Hello and welcome to Top 10 Emerging Technologies, a show from the World Economic Forum that looks at the performance of some of the most promising technologies of the last decade. I'm your host, Greta Keenan, and in this episode we'll be talking about electric aviation, which made it onto our 2020 list. To get us started, let's take a look at this clip from our Davos agenda week earlier this year where Grazia Vittadini, chief technology officer at Airbus, shed her reflections on building a pathway to net zero aviation. Well these days the question I get asked most highlights are quite different paradox, so is aviation still committed to net zero or will it focus rather on recovering profitability first? Here today to tell us more about electric aviation is Catherine Hamilton, chair of 38 North Solutions and co-chair of the Forum's Global Future Council on Clean Electrification. Hi Catherine, thanks for joining us. Hello, delighted to be here today. So Catherine, before we delve into the technology, can you tell us a bit about this transition from fuel powered aviation to electric powered planes? What is the ambition there and what are the drivers behind this transition? Absolutely, we are transitioning to a world with zero carbon and the aviation sector is 2% of the carbon and that was as of 2019 and it is only slated to grow, even with COVID to grow even more. So this is what is originally interested me in this sector was this combination of needing to decarbonise and also knowing that there were lots and lots of companies out there looking at this sector and coming up with new innovations, coming up with new technologies that could really make it work and also that the regulatory environment in which those airplanes and other types of electric aviation mobility technologies was really opening up for all of them. So electric aviation made it onto the top 10 emerging technologies list just last year. Can you tell us about any progress that has been made in this field since then? Well electric aviation has been around a while if you think about electric gliders and you think about other kinds of technology that are small vehicles. It's really taken off in the last year since we even put this report out and it's hundreds of companies are coming up with new ways of doing this. In addition to new innovation and technology companies, we're seeing that there is supply chain being created for these industries and most importantly companies like Airbus, United Airlines, DHL, UPS, all of the big purchasers are also purchasing and putting in orders for these airplanes. Can you give us a bit of an overview of how the technology works? Are all electric planes equal and do they run on the same sort of technology? So there are a couple different main models of electric aviation. One is your typical fixed wing aircraft, which is just as you would see in the air now flying and it would simply be converted. The other is something called electric vertical takeoff and landing EV tall. And these are super interesting for urban settings, which is almost like a helicopter taking off and then converting into an airplane, a traditional type of airplane. So there's sort of these two main technology interests and then there are other technologies that are coming into play with batteries. So there are typical lithium ion electric batteries and there are hydrogen fuel cells. But I would say some examples are you would have your typical fixed wing hybrid. So you would have a combination of electric and internal combustion engine. You would have a fixed wing all electric, which would be a battery, or a fixed wing electric with hydrogen. And then you have this really interesting EV tall space with electric vertical takeoff and landing. When can we expect these planes to take to the sky with passengers in them? So it's pretty interesting because a lot of these companies are already testing the flight of these technologies and showing that they work. But really crucial to all of this is especially in the United States FAA regulation and certification. So that's the Federal Aviation Administration. And it takes a long time to get a plane certified to fly. Luckily, electric aviation has been approved for certification. And we would expect to see some of these planes being certified in about 2023. So the first really important space to tackle are the very small, say two seater training planes. So these are ones that train all of our pilots to learn how to fly. And those are going to be ready within the next couple of years, I would think, because their company is already testing those. And it's very important to do that. We need to train pilots and they have to have a certain number of hours under the belt. And the next flights would be slightly larger, perhaps for small cargo shipments or perhaps to move people from in short distances. But what you're going to need to see is how are we then going to have flights that go, say, across the ocean? And that may take a little bit longer, but we have to take one step at a time. Can you tell us who are the other major players in this space? And where do you see the technology going in the next few years? Yeah, you see, in addition to Airbus United Airlines, DHL, UPS, Azul, Mesa Airlines, Cape Air, which was mentioned in our report for these short flights. You'll find Beta and Joby and Lilliam that are doing these EVTOL technologies and then companies like Buy Aerospace that are doing fixed wing flight. But there are lots of companies out there that are innovating and they have lots of customers waiting in the wings. What are the key technological challenges that need to be overcome for electric aviation to really go mainstream in the years ahead? One of the key challenges is really the battery density. And luckily, because of electric vehicles and energy storage, batteries have come a long way. So lithium-ion batteries have really developed in a way that are much more dense, but we could expect to see solid state batteries as well. And as the development and desire for batteries progresses, that will also help the electric aviation industry. The other piece is hydrogen fuel cells. So we need to adapt lots of different technologies that will be able to address different use cases of electric aviation. In your opinion, Catherine, what