← LSE: Public lectures and events
LSE: Public lectures and events
Negotiating a new international response to Climate Change: the prospects for COP-15 in Copenhagen 2009
01:25:43
Loading summary
Transcript50 lines
- [00:00]
A
It is a real pleasure for me to welcome everybody here to the school on behalf of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, and also our co hosts from the European Institute. A very special welcome of course, to our two speakers. We have the Danish Minister for Climate.
- [00:25]
B
Energy.
- [00:27]
A
That is Connor Hedegaard.
- [00:30]
B
Is that broadly right? Probably not.
- [00:33]
A
And our Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Hilary Benn. I've not only got to welcome the audience who are physically here, but also to an unknown number and an unseen number who can actually now watch this on the school's website. And this is the first really, really big occasion that we've been able to use that and I think it's great that that can take place now. Tonight's lecture is jointly hosted. It is actually the first lecture in the FT Business and European Institute series on the future of Europe. And that series will include lectures in about two weeks time by the President of Estonia and Norway's Finance Minister. Now, my European Institute colleagues have generously allowed me to chair it, chair the event tonight, not only because of the topic, but also because they know very well that this is a fantastic and key period for the Grantham Research Institute and climate change research at the school. We've just moved into the new academic building and for the first time we have a physical reality bringing together researchers on climate and on the environment more generally from across the school. Today is also an important day, not only because of this lecture, but because it actually marks the start date of the ESRC funded Centre for Climate Change which we are doing in partnership with Leeds. And we've learned very recently that that Centre is also going to be funded by Munich Re. So we have a foundation funding Grantham, we have a corporate partner and we also have Research Council. This will be the first of a series of events to mark the establishment of the ESRC Centre and the Grantham Institute. And you will be able to see all those events on the website, but they include next Monday a lecture by Nick Stern which marks the official launch of of the Grand Slam. Unfortunately, all the tickets for that went within an hour of them going on our website, but we are arranging video links in other rooms within the new building. So you will be able to get there if you haven't got a ticket. Our other speakers in the series of lectures will include Thomas Friedman and then we have Penny Wong who is the Australian Climate Minister. So we've got quite a program and I hope we will see many of you there. Now, both the Institute and the Centre are concerned with policy relevant research. Obviously it has to be of an academically respectable type of. But we are very, very policy focused and actually one of our major programs is about the governance of climate change and the search for a new deal. So it's fantastic that our first lecture in the series absolutely is going to address those questions. Connie Hudegaard has held her climate and energy portfolio for almost a year now, is that right? I think it is. And before that she had been both the Minister of the Environment and also the Minister for Cooperation in the Nordic region. She has actually what I think is a rather unenviable task and that is that she has special responsibility for the preparations for the UN Climate Change Conference which is to be held in Copenhagen in November to December next year. COP15, the 15th Conference of Parties is going to be a really critical one. If we are going to reach and agreement on what happens after Kyoto, it'll be vital to what the world's climate policy will be after 2012. I don't think anybody thinks it's going to be an easy task to actually get that agreement. It's an enormous challenge to find a way to get something agreed which is not only effective, but is also efficient and deals with equity questions. There are many, many hurdles that have to be overcome and we really couldn't have anybody better to talk to us about what some of those hurdles will be. So can I please invite you to give your lecture?
