Laughs]. Well, thanks so much for making the time. We've covered such a wide range of topics on the show and energy poverty has come up from time to time, but I don't recall that we've ever put it front and center. If we have, we probably haven't enough given the importance of the topic. And it's what you do. And so right there that makes for a really impactful 45 minutes or an hour for me and for listeners as well that are trying to sort through all the different issues in and around the problem of climate change.
Katie Auth: Yeah. Now, I'm, I'm excited, I'm glad that you guys are focusing in on energy poverty, I think it's an issue that's way too often kind of overlooked or sidelined in the broader climate conversation. So this is awesome.
Jason Jacobs: Great. Well, before we dive into the problem itself, maybe just for context, talk a bit about Energy for Growth Hub and what the organization does.
Katie Auth: Yeah. So, the Energy for Growth Hub is a relatively new, pretty small think tank, we're based in DC. And it spun off from the Center for Global Development, which is where our Executive Director Todd Moss was working. And basically, we have two big aims. The first is that we wanna drive the discussion around energy poverty to be more ambitious. So there was a huge focus, kind of over the past decade, a lot of people focusing on solving energy poverty, but really drilling down on household level access, providing people with basic lighting services, getting them to kind of that initial rung of the most basic electricity provision, the starting point. And unfortunately, while that's super important and we absolutely need to address that challenge, there's so much more that we need to be focusing on.
And we're trying to push international development organizations, financiers, anyone involved in this space to be thinking bigger. Electricity for economic growth, for diversification, for really building industry and enabling entrepreneurship to flourish and all the things that go into creating flourishing economies in this new climate constrained world. And then the flip side of that, is that we also try to channel a lot of really interesting research that's happening in academic organizations and other places around the world into the hands of policymakers. So, I was former US government, Todd was as well. And the people who are in those types of positions, simply don't have the time to digest long academic studies on energy technology, or whatever else is going on. So, we work with a network of researchers and academics around the world, and we take their research and we get it into the hands of people who can do something with it. And we kind of format it and package it in a way that they can- they can really act on.
Jason Jacobs: Uh-huh[affirmative]. And in terms of your own personal journey, not just how did you come to work in- in this organization, but how did you come to care about this problem?
Katie Auth: Yeah. So I was thinking about this, I think, you know, over the course of my career, I've always been focused on this trifecta of energy poverty, climate change, and broader global development, but have kind of focused on different aspects of that at different points in time. So, I actually really started out much more focused on climate as it related to traditional kind of conservation issues. So, I was doing a lot of conservation policy and looking at marine ecosystems, and how do we support communities and ecosystems that are impacted by climate. And then I just moved into energy as a tool for climate mitigation because it was such, A, there was so much energy... Not to use upon, [laughs].
Jason Jacobs: [Laughs].
Katie Auth: There was so much kind of dynamism and, and funding going into energy, and it was where a lot of the kind of forward looking ambition was going. And that was exciting to me. And then when the US government launched Power Africa, which was essentially about how to catalyze private sector investment in African energy systems, then I was much more focused on energy as a poverty solution. Was really about energy for economic development. And now at the Hub, it's awesome, because I kind of get to look at this bigger picture of, "Okay, how do we do all of these things at the same time? Climate mitigation, solving energy poverty, and jump starting economies around the world. And I kind of get to put all the pieces together, which is- which is great.
Jason Jacobs: I mean, the, the listeners that tend to tune into this show, I mean, they all care about climate change, but there are in various stages of their journey. For the newcomers who are just coming in, or I guess, maybe for anybody, because it is interesting how, just because you've been working on it for a long time, you know, each area requires mastery, and then mastery requires focus, and focus... It doesn't necessarily require blinders, but to your point before, there's just not enough time in the day, right? And so, how do you think about the problem of climate change and the problem of energy poverty and how they are different and how they interrelate?