are the major obstacles to electric aviation in the near future? And how are we best positioned to overcome them? Some of the biggest obstacles are really in innovation and making sure that not only do we innovate, but that we also scale the innovation and that we have a healthy supply chain for all of the technologies that are going to go into those aircraft. And we also need to make sure that we approve them and so that when people get on a flight, whether it is a small flight from town to town, whether you're taking your pilot license or whether you're hauling cargo, that you have confidence the plane has been certified and that is safe for you to get in and travel in, and in fact that you will feel better flying in that plane. Catherine, thank you so much for all your insights today on electric aviation. Thank you so much for having me. The global aviation industry is responsible for over 2% of the world's carbon emissions. Transitioning from fuel-powered to electric planes would not only reduce the industry's carbon footprint, but could also make our skies quieter, all while driving down the cost of flying. The technology behind electric aviation is advancing at a rapid pace, with many companies already scheduling test flights later this year. Smaller planes will likely take to the skies much sooner than larger jets, which will require battery technology to become lighter and more powerful. But before electric aviation really takes off, airlines must first invest into testing and training in order to meet commercial safety standards and passenger acceptance. If you enjoyed this episode, please join the conversation on social media. You can catch up on all the other episodes in this series at the link below and look out for the 10th anniversary of the top 10 emerging technologies report launching in November.


All right, Glenn Clark back here with SFM Sports.net alongside Nazareth coach Rob Randall after the Golden Flyers picked up a 13-11 win today in game one of the Green Turtle Mustang Classic and Coach. Congratulations on a big win. I guess there's something to be said for having to face a little adversity after things coming so easily for you in the first quarter. Yeah, you know, we started out strong. We've been starting out strong in most of our games and we just have not been able to keep our foot on the pedal and, you know, a lot of that's attributed to a good Dickinson team, you know. So we've got to do a better job in the second half of, you know, trying to finish off teams. I think what really jumped out at us in the broadcast was the play of Drew Seminoe that every time you guys seemed to need a big face-off victory as Dickinson was getting in closer and closer, Seminoe was there to make it. Well, Drew's been doing that for four years for us. You know, he's a two-time player of the year and all-American. I'm not sure that there's a better face-off guy in the country and, you know, we love, in fact, that one time when we had the two-minute penalty, we almost were hoping that they would score quick so that Drew could go out and win the face-off and we could get the ball back. No doubt about that. Luke Wooters, Troy Heffel, they've been good for you all year. Once again today, they combine for five goals. There's not a whole lot more to say about them other than they are, it seems to be, sort of, the lifeblood of your attack. Well, I mean, they do a lot of different things for us. They're very dynamic. You know, they can run from up top. They can dodge. They're great off-ball players. They're great on extra man. So, yeah, they're definitely the leaders of our offense.  So we're excited to have them. Quick turnaround for you guys as you take on Cabrini tomorrow. What does he tell the team? Do you change anything in your approach when you play games with this quick of a turnaround? You know, not really. We need, I just got done talking to the team and we need to get something to eat and rest up and stay off our feet and get ready for a great Cabrini team tomorrow afternoon. And then just finally, the experience here being part of the Green Turtle Mustang Classic and having so many good teams on the field and the atmosphere here in Owens Mills. It's awesome. I mean, outside of the national championship, this is the best division three venue that you can be in. It's a great tournament. It's a great thing to be a part of. We feel very privileged to be a part of it and we want to continue to be a part of it. Thank you for today. 13-11 win over Dickinson in Game 1 of the Green Turtle Mustang Classic. Coach Rob Randall, congratulations. Thank you, Glenn. I'm Glenn Clark for sfmsports.net. Christian Payne joined by head coach David Webster for the Dickinson Red Devils. The final here from Mustang Stadium 13-11 in favor of Nazareth. We look to the second half coach. The first quarter one you want to forget. Down five, nothing. But you look past that. Your team was fantastic today. And I got with three goals next to his name. A hometown guy at that from the oiled lake field, Tyler Lowell. Talk about his play first off in the second half. And the spark he gave you here today. Well, I can't look past the first quarter, unfortunately. And it's something we struggled with all years competing for a full game. And continue to be plagued by that. Sure, happy we competed much, much more consistently in the second half. And Tyler, who was sick, we weren't even sure if he was going to play today. He's got the flu real bad, but he played with a lot of composure and made some great plays. Dickinson moving into the second half. A lot of momentum out of the huddles. Some guys in the defensive end stepped up too. You had some new guys in the mix all across the field coach on the attacking end, moving up Mitch Andres, getting the start once again. Some great play down the mix. And then also Zach Bloomsky at the face off won a couple big ones for you. So you got a promising cast of first years out there. And what are you looking for them to do down the stretch this season? Maybe tomorrow first against a good team in Lynchburg. And then moving ahead to the centennial schedule this year. Yeah, the young guys, it's great to get them big minutes and big games like this and have them learn from that experience. We had to go to Zach, our top face off guy, a great caster out with a broken finger. Campbell went in and did a real nice job there. Their face off guy is one of the best in division three. And so we had to do another counter. And that counter was using our long stick Zach, who's a freshman who hadn't done a lot of this in the past, but learning and that was a much better match up for us in this game in that second half.  