- [06:41]
C
Thank you very much, Judith Rees, for the very warm welcome. I've been looking forward to not only to give this lecture, but also to have the discussion afterwards and also to listen to what my colleague Hilary Benn is going to tell us. This university is renowned for its life large international student body. I've been told that at one point there were even more nations represented here at London School of Economics than in the United States. Sorry, in the United nations, of course. So facing you in a way is facing the world of tomorrow. So what audience would be more fitting for this lecture on the prospects for a new ambitious international response to climate change? And what would also be more fitting than to give this lecture at this brand new Ransom Research Institute on climate change and the environment spearheaded by Lord Nicholas Stern? And I can tell you we need you and we need the knowledge that you can provide for us who are the political decision makers? Because this center will connect the leading communities of researchers and policymakers, not only in the uk, but in Europe and across the globe. And it will do so on a set of issues that will shape your generation's approach to life. For better and for worse. For better, because the low carbon societies of tomorrow will help us deal with the resource shortages that we will face in the coming decades and provide economic and environmental benefits to all. For worse, because no matter how hard we work to limit carbon emissions, the climate is already changing. We cannot sort of do anything about that. We can only sort of diminish the rate with which things are changing. From record glacier melts in the Greenland, in the Alps, in the Himalayan and on top of Kilimanjaro, to weird weather across the globe with changing precipitation patterns resulting in drought, respectively, flooding and strange things happening where people try to live their life. People already feel the impacts of climate change. Not all changes to the climate would be induced by humans. We will often hear that there are other kind of synthesis as well. But according to science, the man made contribution is the decisive factor. And some of us would be and are already more affected than others. This August, I visited the village Niora du Sahel in Mali. There, at the brim of the harsh Sahel desert in western Africa, climate induced changes were very real. Over the past decade, the Sahel has expanded some 50 km south. The livelihood of local farmers has been stifled by lack of water and then shortly after, literally washed away. Nomads are pushing south to find graze land for their herds, then occupying farmland so that those who are sort of cultivating the soil and cannot harvest because the herds came from north, eating what they have sort of sowed. What happens then? Well, then you have conflicts and then people start to migrate. The young people seek towards the cities. But in the big cities, unemployment has since long been more than 50%. What will they do then? Well, then they will look for better opportunities elsewhere and they would start migrating, leaving their country. Heading where? Among other things, towards north, towards Europe. Some of the people there told me that usually, of course, the climate could change. You could have one bad year, maybe you could have two bad years in a row, but normally things would come back to exactly that, normal. But now they said for the last 10 or 15 years things did not come back to normal. The unusual thing has been the usual thing and everything is unpredictable. To me and to the villagers of Nyora di Sahel, the case for climate action is perfectly clear. Already we owe it to the millions around the globe who are threatened on their basic livelihood by climate change to try to tackle the challenge. And we owe it also, I think, to our children and our grandchildren and to generations to come to take our responsibility, unfortunately, what in a sense, I think is a moral imperative has proven insufficient to deliver the necessary action internationally. But I do believe that the compelling political and economic business case for climate action will the Stern Report estimated that by 2050 between 150 to up to 200 million people will be climate refugees as they fall victim to stronger typhoons, hurricanes, floodings and destabilizing droughts. If we let inaction prevail, we will allow migration of climate refugees across borders to stress both fragile governments and development in the most vulnerable region of the world. And as I tried to illustrate with the example from Mali, it will also sort of threaten our security because of course, in a global world you will try to seek to where conditions are better. Consequently, countries and regions will be at risk of descending into struggles over shortages of water, of food, of energy. So climate change is also about security, including energy security and energy supply. The former Foreign secretary from the U.S. henry Kissinger, and Harvard professor Martin Feldstein, argued last week in some articles, some analysis comments in the American press that the tripling in oil prices since 2001 has led to the largest transfer of wealth in human history. According to Kissinger and Feldstein, the 13 OPEC members alone are expected to earn more than US$1 trillion more this year from oil sales. Just to try to grasp what we are talking about, this enormous transfer of wealth, inevitably this will bring with it major political consequences. We are increasingly dependent on energy supply from regimes in volatile regions and we are funding these