Katie Auth: Hmm. I guess, if you don't mind, maybe I'll just give when I talk about energy poverty, because this isn't a typical subject for your show, I'll just briefly explain what I mean. So, I think when you look at energy poverty in African economies, or elsewhere, but I focus largely on Africa. I think, you know, most people are broadly familiar with the fact that there's millions of people without access to electricity at all. So, right now there's about 600 million people across Africa that don't have access to any electricity. That's kind of like square one. But I don't think many people realize how deep that energy poverty goes. So, if you look at, you know, a specific country in Africa, even the fairly advanced economies like Kenya or Nigeria, the average citizen is often consuming less electricity in one year than you're using just to power your refrigerator.
So that's the entirety of their energy consumption, their electricity consumption, is less than just a small portion of what you or I use on a daily basis. And that figure represents, you know, it's averaged across the economy. So that's also a reflection of the fact that that Nigerian citizen or Kenyan citizen is just not living in an economy that's actively consuming large amounts of electricity to power industry, manufacturing and other businesses. So, it's, it's a really deep problem. And then, you know, compounded on that, you have places in which even where people do have access to electricity, it's often unreliable or it's very expensive. And so those create just an additional layer of burden and barrier on entrepreneurship and creativity and really stifles a lot of potential economic activity and opportunities for people.
I think in contrast to you asked about kind of how it's different than climate change. I mean, I think in some ways, the impacts of it are much more immediate, although obviously, like with climate where every day seeing more immediate impacts, but I think with energy poverty, it's, it's such a significant barrier on people's lives right now, today, you know, people in hospitals without electricity are dying even. So, I think part of the conflict that sometimes arises when discussions end up being framed, in terms of it either has to be solving energy poverty, or addressing climate change, I think that's a false dichotomy. But part of what drives that is this, this urgency of solving energy poverty, and it's easier to kind of think about climate change as a longer term issue. But part of the reason I do what I do is that I, I don't think you can separate them out. I think they're intertwined and I think we have to solve both of them together.
Jason Jacobs: Do the people that work on one tend to be separate and distinct from the people that work on the other?
Katie Auth: I would say in, in many instances yes. I think especially in the US, there are people focused on climate, who really don't think about energy poverty in a deep way at all. And I think vice versa, there's many people who are focused on, on energy poverty and, and are only starting now to really incorporate climate into the way they approach the problem. And I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think, as you said, like, we need experts in specific areas, but it's important that we bridge them.
Jason Jacobs: Historically, what has held back the hundreds of millions of people that you mentioned from having access to basic electricity for example, or any of the other issues that, that you just called out? Like, I'm trying to get the why behind what's been driving that.
Katie Auth: Yeah. So, at this point is a financial situation in which if you look at African power sectors, a lot of them are in deep, deep financial distress. And what that means is that the public utilities that are in charge of purchasing privately produced electricity and selling it to consumers are often, you know, essentially bankrupt, unable to recover their costs, really operating, totally dependent on public subsidies. And so that makes it very risky for a private company to come in and say, "I'm gonna come and build a solar plant or a wind farm in a particular country, and I'm gonna sell that electricity to the utility." They're doing it. I mean, those projects are getting built, but it often requires guarantees and other forms of risk mitigation tools from development organizations.
And you know, just escaping from that vicious cycle is difficult, because when a utility doesn't have the capital to invest in its own infrastructure, then the quality of the electricity that it's selling to consumers deteriorates and then consumers don't wanna pay because they're not getting a quality of service that they appreciate. And so then the utility has less revenue, and it just kind of creates this doom cycle. And so I think escaping from that is one of the toughest challenges.
Jason Jacobs: When you think about the best ways to address energy poverty, maybe talk a bit about the best ways to address them without factoring in the externalities or emissions and, and then talk a bit about how cleaner choices factors in or should factor in if at all?
Katie Auth: Yeah, so I guess... I mean, I would kind of push back on the premise. I personally don't think we should ever be investing in energy infrastructure anywhere in the world without considering the externalities. Right? But one of the points that the Hub tries to make is it puts, you know, the emissions from countries that are suffering from deep energy poverty in context. Right? So, a country like Sierra Leone or Liberia, they're producing a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of global emissions. And so, there's an argument to be made there that let's provide those countries which are struggling to provide basic services to citizens, let alone develop broader economic goals, let's give them what flexibility we have to use fossil fuels where they need it.