You know when your team can find that edge, you've been through the tournament and also tough centennial conference play. So tomorrow you take on an opponent in Lynchburg. You're in, you're out. One of the great teams in the ODAC. So what are you telling your guys after the game today and then prepping for tomorrow's game here in the Green Turtle Classic with Lynchburg? Well, I just told them in a locker room that no excuse for fatigue. We're not going to go into this game thinking we're, from a perspective and any kind of limitation. We've got to recover real quickly. We've got to get excited to compete. We've got to learn to play a full game. And it's a great opportunity tomorrow to do that against a tremendous opponent. Head Coach Dave Webster for the Red Devils Coach. Best of luck tomorrow in the 2015 Green Turtle Classic and throughout the spring in the Centennial Conference. This was a great event. I'm happy to be part of it. Thanks, Green Turtle. Thanks, Stevenson. Great to be here. Thank you, Coach, for Dave Webster on Christian Payne for SFM Sports.net. Dickinson, moving into a matchup tomorrow with Lynchburg for Head Coach Dave Webster on Christian Payne. Thanks for joining us here on SFM Sports.net.


Now let us begin the session on key management, myself Rashmi Dixit. So learning outcome at the end of this session, students will be able to explain different key distribution strategies. So let us begin the session. Now look at here at a diagram, Alice and Bob want to form a some kind of communication. It might be business or it could be even personal, but whatever else it must be confidential. And the third person in this relationship is Eve. And as her name suggests, she is an Eve's dropper who want to know what is going on between Alice and Bob. To do that she has to intercept their information. So Alice and Bob can prevent or can protect themselves using encryption. The most obvious form of encryption is called as symmetric encryption, which uses a single key to encrypt a plain text or to decrypt a cipher text back from plain text. Similarly symmetric encryption suffered one enormous shortcoming that is it was necessary for either sender or receiver to create a key and then send to the other party. While the key was in transits, it could be stolen or copied by third party who would be then able to decrypt any cipher text encrypted with the key. And another problem is that the large number of keys, key pairs are needed between communicating parties that is n multiplied by n minus 1 by 2 where n is the number of communicating parties. One of the major roles of public key encryption has been to address the problem of key distribution. There are two aspects for key management. Distribution of public keys and use of public key encryption to distribute secret keys. So asymmetric cryptography, better known as public key cryptography, tied steps. The key distribution problem as each user creates their own keys, the private key and the public key. Together the two keys are known as key pair. There are different techniques for distribution of public key, public announcement, publicly available directory, public key authority, public key certificate. Now we will discuss one by one. So public announcement, user distributes public key to recipient or broadcast to community at a large. On the face it is a public key. So no problem with that. Now PGP, one of the better known algorithm means technique, pretty good privacy, appended public keys to email messages or post to new groups or email list. Now what is a major weakness for this is forgery. Anyone can create a key claiming to be someone else and broadcast it. Until forgery is discovered can masquerade as claimed user for authentication. So public announcement as name suggests the broadcast, A, B, broadcast their key anyone can use who want to communicate with them. The next one is publicly available directory. So like phone directory, the third party or a trusted party create directory which store the name of the user and their public key. A greater degree of security can be achieved by maintaining a publicly available dynamic directory of public keys. Maintenance and distribution of the public directory would have to be responsibility of some trusted entity or organization. Participants register securely with the directory. Participants can replace their key at any time and directory is periodically published and directory can be accessed electronically. But it is still vulnerable to tempering or forgery, okay. Means anyone can put their name and public key, any hacker can put their name and public key and start communication with node present in that set. Now the third one is public key authority, stronger security for public key distribution. It improves security by tightening control over distribution of keys from directory. It requires users to know public key for the directory. And users interact with the directory to obtain the desired public key securely and it requires real time access to directory when keys are needed, okay. Now just check out the flow of what happens in public key authority. So A, B, A want to start a communication with a B, huh. So trusted third party which is act as a public key authority. So A sends a timestamp message to the public key authority containing a request for the B's public key. The authority responds with a message that is encrypted using the authority's private key that is PR auth, huh. A stores B's public key and also uses it to encrypt a message which A is going to send for B. So communication start from A side to B. Now it is time of a B to find out or to retry use A's public key from the authority in the same manner as retry B's public key, okay. So first step one, A request B, step two authority send a public key of B, step three A stores B's public key and now start communication, step four and five B retrieves A's public key from the authority in the same