regimes, in the case of the US they fund this traffic to a certain degree with money borrowed in China. Strategically, one could say that it does not seem to be a winner strategy. So energy security and stable energy prices is a key priority. Must be a key priority to the United States and to China as well. No matter what, the answer cannot merely be drill, baby, drill. Like Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist has put it clearly, oil consuming nations are in a position to shape the global economic and political balance. And the challenge will become even bigger. The United nations estimates that over the next 42 years the world's population will grow by almost 50%. Well within your lifetime and hopefully within mine, we will be 9 billion people on planet Earth. That corresponds to adding all the people of China, India, Indonesia and the United States to our current world population. That is how many we are going to be in 2050. I take it that all those 9 billion people will want food. They will want heating, cooling, transportation, commodities. They would like to have part of the good life that we are as privileged as to have already. So the Demand for resources is bound to increase, and it is bound to increase tremendously if we continue on a path like business as usual. The World Energy outlook projects that 62% of the total increase in world energy demand will come from developing countries between 2000 and 2030. The energy demand of China and India alone will more than double up to 2030 in a business as usual scenario. So it takes no Nobel laureate to figure out that oil energy prices are bound to remain high even if we diversify energy supply and work hard to increase energy efficiency. So even if there were no climate crisis, we would still need to launch a transition to much more energy and resource efficient economies based to a large extent on low carbon energy sources. In the advanced economies, we will have to overhaul our energy infrastructures. Developing economies will invest heavily in a variety of energy technologies. The related challenges of climate change, population growth and resource and energy shortage will be a defining struggle of the 21st century. That they also present a great opportunity to first movers. This complex challenge will play a key role in determining the future world leadership. And leadership in this field is indeed up for grabs. Fortunately, we are beginning to see movement in a number of countries, each for their own reasons. But the collective pace is still much too slow. Scientists tell us that climate change is accelerating, that changes are happening faster than expected. Only a few years back, the window is closing for stabilizing the global temperature below what scientists tell us may be the tipping point. The Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Peturi, says we have less than 10 years to turn our boat around. We are facing an unprecedented global challenge calling for an unprecedented global response. The world community has set a deadline for agreeing on a global response plan. The deadline was set last year at the UN conference in Bali. And the deadline is the United Nations Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December. Next year in Copenhagen 2009. I know that people would now argue that with the new economic recession and crisis and all the things that we hear in the news these weeks, maybe that would risk taking away the attention. Yes, maybe. But I would say that that is foolish because how will we handle that crisis? But we will still have to have economic growth, that we must have a more sustainable growth. And we need the countries and the politicians of the world to be able to live up to the deadline that they set themselves last year in December. I think that we owe it to our people. So at COP15 in Copenhagen next year, the world must agree on a truly global and ambitious climate change agreement that meets the emission reduction targets defined by science. Actually, now we only have 14 months to lay this complicated puzzle and many pieces are still missing. One of the central pieces is our own climate and energy package within the European Union. The European Union has been the first major player to take steps to develop a low carbon economy. In many ways, the EU has provided a testbed for tackling climate change. Member countries are parties to the Kyoto Protocol and collectively we have established a well functioning system for trading emission quotas within the eu. And the European climate leadership was reinforced with the most ambitious reduction target so far delivered by the European heads of state in March last year. Here, the heads of space of Europe decided that the European Union will reduce its emissions to 20% below 9090 levels by 2020. And we will go to 30% reductions below 90 levels if other developed countries agree to comparable reductions. As part of a global now leadership is never easy. Defining the framework for our common emission reduction efforts in the years 2012-20 is no exception. I can, without sort of overdoing it, say that right now, and I know that Hilary Ben can confirm this, we are engaged in very tough negotiations on the EU climate and energy package. It is crucial for Europe and for the world that we complete our internal negotiations and that we basically do so before the end of this year, that is under the French presidency. If we do not bring our own house in order, well, the European Union will not then be able to lead the negotiations for an ambitious global agreement, at least not with the same credibility as we have had