And countries like the US and Europe, we should be working much, much faster to decarbonize our own grids because we have the capacity to do so. And I think that's kind of the equity challenge that arises here, is cleaner solutions will absolutely be a major component. They should be the major component of ending energy poverty, but in situations where natural gas may be needed as, as a transition fuel, I'm interested in exploring kind of how do we do that responsibly? How do we help countries actually make that transition in a way that supports equity and supports global development and doesn't punish the poorest populations on Earth?
Jason Jacobs: And the people or organizations or elected officials or governments that oppose that, what are some of the reasons that they provide?
Katie Auth: I mean, I think there's obviously incredibly valid concern over climate change. And people are hesitant to, to do anything that will add to the world's emissions totally understandably. But I think that's where our point about scale really comes in. I mean, is constraining the choices that Sierra Leone makes actually having an impact on global emissions? No. So kind of, we should be focusing on the places where the emissions impacts are really going to be made. And that's by and large, not in these countries, although obviously, like, over the long term, the US or whoever else, can play a valuable role in driving down the costs of clean tech so that those are available in markets everywhere. And then as I said, kind of thinking about the long term trajectory. How does a country who's suffering with deep energy poverty now get to a place where they're, you know, operating a zero carbon grid and powering a, a flourishing economy? And that's the transition that I'm like really interested in. Cause it's not, it's not gonna be an easy pathway.
Jason Jacobs: Uh-huh[affirmative]. And if I'm putting myself in the head of maybe s- some of the people or entities who oppose this, I'll say this as a statement, but I'm asking as a question, just to make sure I understand it. Is their argument that well, yes, it's true that the Western countries have been the biggest sources of emissions historically, but all that infrastructure is built out, and it's there already, and things are already trending in the right direction. But in the developing country, sure, historically, they've not been big sources of emissions, but as they come into lifestyles that have more of the abundance that Western countries have experienced, the choices that are made now become a foundation for the choices of the future, and they're switching costs once that infrastructure is there. Is that what they say?
Katie Auth: Sometimes, yes. And I think there's a lot of validity to that. I don't think that's a, a nefarious argument. I think there are absolutely opportunities to think differently about how energy systems get built out in the countries that I'm talking about. And I think, optimistically you're seeing a lot of governments in those countries dive into those headfirst. There's tons of wind and solar being built. There's tons of focus on decentralized grids. So, I actually don't think I disagree with those people. I just think that in this particular moment, when we're thinking about global energy transitions, and we're really at the very early stages, it's better to kind of look at a country on an individual basis and work with them to figure out how we can get from point A to point B, C, D, instead of making across the board proclamations about ending finance for fossil fuels in these countries.
I just think it's a more, it's a more productive avenue diplomatically, politically, technologically. And I think, you know, you're asking about why people oppose flexibility for, for poor countries. I think part of it is that unfortunately, as the US, you know, we're seeing this play out with the latest Build Back Better bill, it's quite difficult to make big changes domestically. We have a recalcitrant Congress, we have lots of different interest groups, it's really difficult. By contrast, it's quite easy to go to COP and say, "Okay, we need to make a big statement. What can we say?" Okay, we can say we won't finance it overseas anymore. You saw China do the same thing. They're no longer gonna finance coal overseas, but they're still gonna do it domestically. So I think that's the rub. That's the point that hits a lot of people as very hypocritical.
Jason Jacobs: Uh-huh[affirmative]. And so as you look at this problem of energy poverty, when the Energy for Growth Hub didn't exist, and you, you looked at this problem, what is it that you or Tod, or whoever saw and said, "Oh, the Energy for Growth Hub needs to exist, because we're gonna do X that is not being done without us." What was that?