manner and at this point the public keys have been securely delivered to A and B and now communication response start from B side. So step six and seven B sends a message to A encrypted with P authority means that is public key of A returns knowns that is N2 means short message encrypted using B's public key to assure B that it is A that is important here two things are important confidentiality as well as authentication. Now taking public key is simple but keeping that communication between the authenticated user is important. Now the fourth one is public key certificates means higher to that the public key authority could be a bottleneck in the system certificates allow key exchange without real time access to public key authority. A certificate binds identity to public key and all contains signed by a trusted public key or certificate authority which is called as CA which certifies the authority and only the CA can make the certificate, okay. Now this is the fourth technique for distribution of public key. Now we will see one by one now here is a flow how that work happens any participant can read a certificate to determine the name and public key of the certificate owner any participant can verify that the certificate originated from the certificate authority and it is not counterfeit only the certificate authority can create and update certificate and any participant can verify the currency of the certificate sorry so these are the characteristic of certificate authority. So A communicate with the certificate authority to get a certificate to start the communication with B then B get a certificate from certificate authority to start or to reply to B what is advantage it avoid the bottleneck and there is a one trusted authority certificate authority which deliver a certificate to the particular nodes. Public key distribution of secret key public key algorithms are slow. So usually want to use private key encryption to protect message contain and this particular need a session key. Now simple secret key distribution it is proposed by Merkel in 1979 A generates a new temporary public key pair A sends B the public key and their identity B generates a session key and send it to A encrypted using the supplied public key and A decrypt the session key and they both use the same session key or secret key for that particular session. Look at here the public key distribution of secret key first securely exchange public key using a previous method. So A sends a message which is encrypted using the public key of B containing the nodes and the identity of A and in return B sends a message containing the nodes send by A along with B's nodes which is encrypted using the public key of A. So now with the help of nodes send by A A gets that the B is the same with which that A wants to start a communication. Now again A sends a nodes which is encrypted using the public key of B so that the B identify that it is the A only and it is a type of encryption that is a KS session key which is encrypted using the private key of A and double encrypted using the public key of B. This is important for giving two way security. Now dear student please pause the video and try to answer which one of the following is not a public key distribution means public key certificate hashing certificate publicly available directory and public key authority please try to recall whatever we have seen in the video. So public key certificate is not a public key distribution mean so this is a reference.


give a warm applause for Dr. Benjamin Leo Bordersky, a doctoral researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and he's designing quantitative computer models and global nitrogen cycle simulation. So it's like civilization ate, nor was more realistic. And what we can learn from it and how we can use it, you will hear now. What we are doing there is we are doing computer simulations of all kinds of sciences, from natural sciences to social sciences. But this campus has actually a long history already of science. So it used to be the astrophysical observatory and the meteorological observatory. And quite a few experiments were carried out there. So there was the G-value measure, the value of gravity. The first earthquake was recorded or some equations of the relativity theory of the fields equations were solved in this former institute. Since 1990 now it's the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. And what you can see nicely here at these buildings are still the old cupolas which used to have inside large telescopes. And these telescopes are a bit a symbol for the first scientific revolution, the first Copernican revolution, which happened about 400 years ago. And this scientific revolution was sparked by the technical development of lenses which allowed you to use microscopes or telescopes. And these opened up a new field of research because suddenly you could see things which were quite small, even larger. You could see things in detail and you suddenly had a view inside the huge complexity, both inside a cell or inside of our universe. Some scholars argue that today now we are living in the second Copernican revolution and this second Copernican revolution is triggered by the development of so-called microscopes. Probably nobody of you ever heard this word because it's invented. Hello translators. But maybe you can think what it means. It's kind of the inverse of a microscope. Instead of showing you things in more detail, actually it does the reverse. It shows you things in less detail. It reduces the complexity of the real world. And this is something that is really necessary because the complexity of the real world is sometimes overwhelming. And if you want to make decisions, we sometimes need simpler versions of the real world to understand them. So how can a microscope look like? Well, the first approach is quite straightforward. If you want to see something in less detail, you just go one step back or two step backs or even further. So one option is a satellite. If you look from a satellite on the Earth, you can see the macro development on the planet. And, well, things that you can see is first of all, the Earth is quite a beautiful planet, but you can also see what's happening on the planet right now that streets are going into pre-steined forests, that