It's been a year since we started Markets by Zerodha. Thank you for watching, reading, and listening to us everyday❤️

We cover this and one more interesting story in today's edition of The Daily Brief. Watch on YouTube, read on Substack, or listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All links here:

The solution requires large-scale energy alternatives that are simultaneously cheap, safe, and sustainable. We have partial answers, nuclear and renewables work at scale. But we're missing affordable alternatives for long-distance transport, heat, and industrial processes. Until.

This is the cruel trap we're in. Low emissions and energy poverty go hand in hand. A life without emissions means no electricity, clean cooking, or economic opportunities. The holy grail is combining energy access with net-zero CO2 emissions.

The cruel irony, energy poverty keeps per-capita emissions low but hurts the environment anyway. In Africa, reliance on fuelwood is the single biggest cause of forest degradation. 880 million people collecting fuelwood create unsustainable pressure on ecosystems.

Bitcoin’s on fire at $112K! Time to flip the charts on BTCC!.Exploring Cryptocurrency with Jaren Jackson Jr.🏀.

Even in India, despite near-universal electricity access, roughly 65% experiences some form of energy poverty. They might have electricity for less than 12 hours daily, or struggle to actually receive LPG connections despite being covered under schemes.

Indoor air pollution from solid fuel burning kills 3.2 million people annually, making it the world's largest single environmental health risk. 32% of deaths result from heart disease, 23% from stroke, 21% from respiratory infections. Women and children suffer most.

Energy poverty performs terribly across metrics like child mortality, education access, and hunger rates. It can be particularly disastrous. Most energy poor don't have access to clean cooking fuels, relying instead on dangerous sources like dung or firewood.

They don't have cars, explaining no transport emissions. They don't have employment-generating industries, explaining no manufacturing emissions. The part of the world with small carbon footprints doesn't live modern lives, they live under "energy poverty.".

These ultra-low emission countries don't provide a template worth following. They have almost zero access to modern energy. Nearly 750 million people didn't have electricity as of 2023, which is why they don't have emissions from power generation.

The average American emits 30 times as much as these populations. The average Qatari emits 50 times as much. Countries like Malawi, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo have emissions close to zero.

What about countries with lower-than-average emissions? They're simply too poor to burn the fuel needed to promise their people a dignified life. People in the world's poorest countries emit less than 0.3 tonnes annually, some as little as 0.1 tonnes per year.

Despite dramatic increases in renewables, fossil fuels still power 60% of all global energy. Total energy demand keeps growing faster than we can add clean power. To provide basic necessities today, you have to emit carbon.

The emissions from rich countries aren't limited to billionaires in private jets, they're clearly part of everyday life. Even basic quality of life aspirations like education, healthcare, decent life expectancy, and fewer dying children cost energy.

Even the poorest people in rich countries have massive carbon footprints by global standards. In Germany or Ireland, over 99% of households emit more than 2.4 tonnes of CO2 per year. Their poorest still emit more than half the global average.

Poor countries cluster with both low emissions and low income. Rich countries sit at the opposite end. As countries get wealthier, people live better lives with more economic opportunities and less risk from indoor air pollution, but emissions rise dramatically.

The scale of inequality is staggering. People in the US emit more carbon dioxide in 5 days than people in Ethiopia, Uganda, or Malawi emit in an entire year. The richest 1% in the EU emit 43 tonnes of CO2 annually, nine times the global average of 4.7 tonnes.

Some countries have exceptionally low emissions, but only because their people live in poverty and can barely meet basic energy needs. Others provide good living standards but only at the cost of massive carbon footprints.

But averages hide enormous variation. There's a massive gap between the carbon footprints of the world's richest and poorest populations. This leads to what researchers call the world's "twin energy problems.".

Carbon emissions per capita actually peaked around 2012 at roughly 5 tonnes per person. Since then, it has remained relatively stable, even falling slightly. On average, each person alive has contributed less carbon over the last decade.

When you break down emissions by person rather than country, a troubling divide emerges. The world isn't facing one energy crisis, it's facing two. And this per capita reality check reveals something unexpected about our climate challenge.