Katie Auth: Yeah, so that really goes back to what I was saying. It was about driving up ambition. So the Energy for Growth Hub wasn't founded really with climate in mind necessarily, it was much more about how do we get people to focus on, on expanding electricity access around the world, not just so that households can have basic lighting, but so that economies can thrive. And kind of really pushing that conversation and pushing policymakers and others to think bigger. And I think climate has obviously become a critical component of that conversation. How do we think bigger in a world where we're also trying to mitigate global emissions and think about energy transitions?
Jason Jacobs: And what are some examples of some ways that policymakers were thinking that led you to say they should be thinking bigger? And then what does thinking bigger look like as the Energy for Growth Hub defines it?
Katie Auth: Yeah. So if you think about, there's these things called the sustainable development goals, and it's basically the UN's framework for measuring global development priorities around the world. And SDG 7 is focused on ending energy poverty. But if you really dig into how they're capturing it, it's looking at electricity for households. And it counts people as having access to electricity at a very, very low bar. So, it's just one example of kind of how we've been focused on the first tier of access. And so the Hub's point was, "That's great, that's super important, we wanna keep doing that, but there needs to be a bigger, longer term vision." And in our minds, that would include kind of setting a bar both higher.
So, looking at setting the bar for electricity consumption at a threshold that actually enables economic activity, but then also looking at electricity consumption outside the home. So, not just what is a family consuming, but what is an economy consuming and where? And is it powering business and entrepreneurship and you know, all of these other critical services, hospitals and schools, and you know, all the things that create opportunity for people?
Jason Jacobs: Now, what are the implications of these SDGs? And what I mean is, if the SDG is worded differently, how does that play out? Because let's say it's worded one way, well, if that country wanted to, the country could, you know, fund it through other means. It could be taxes, it could be internal R&D, it could be subsidies, it could be anything that's after disposal. So, help me understand the importance of the SDGs and how that manifests.
Katie Auth: Yeah. So I think, with something like the SDGs, which are these really high level global, UN backed structures that we create, these frameworks, it's less about specific financing and more about vision settings. So, you know, you're gonna fund what you measure. And so it's a tool to focus people's attention on a particular aspect of development, whether it's energy poverty or, or anything else. I think the problem with setting it with focusing people's attention at very low thresholds of energy access, or that that ends up being where the development finance goes, it drives a lot of attention and interest there. And it's not necessarily... Well, it's certainly not the only issue we need to deal with. But it's also not necessarily the most impactful place to focus if your goal is actually to power broader, broader development. So, the SDGs are more of a, a way to focus people's time and attention and resources at a global scale.
Jason Jacobs: What I said before about the Western countries being the primary drivers for historical emissions, but the developing countries having the most implications for the future, do you agree with that statement? And, and if so, what are the implications of that in terms of the role of the historical emitters for example in the transition?
Katie Auth: Yeah. So obviously, I mean, historical emissions and thinking about historical emissions is a useful tool for thinking about equity, but it's obviously not a useful tool for thinking about climate impacts, because where they come from doesn't matter. Right? I think one of the problems with that stat that people often cite about developing economies being responsible for most of future emissions is that that usually includes India and sometimes China, which are just, you know, that's gonna skew the scale every time. And I think those countries are in a pretty different category than most of the economies where the Hub focuses its attention, which are much smaller, much deeper. I mean, India is still dealing with deep energy poverty. But like, the countries where we're focused is a very different scale.
And there's a danger in, in grouping those in a big bucket as if they're all the same. Liberia is just not going to be responsible for a large share of global emissions in the future. But I do think that there's huge opportunities right now to support those countries as they shift towards a lower carbon system. I mean, I, I don't think there are any countries that aren't taking climate seriously, you know, or, you know, African countries have signaled their intent to address this problem, they want to take advantage of new clean tech, it's just a question of kind of how we support them in doing that, in a way that both ends energy poverty as quickly as we can, and also puts countries on a longer term trajectory towards, towards zero carbon.
Jason Jacobs: Now, does the Energy for Growth Hub have a perspective as it relates to what should happen to the consumption patterns of the wealthiest nations historically?