we are burning down forests all over the world, that at night time the Earth is still illuminated by electric lights from the cities. And you can see how strongly we already shape the way the planet looks like today. You can clearly see that we are now living already in the Anthropocene. A second option to see the Earth system in a reduced form is you can rebuild it in a smaller scale. This has been carried out in the 1990s with the Biosphere II experiment. It's basically a whole Earth system in a glasshouse, in a confined glasshouse which has an ocean, which has a rainforest and desert and also eight human scientists living within. And you can see it as a successful failure in the way that after a very short time already, the whole ecosystem collapsed, the fish in the oceans died, the ecosystems were run over by cockroaches and ants, the CO2 levels rose extremely, and the scientists which were basically confined in this were getting quite hungry and towards the end of the experiments they actually had to import food from outside of the system. So it's not as easy to rebuild such an Earth system and actually we can be happy that we are living in such a stable one as we have currently on the planet Earth. Now the last, the third option of reducing complexity is we put the real world into a set of equations, a computer model, and use this computer model to simulate the Earth system. There's a clear advantage of this. First of all, it's quite cheap. So you can repeat it. You can do several, well, thousands of simulations. And of course in reality we only have one planet, right? So we can only carry out one experiment and that's the experiment we're currently living in.  Sorry. So this has been the first computer model or the first widely known computer model. It's the World 3 model from 1972, known by the report the limits of growth of the Club of Rome. The basic message was that if you have exponential growth of the population and exponential growth of the economy, while you have limited natural resources, there will be one point where the social system collapses, where the population is going down up to a level where the planet can sustain it again. Of course, this was one of the first computer models. It was really simple. It was also heavily criticized for being oversimplified and luckily for us those projections didn't become true. But it already shows by triggering quite a big debate that it was quite a useful computer model because suddenly we were thinking long periods forward and of course we did not stop with this one computer model but we continuously further developed it. So this was 1972, 35, more than 35 years ago and since then of course computers became much more powerful and of course also some a bit slower technological progress in the science community happened. So we are still on the challenge of making good simplified computer models. Of course they are wrong. That's what a model is always because it's simplified. It leaves out processes that are important but they are useful for us for decision making. So at Potsdam Institute we have quite an ensemble of different models. Here you can see for example climate models feeding information to a vegetation model which calculates carbon stocks and natural vegetation, crop yields, hydrology and so on. Then we have information from such a vegetation model being handed over to a land use and agriculture model which is the model called McPy and then we also have a macroeconomic model and energy model which simulates the development of the industry of the service sector of the energy sector and of course also always the greenhouse gas emissions. I want to focus today on the McPy model. McPy stands for model of agricultural production and its impact on the environment. This is the model I'm working with. It's developed by a large group of approximately currently 15 people of various scientific backgrounds. So we have economists, we have physicists, we have biologists, geologists and so on. And the basic question that we want to answer with our model is how will the agro food system look like in the year 2050 and beyond? Why is this important? Probably for you agriculture is not so important. Hardly anyone still works in agriculture but for our planet agriculture is really important. It's our main interface with the nature. If you look at our planet 30% of the terrestrial surface is covered by agriculture either by cropland or pastures. If you look at greenhouse gas emissions 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions come from land use change and agriculture. So again, struggling with agriculture. If you look at water 70% of human water withdrawals are for irrigation water. If you look at water pollution at herbicides, at biodiversity always there is agriculture as one of the major drivers. Also we are now really changing the nutrient cycles of the world, increasing for example the nitrogen cycle by factor 304 relatively to earlier years. And there's also another thing of course agriculture is also really important for us humans because we can live without energy. We can't live without food. And if you look at the global 19 leading risk factors worldwide for preliminary death 11 of them are connected somehow to nutrition. So either we eat too much which is red or too little which is green. It's something like iron sink deficiency, vitamin A deficiency, suboptimal breastfeeding. But on the other hand there's also a lot of things connected to unhealthy diets like high blood pressure, high blood glucose, overweight and obesity. On these top 19 you cannot find wars or terrorism or something like that but it's really about mostly about chronic diseases and most of the chronic diseases are strongly connected with our daily diets. So how does such a model look like? Basically we start off with the food requirements. What do people actually eat? And what do they actually need as food to sustain their body functions? Well this of course depends on how large the population is and what each of them eats. At the moment we are already at a world population of 7.6 billion and we're still growing. We will most likely be 8.5 to 10 billion people in the year 2050 so then we need to do some more re-fragmentation here. And eventually afterwards there is an option that it might decline