Hello, my name is Martha Torres and I'm senior research at the Energy Research Center of the University of Cape Town. What I'm going to be giving today is that model that talks about failures. It is called Mind the Gap, and I think the title says it all. We're going to be building on what you learn in the previous model with Bret. Where we saw how we have an objective, we have to do an analysis, we put together a research consortium, an interdisciplinary one. We did a compilation of data throughout the country and throughout the engagement of our stakeholders. We chose our models, the models that would be fit for that purpose, as Brad was saying. And basically we started to create scenarios. First, we create mitigation actions, interventions, and these are scenarios, then social and economic implications. What I went looking within this model, is how all these are scenarios that emerge, compared to where actually we ideally would like to be, if we want to limit the global warming to two degrees. So after, all this had to work and rotate this technical and sound rigorous process. We realized that we actually achieve little, or not sufficient. So what does it mean? It doesn't mean that we didn't, this processes did not have an impact. What we're looking today is that the outputs. What does, what is the evidence that we have generated? And what is the meaning and interpretation fo that evidence? And what are the limitations of that meaning? What we will be seeing is that the Latin American countries, the country teams, they increasingly, as the processes were moving to the ending, increasingly became aware of the challenges ahead. They became aware of how difficult it was actually to provide an evidence that things can be done in a different way. That they can be done differently from what we are supposed to do. At least it's that we can do things differently from a world where there would not be environmental constraints. But also very important that we would have to create the evidence for development pathways that are very different from the ones that we are used to. The ones that we observed in the industrialized world, where they've developed without this constraint, based on fossil fuels. We will also see that it's very different to do things in a different way than we are currently doing, because indeed our emerging economies are already embarked in a pathway that is not aligned to the sustainable pathway that we are looking for here. We, actually, we just are scratching the surface. We are not coming out with scenarios that are radically different, or with interventions that mean the way that we, the way we produce, the way we consume, the way we live is radically different. And that is a problem, because we're not producing interventions that have these transformational change that will make us resilient to the new low carbon world. But far from being beaten hollow by all these findings, we realize also the importance of these further steps. And we, the situation helps us unpacking what are the factors that prevent greater ambition in reducing emissions. It's also very important that puts us and our countries in a situation that is much better, because they understand these challenges ahead, we understand these challenges ahead. So, basically, it's a way to help understanding the scale of the mitigation challenge. And as we would all agree, understanding the program is half of the solution. Why do we say there's a gap? Why do you, why do we say there's a difference between where the results and the merge from this modeling work and tell us we could be? What would the modeling results tell us we, it's technically and economically feasible to do and where we would like to be? So we will look at this set of scenarios. We will zoom in into that ideal scenario in where we should be. So how do you actually build these scenarios? Those are different scenarios. They are normative one. They are not the result of modeling interventions. They just say, well according to the science and some equity considerations, if we want to be aligned to the two degrees goal, that's where we should be without knowing or understanding exactly how we would do it and whether that is feasible or not or what would it imply. By the end of the part two, once we've understood the gap, we will explain what are the potential reasons for these gaps. And, we will elaborate on technical barriers that we found as well as all these other resistances that we found like, constant pushback through the processes. These pushbacks were manifested in many different ways. Sometimes it's vested interest. Sometimes political. Sometimes inner human behavior that has an influence on how each of us and each of the stakeholders in research its input and gave expert judgements into the inputs that would go inside the into the models. After these we will go in part three to Latin America. And then we will be able to see that hands on resistance that they found. We will listen to researchers, facilitators, and policy makers from all these four countries. And they will explain from a personal basis what they've found throughout the process, and what are these barriers that they encountered. After this, in part four, we will reflect about these barriers and what did we learn from them.