Katie Auth: Not specifically. I mean, I'm happy to talk about my personal views. I think conversations around kind of "degrowth" are often not necessarily helpful or, or realistic or, or constructive. But I, I do think that particularly when you're grappling with these questions of equity and hypocrisy at the... On the global level, we in the rich world, in countries like the US and Europe, absolutely need to do everything we can, which is much more than we're doing now, to reduce our emissions impact. And I think the fact that you're not necessarily seeing that happen, is what drives a lot of the pushback from African countries who say, like, I don't see you taking, you know, big steps to limit your consumption. And the US continues to build fossil fuel plants and gas plants, as does Europe. And so I think that's where the concern arises.
Jason Jacobs: I get the argument that you're making about how each country has a different situation and a different footprint and a different history and a different future and a different quality of life and things like that, and so should be factored in distinctly versus these overall mandates that could maybe make sense in some parts of the world and just be off base in, in others. I think the flip side is that sometimes, if you make a... set a bold goal, and that bold goal seems crazy, it will send people into scrambling mode to think differently and maybe to find ways to do things that aren't incrementally more efficient, or more productive. But that can really help achieve what conventional wisdom might have said would be impossible.
And given that, how do we balance those two things and use the kick clubs that you're advocating for so that everybody is treated fairly, but still get ourselves out of incrementalism and move far more aggressively to facilitate the transition given all the foot dragging and the, "Well, I'm not gonna do it, if you're not gonna do it." And everything else that's going on. Like, how do we get out of that cycle cause we have to?
Katie Auth: Yeah. Well, just to say, I totally agree with that. We have to escape that part of the conversation. I guess, maybe I'll come across this, [laughs], it's kind of cynical here. I would have more faith in setting those blue sky goals when it comes to what the US does for global infrastructure if we were putting money behind alternatives. So, if the US and Europe, you know, were able to meet even the climate finance that they've already committed to, let alone what's estimated it will actually take to enable transitions and resilience around the world. That would be one thing. But if we can't, you know, we've failed year after year to make that funding available. And we failed again at COP26. And so I think in the absence of making that real demonstrable commitment to an alternative, that's kind of where that argument falls apart for me. I do believe that there's huge benefits to setting big goals and ambitious goals and pushing people to achieve them. I just think we also need to be, you know, we need to recognize that we're so far not stepping up to actually make the alternative available.
Jason Jacobs: And why do you think that is? What's been holding us back?
Katie Auth: I mean, I think putting money into international development has unfortunately never been a particularly popular political move domestically. So, I think many Americans don't necessarily see the linkages between how supporting an energy transition in an African country they've probably never visited maybe never even heard about connects to their lives. And I think, you know, that's just a struggle with international development writ large, not just with this. But I think it does factor into, you know, people not necessarily being hugely supportive of, of funding these things when we're facing so much need at home. And I think that's part of the, the conundrum that the Hub tries to dig into, is demonstrating, you know, how ultimately, this is something that impacts us all. And I think climate is actually a good example of, of why that's the case.
Jason Jacobs: And so, as the organization prioritizes, tactically and from a resource standpoint over, you know, the next quarter, 12 months, two years, five years, is there one, or are there a handful of key initiatives that you're really putting most of your weight behind? Or, or is it more of a long tail? Like how do you prioritize in terms of what you resource for? And, and what are those priorities?
Katie Auth: Yeah. So, we have a handful of kind of core thematic issues that we focus on. And then I would say there's a good mix of, of long term planning about, okay, ultimately, what do we wanna achieve over a five year time horizon? And then there's also room within that, because we're a policy focused organization, you have to kind of leave room to be reactive and say, "Okay, where are the windows today or in the next year to actually make progress here?" In terms of issues, I think, in addition to a lot of the, the stuff we've talked about already, one is how to support energy markets in really low income economies to make the way they develop clean energy, faster, cheaper, and more transparent.