or further increase and this depends a lot on education and on family planning. At the same time what people need to sustain their body functions per capita is quite always the same actually. There are some differences depending on demography. You can see that Africa has a lower requirement because there are a lot of young kids in contrast. In China a lot of young adults you have high food requirements but of course this will shift as soon as we have demographic change in the future and then we will have in contrast high food requirements in Africa per capita. But in general the range is really low. 2000 to 2300 kilocalories per capita per day in population average. But this is of course what the people would require what they actually consume is much more. So you can see in Germany we have 3500 kilocalories. In India it's closer to the food requirements of 2450. But you can also see not only that there is a lot of over consumption you can also see that the diets are quite different. In Germany we eat quite a lot of animal products which people in Nigeria or India don't and we actually don't eat too much fruits and vegetables which is a shame for us. But you can see that we consume about one third more than we need and what's the reason for this? Basically it's that we waste quite a substantial fraction of our food. About 30% of the food gets wasted in households just because people don't care too much about it. And you can see quite strong correlation. So as soon as people increase their living standards as soon as the human development index increases you also see that the food waste is starting or the over consumption. This also includes over consumption in the sense that people eat more calories but also there the window is quite narrow. Most of it is food waste. And the same you can see for per capita calories or the share of livestock products. You can see that the share of livestock products strongly increases with income. On the left you see just a scatterplot between income and the livestock share for all countries of the world for the last 50 years. And you can see that countries strongly increase their meat consumption especially when they move from very low incomes to medium incomes. For very high incomes eventually the livestock share declines again. And you see the same actually also for processed foods like oil, sugar consumption goes up. Unfortunately you don't see it for fruits and vegetables which would be healthy but there it saturates quite as an early income. And then of course these food, the food demand has to be satisfied by production. Before that there's some trade, international trade is increasing over the last decades quite strongly much more than production. And next to food demand there's also the demand for materials but also for bioenergy which will play a role, an increasing role. I don't know if you heard the talk before which may play an increasing role in the future if we want to mitigate climate change because bioenergy is one option to take CO2 emissions again out of the atmosphere. And then food is of course also processed and here the livestock products really play a huge role because in order to feed one or in order to produce one calorie of livestock products you need multiple plant calories to feed the animal. At the moment approximately half of the proteins that are produced worldwide on the crop lands are fed to animals. And additionally also even larger quantity of pasture which is grazed by animals. And finally we have crops and these crops are standing on a land. And here you can see some land use dynamics. Here you can see a projection or scenario for a future scenario of how the crop land might expand in the future. Quite strong expansion especially in the tropical areas because they are also the population growth is largest. And next to land use this also well on the one hand you have crop land expansion but this is not the only option of course to increase production. In the past this made up only 10% of the increase of production. The largest increase actually came always from the intensification of the existing areas. And here you can see basically the crop yields that we would need in the future in order to fulfill the demand. And finally our model also considers all the interactions with the biochemical cycles. So how do we change the nitrogen, the carbon, the phosphorus cycle, also how will water scarcity change? This is a picture where you can see the water scarcity in 2010 and 2050. So it's basically not the water scarcity but how much of the water that is available will be under use. And the nitrogen cycle as the third most important biochemical cycle of the world has been changed tremendously by modern agriculture. We are now about five times the amount of nitrogen which flows through the cycle then in pre-industrial times. And finally we end up with emissions. And well if we assume a scenario where we don't take action we can assume that we simulate that the emissions will further increase while actually in order to keep or stay below the two degree aim we would actually need the land use sector to sequester carbon. So we need to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is something that only the land use sector can provide at low costs either through afforestation, through plantation of biomass or through accumulation of carbon in soils. So this is the whole integrated model and the great thing is that well it's an optimization model where everything influences everything. So if you put a carbon price in this will change the whole supply chain. It will change the food demand. It will change the global trade patterns. It will change the land use pattern. If you can also see the interactions for example between the nitrogen and the water cycle or how well but you can also see quite well the trade offs that exist in our earth system. So if you only want to solve one specific aim it's still well quite easily possible. But as soon as you have multiple goals for example if you want to provide enough food for the whole world population this will also require you to increase your food production and then you will have the environmental impact. If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions you will need bioenergy and this of course also has negative impacts again on biodiversity, on food consumption, on food prices and so on. So it's a very complex system and it's really a challenge but it's possible to transform our society sustainably that we actually meet all these goals at the same time. What's really crucial there is on the one hand the consumption side. So we really need to reduce food waste and we need to reduce the consumption of animal products by large scale. So having animal consumption, having the food waste in Western society would be something that we should aim for and this is really difficult. At the same time the whole production system can be much more efficient. A small price on carbon would be sufficient to trigger off technical innovations probably and to implement low cost carbon mitigation technologies. But these are probably the two things that we need most. We need a policy that puts prices on emissions, on carbon, on nitrogen, on water pollution and we need some kind of policies that change the preferences of the people in a way that they, for example, education, school education for what is a healthy diet, how do you cook at home and so on. All these kind of projects have to be really encouraged. So what can you do? Well, one advice I would want to give out is get involved in modelling. Most of us are actually, well, we're not computer scientists from the beginning but we have to learn quite a lot of this but we are rather coming from disciplinary backgrounds, economists or biologists or something like that. But most of our time is actually software development. And it's not that we don't want software developers, it's just that few people actually apply there. So I think putting up the standards of software development in the whole field would be really a great thing. The second thing is there's a lot of data out and there's a lot of, well, also great science that could be communicated using good visualisation techniques, using also maybe artistic projects and so on. Just want to give you one example before I come to the question and answer. Here in the last year we made a workshop with art students who developed interactive installations using our data. For example, here it's an audio installation where people could hear the sound of different scenarios depending on whether it's a scenario where all the forests are cut down then you have rather agricultural sounds or more urban sounds in another scenario. Or maybe I'll just pick one more because we have limited time. This is an artwork by a student from Bangladesh and she created a climate box. You can enter this climate box, throw in a coin and then using an Arduino it all starts moving. You get told the story of climate change but at the same time also the weather in the climate box is changing so suddenly it becomes hotter and there's a fan blowing in hot air and suddenly it starts raining and there's flashlights and then if you don't spend more money on it then it becomes even worse and worse and worse. This artwork was actually inspired because she said people back home see climate change as something abstract but as long as they don't feel that they wouldn't do something so she came up with this idea. Now I'm ready for a question and answer. Thank you very much. Everybody with questions please go to the microphones in the room and internet over the signal angels. So microphone one please. Oops, it's charged, I got electrocution here. Thanks for the talk. One question, when you looked at the needs of people you spoke about calorie requirements. However, nutrition is much more than calories especially not in Germany but in the Sahel area when you further reduce the animal protein part you get problems with malnutrition. Is that something you factor in or it's just plain calories and you eat sorghum with sorghum? Of course dietary diversity is really important. I would not say that animal protein is the only way of solving this because you can have a balanced diet also without animal protein but it's important actually one of the most important challenges is to drive up the consumption of vegetables and fruits by several factors and there's hardly any positive limitation especially for vegetables to the health impacts of higher consumption of vegetables and fruits. Of course we look at the dietary composition and there we also don't only look at livestock versus plant calories but also now on fruits and vegetables and on processed calories. But yeah of course I think it's a major problem that we should not play out goals like food security against goals like climate change. We need to simply tackle both of them and as urgently as possible. Thanks we have five minutes so next microphone number two please. Sorry I think I'm too small for this one. Okay so I've got two questions. You were talking about trade-offs. So what would you think is the best solution to the crucial trade-off between biodiversity and land conversion for food security? And the second question is you were talking about how important is that we invest in societies to drive up our vegetable and fruit consumption but this again would mean that we shift the land usage for high calorie foods even if they are not dairy or livestock in any way. So that again we use more land and this again would cause more rivalry between global food users. Isn't this contradictory to food security and aren't we quite healthy already if we stopped eating sugar like crazy? Thank you. Okay I forgot the first question again. What was the first question? The trade-off between land conversion and biodiversity. So there's certainly a trade-off between those two but as I said before in the past only 10% or the cropland in the last 50 years only increased by approximately 10-11% and all the rest of the productivity improvements were actually reached on the area. At the moment there are quite large yield gaps in wide areas of the world where you could actually intensify and where it would be actually good to intensify the systems to a certain degree and without any land expansion actually necessary. There are certain areas where I guess land expansion is possible. It's always a trade-off of course and we are trying to build in exactly this trade-off by now including biodiversity indicators in our model but this is still work in progress. To the second question on the fruits