So we really see that as, as a critical building block for scaling up clean energy markets worldwide. And right now, a lot of them are very... They're secretive, it's often kind of deals being done behind closed doors. And that doesn't... It just doesn't create the competitive marketplace and the, the open system where you get benchmarks and you'd start to drive down prices, and you'd start to move faster. And we wanna see that happen. Another topic is related to what we discussed before, but really thinking about what climate justice means in relation to energy poverty. So in the US a lot of what climate justice means is focused on the fact that climate impacts are going to be experienced, you know, predominantly by lower income and disadvantaged populations. But there's also an element of climate justice that has to ensure that ending energy poverty and prioritizing energy solutions for people that provide them with opportunities has to be part of that conversation.
And then we're also you know, more focused on the minutiae of, of policymaking, and where development finance goes. So we're working with, you know, major US agencies, like the Development Finance Corporation and USAID, to kind of help, hopefully steer development money into what we think are the most productive places.
Jason Jacobs: So, if I'm hearing right, it, it sounds like as an organization, that you believe that we do need to transition to a more clean economy that's, you know, in more harmony with, you know, with the planet that we rely on for fostering life. And that quality of life and energy and abundance are interrelated. And so it's not realistic to think of going back to a time without energy abundance, and in fact, everyone should benefit from energy abundance. You also think that ideally, everyone would benefit in a way that was clean across the board, but that's going to take time, and in the meantime, the smallest emitters should benefit from that abundance, or at least some semblance of it much closer than as being set by the current SDGs, both because it's the right thing to do and because it's such a small difference in terms of our overall emissions footprint that it's worth the trade off.
Katie Auth: Yeah. I think that's a really nice way of putting it. I think, our ideal world or my ideal world, I won't speak for everyone I work with, but my ideal world would be one in which everyone has abundant, reliable, affordable energy to do everything they want in their life. And I think that that would be an incredible tool for opening up you know, just huge new opportunities for people in new economies and all kinds of creation and entrepreneurship. I also think that ideally, not even ideally, like we need to get to a place in which energy systems around the world are zero carbon.
I don't think that's negotiable. I think the only point that, that I'm making when I talk about flexibility for the poorest countries, is thinking about how do we navigate the in between period in a way that doesn't kind of delay poverty reduction for those who are most in need, but also who are contributing the least to global emissions. And I think, you know, this conversation can become very heated very quickly, because people are so emotionally invested on either side. But I think that there are, there's got to be a way to navigate kind of the middle path and make sure that we do this in a way that supports equity and inclusion and all the things we've been talking about.
Jason Jacobs: What I hear from seemingly a large percentage of the scientific community is that we are behind the eight ball, we've got 10 years to act, we've got these catastrophic tipping points approaching, you know, humanity will not survive. We are in a climate emergency. Do you agree with that perspective? Do you think it's overblown? Do you think it's an accurate depiction? Do you think it's harmful to the cause? Like, what's your reaction when, when you hear that?
Katie Auth: Ah, yeah, this is a tough question. So, I will say honestly, that I've been anxious about climate change for years and years and years. I think our generation is we grew up with these really fatalistic messages about, about climate, and they're grounded in a lot of truth. But I think they can also be detrimental when it either A, kind of paralyzes people into feeling too overwhelmed to do anything, because you're kind of, [laughs], it's just too overwhelming, or where it makes people so kind of myopically fixated on mitigating emissions at all costs, that it closes out room in the conversation for the links to energy poverty and to development into global poverty that, that I've been talking about.
And I think, I think you see both of those happening to some extent. I hope that there's a way we can talk about climate that respects the fact that it is as serious as it is. But that also kind of creates space for nuance and for especially conversations about how we can support transitions in the lowest income economies.
Jason Jacobs: Yeah. I mean, it, it seems, and I mean, I don't, I don't wanna speak for, for some of the critics, but in, in talking to people with lots of different perspectives, it, it seems like maybe some of that comes from the big oil dollars and lobbying and trade groups and, and everything that have been working behind the scenes to, you know, spin up these narratives, you know, like personal behavior change, wear your sweater, right? It's, it's... You know, recycle. Right. And, and actually, this messaging is a way to pass the buck if you will, and to give big industry an excuse for continued business as usual and inaction because they're not incentivized with their own self interest certainly in any time horizon that like the CEOs of those companies care about as it relates to their bonus payouts or things like that.
Like, they're not incentivized to act, they're incentivized to stall. So, I mean, do you think maybe that's contributing to some of the worry? Right? Where they say, "Well, yes, like energy poverty matters, but if we... You know, we need to move much quicker than we are." And by saying that, you know, we need to retain abundance for all, right? It's essentially justifying, you know, emitting whatever we want to not compromise on anyone short term quality of life, when in the long term, all of our quality of life will be impacted by the continuing worsening problem.
Katie Auth: Yeah, I agree that the messaging around individual action is... I think it's important for all of us to take steps in our own lives, but I don't think that that's where the biggest impact is gonna come. And I do think it can be a way to pass the buck and put it on individual people in a way that's not productive. I guess I would>.. The one thing that, that I would push back on a little bit in what... how you phrased it was, I don't think that energy abundance for all means we can emit whatever we want. I don't think that's the vision at all.
I think we want a future where energy abundance and zero carbon emissions go hand in hand. And I think the most optimistic places in this conversation are the solutions that hold potential to achieve that. And I think, you know, that's a mix of, of emerging tech and scaling up markets and business solutions. And I think you're, you are seeing a lot of hopeful signs, I think that that can happen. And I do think we need to escape this conversation about like, it's either climate or its energy abundance. I think we wanna, we wanna create a world in which those two coexist. And I'm confident that we can. But again, we're, right now we're navigating this messy in between period where we need to figure out how to safeguard our other priorities.
Jason Jacobs: I feel like one dimension is just that there's a lack of trust all around. For example, the fossil fuel industry, they say, "Look, we've been breaking our backs and potentially powering the whole industrial revolution. And if we ended fossil fuels tomorrow, like tons of people would die and quality of life for so many would be sacrificed in ways that aren't ethical and aren't fair and aren't just. And not only do we not get any credit, but we, we get philosophized, demonized." Right? And, and there's some truth to that. But then on the other side, you have people that are trying to facilitate the transition, and it's like, and anytime it comes to acting bolder, it's like, "No, no, no, we matter. You can't just rip it away."
And it's like, "Well, yes, you can rip it away. But yes, we need to get off them as quickly as possible." And anytime we try to get off them quicker, you use this as an excuse to protect and so maybe there're some elements of truth to both sides, at least from, from what I can gather.
Katie Auth: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I tend to think of... well, A, like, I think we're in the midst of probably like the most enormous social change we've ever tried to [laughs] enact on the shortest timeframe ever, we're trying to change as you said, like everything about all of our economies, and the way the world functions. Like it's an incredible thing. And I tend to think of in any social movement, an ecosystem develops, right? And personally, I try to look at each player as playing a role in that. So, the activists who are pushing for divestment and for an immediate end to fossil fuels, I think that's a helpful voice to have in the conversation, because it continues to put the pressure on them, it creates a lot of urgency and a lot of drive.
I don't think that that as a platform is necessarily like a viable short term achievement. But I do think that that's an important position to have. On the flip side, I think fossil fuel companies, you know, need to be pushed to change the way they operate. And, you know, I do think they're seeing the writing on the wall, this is not gonna be an industry that that lasts. And I think shutting them out of the conversation also has, you know, potential limitations to it. So I think, you know, these things all at the end of the day are gonna mesh somehow.
Jason Jacobs: And given your background and, and how you've kind of straddled those three pillars that we talked about before, throughout your career for your friends who don't have professional lives that straddle those three pillars, but are concerned about these problems, when they reach out to you and they say, "Katie, I'm really freaked out about climate change and the wildfires and the flooding and the droughts and the forced migration and whatever is gonna come and I'm seeing all these negative headlines, and it's really making me depressed and hard to focus on whatever it is that I do that has nothing to do with, with climate change. What should I do? How can I help?" What do you tell them es- especially given your skepticism about the impact that personal behavior change alone can have?