and vegetables fruits and vegetables actually make up only a tiny share of current land use I think less than 10% definitely and at the same time they are producing quite high yields because it's not the land which is the main resource there but it's labour which goes in and capital. It's not necessarily a clean production either because you have large nutrient run-offs often large pesticide use but in terms of land use it's not such a bad thing they make quite high tons of produce out of a vegetable farm but of course there are also trade-offs here there's a sustainable probably sugar is providing really cheap calories without large environmental footprint if you calculate it per calorie in contrast fruits and vegetables provide very little calories but provide a very nutritious food in terms of fiber, vitamins and so on. We have a lot of question I see eight and one from the internet we have just two minutes so I take one from the internet one from five and I ask everybody else to ask the speaker afterwards he is here and he answer all your questions so internet what is your question? Okay, so as he asks how do I get involved in modeling can I play with Magpie by downloading code and data somewhere? Hello internet the model will become open source next year so we are currently in the process of the whole legal stuff of making it open source so the next model version of our model will be published open source. Microphone five please. Hi, thanks for the great talk. Last year there was also an awesome talk about plant-based food innovation that is science-based so my question is twofold first, do you implement technological innovation that would lead to a more plant-based diet and in general in the model and the second one how hopeful are you personally that those will have an important impact in the future? You are speaking now of some kind of plant-based meat replacement products and so on yes we actually published a study or a commentary this year also on a quite extreme case of this which is basically land less food production so you can read microbes based on fertilizer and energy it's kind of a space food technology it was developed by the Russians now it actually becomes commercial cheap I guess it will certainly happen for certain protein foods so it will for example replace soybean or fish meal in animal feeding to a certain proportion I'm not so sure about the actual nutrition value of this or about well I'm a bit skeptical how positive I would judge it but I would judge it quite realistic also for the whole meat replacement products based on plant-based on plant basis I think it will become economically just cheaper and then you will have a tipping point where simply because of economic reasons it's cheaper people will reduce their meat consumption or for example a burger will consist of half fake meat and half real meat because it's cheaper and I think this transformation will happen somehow the breeding animals just for for their meat seems a technology which is somehow outdated for the 21st century if you ask me then give more than a big applause to Dr. Benjamin Leon Bodewski thank you


I'll start. I think there are a lot of different ways, but I think actually I think open source The whole cpdc Development has been a catalyst for using the use of open source in central banking because when people wanted to start and Experiment with the LTS open source was really the only way to go. So which the project Jasper in Canada project in Singapore They were kind of like the trailblazers and everybody else has been following this And now there's good momentum people feel more comfortable actually using open source in their own Experimentation in the innovation of we're building also blockchain platform. It's built built on hyper ledger best suit So we are trying so so I think I think that's true So just to get out the gates open source was the only way to go then central banks over the last couple of years It's thought more deeply about central bank digital currencies of last year There was these reports that came out of this coalition of central banks They highlighted a number of different things one is do no harm Interoperability and maybe also innovation and you can map open source to each of those the first one is more about the Ecosystem you don't want something with less financial stability than we have today But that's where if you believe open source is more secure than it fits in there in terms of interoperability I think it's obvious that open source Is a key there and also in terms of innovating and allowing people to build on some kind of base layer of central bank digital currency again I think open source will be extremely helpful Maybe there's some layer where because it's critical infrastructure of security that we might have to think about It's not unlike how we have it with Banknotes today. There's some things we share. There's some things we don't maybe it has to be the same way with central bank digital currencies Yeah, yeah, I would just add to that I have a tremendous amount of respect by which the you know between Jasper and Ubin and you're like all of the projects that Morton is referenced you know the Commitment to sharing the results and publicizing, you know, the the learnings has been fantastic and and you know I think very much consistent with the view of Moving towards open source and and the common standards that have to evolve and enter in the interoperability points So yeah, I've been incredibly encouraged with with that because it would be again It would be a shame right to have every central bank be on the journey Individually and have to learn all the lessons individually rather than what we're seeing is a Pipeline of projects where each one is saying okay The previous ones approved these points and now we need to extend and prove this new thing and there's and there Are there a number of things to prove right and to get comfortable around it So that that global sharing and openness to basically say look each new project needs to put you needs to you know There's a there's a whole there's a framework of things that have to be addressed Let's knock them off one at a time with each with each project. It's I think it's a it's it's exactly what you would hope for You know in that global collaboration