Katie Auth: Yeah. I mean, to clarify, I think personal behavior change is crucially important, not least because it does give you a way to feel like you are... It gives you a sense of control, or it gives you at least a sense that you are contributing in some concrete way. And I think that can be a very kind of healthy thing for people to do. And it's something that I know, I've found helpful when feeling overwhelmed by the enormousness of the problem, like, scale it down and think about, okay, in my own life, how am I going to limit my carbon footprint? The important thing is, I think, not to get stuck there, but to also keep an eye on the bigger picture. And in terms of that bigger picture, I think, you know, if you're living in the US, pushing for political action at home, is probably the biggest thing we could do.
Because if the US doesn't lead on this the way we should, that then makes all these international issues that we've been talking about, like largely meaningless. And so I wanna to push for domestic policies that are much more ambitious, much more forward leaning. And then that creates space to have a, a thoughtful conversation about where climate and poverty intersect in other parts of the world. But I... I mean, I also share, I think it's easy to be overwhelmed and freaked out by the climate impacts that we're seeing all around us. And I think, to some level that's healthy, we should be freaked out. But then we need to channel that into, into something positive.
Jason Jacobs: And bigger picture, if you could wave a magic wand and change one thing outside of the scope of your control that would be most effective and accelerating the transition, what would you change and how would you change it?
Katie Auth: Well, I guess I can't say I would wave a magic wand and end climate change. Right? [Laughs]. So I guess I would say, I would make it a, a non political issue. I think there has been so much damage done by conflating climate change with a partisan challenge. And I think, you know, the sad thing is, we have a lot of the solutions at hand. Like I have faith that if we put the political stuff aside, we could do this. We can innovate, we can be inventive, we can, you know, harness the technologies that we already have, and finance the things we need. But I think the political wrangling too often just stops all of that in its tracks. So, that's what I would change.
Jason Jacobs: And how might we do that?
Katie Auth: [Laughs]. I think you're starting to see it happen slowly. In the US, I think you're starting to see some folks in the Republican Party kind of shift ever so slowly, from denying that the problem exists to acknowledging that it exists and having a conversation about solutions. I don't think it's happening nearly fast enough. I think, the messaging that puts climate change in context with opportunities for job creation and economic revitalization and all of these other things that matter much more tangibly to people's lives, I think all of that is helpful in kind of separating it from the political fight. But [laughs] I don't have a magical answer unfortunately.
Jason Jacobs: Well, for anyone that's listening to the show that's inspired by the work that you're doing, and that the Energy for Growth Hub is doing, who do you wanna hear from? Where do you need help?
Katie Auth: I mean, I think what I'm most excited about, I guess, is how we get to that promised land future that we talked about. So, a world in which we have both energy abundance and zero carbon economies. And so I think I'd be interested in hearing from folks who are maybe focused domestically in the US, because I don't focus much of my attention there. But how can we kind of channel more of the innovation, the R&D and all of the exciting things that are happening on the emerging tech side, how can we do a better job of really driving those solutions into the broader global market and thinking about how to make them more available for developing economies as well? I think that's, that's really important.
Jason Jacobs: And Katie, anything I didn't ask that I should have or any parting words for listeners?
Katie Auth: No, I don't think so. This has been phenomenal. I would love to... I'll definitely keep listening to your podcast, but love to engage always with anyone who's interested in the intersection of climate and energy poverty. So thanks so much for having me.
Jason Jacobs: Great. Well, I learned so much, which means listeners as well too. So, thanks again. And best of luck to you and the whole Energy for Growth Hub team.
Katie Auth: Yeah, thanks. Happy belated Thanksgiving.
Jason Jacobs: Hey, everyone, Jason here. Thanks again for joining me on My Climate Journey. If you'd like to learn more about the journey, you can visit us at myclimatejourney.co. Note that is .co not .com. Someday we'll get to .com, but right now, .co. You can also find me on Twitter @JJacobs22, where I would encourage you to share your feedback on the episode or suggestions for future guests you'd like to hear. And before I let you go if you enjoy the show, please share an episode with a friend or consider leaving a review on iTunes. The lawyers made me say that. Thank you.