so far. And the world is watching. If we fail to agree on how we will deliver on our 2020 targets, we feed the skeptics around the globe who state that significant reductions in the short term are next to impossible. Colleagues and negotiators involved had to understand this. The success of our global negotiations next year depends on the success of of our own internal negotiations. The founding idea of the European Union was to unite member states around economic development, thereby stabilizing a war torn region. Creating a European low carbon economy is a natural next step for the European project, implying technological development, job creation and market possibilities. I think that it's a great opportunity for the United Kingdom, for my country Denmark and for the EU as a whole. And that is why it is so crucial that we do not get bogged down in internal discussions on burden sharing. We must deliver on our internal deadline and we must reach agreement on the climate and energy package this year. So let me now turn to the international negotiations and the road to Copenhagen next year. At the UN Climate Conference in Poland this year, ministers will lay the ground for final negotiations throughout 2009. We must agree in Poland on a thorough work plan for 2009, because right after New Year's we must shift gear and engage in concrete negotiations around the globe. The highest political level must give the negotiations priority to ensure that we move a full throttle. 2009 must be the year where we agree on an ambitious long term reduction target. The European Union has announced a global objective of staying below a global warming level of 2 degrees centigrade. Science tells us that this is needed to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable. International consensus is materializing on a 50% global reduction target by 2050. But the choice of base year is crucial. We need 50% with 1990 as base year. Of course, we can choose whatever year we want to as our point of departure. That we must stick to the fact that science tells us that compared to 90 levels, then this is the size of the job that we have to take upon ourselves. A 50% global reduction. And it goes without saying that the industrialized world will have to do more than that so that we can have the average of a global halving emissions. So an ambitious long term target is needed to steer efforts in years to come. But that is not enough. It is much too easy for the politicians of today to commit to targets in a distant future where we are no longer in office. Limiting ourselves to a long term reduction goal would indeed be like leaving the bill for a life well spent for the kids to pay. And science tells us that global emissions need to peak within the next 10 to 15 years. So therefore we must also reach agreement on a global midterm target for 2020. In accordance with the IPCC prescriptions, we expect all developed countries to take on reductions by 2020 in the range of 25 to 40% below 90 levels. Right now the world is waiting for the United States to move, and rightly so. The US is one of the world's most advanced economies. She has the technology, the economic capacity and the manpower to cut back emissions significantly. I am of course well aware that the industrial backbone of the United States was formed in an era of low oil prices. This obviously makes to change more dramatic and harder in the short term. With oil prices high as they are, American industry is facing tough times that might have been avoided with a different approach to energy and industrial policy. In the first six months of 2008, the Detroit 3, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have all witnessed staggering declines in their sales figures. They have lost market shares as gasoline prices have soared. The current economic turmoil of the United States is not only caused by rising energy prices, but there is no doubt that for the US Going green is key to a prosperous future. Maybe those car manufacturers that I just mentioned, maybe if they earlier on had seen what came and had sort of changed their production patterns into something more energy efficient, maybe their competitors from, for instance Japan, Nissan and Toyota wouldn't have done as well on the American market as is the case now. I also think that there are more than energy efficiency to what could be gained in the United States. Increasing the share of renewables in the US Energy mix, as well as increasing efforts to save energy, would not only strengthen the competitiveness of the US Economy. Reforming the energy sector would also mean millions of green collar jobs, service jobs that cannot be outsourced. Also, that kind of argument should have a say when we are talking about an economic crisis. Wouldn't this not be a good idea to sort of give priority? Washington may not have grasped the potential of the green wave yet, but I'm pleased to observe the many initiatives at regional, state and local level. In the United States, cities like New York are launching ambitious plans to bring down emissions. States like Texas and Colorado are putting up wind turbines at a stunning pace. Nascent regional carbon trading schemes are appearing. And major US Businesses like Wal Mart and General Electric are working intensely to increase their energy efficiency. And the good story is they are earning money from doing so. And NGOs and other civil society across the United States also are calling for action. Really, I think that America is just waiting for their President and for Congress to, to wake up and smell the coffee. As a European conservative, I must say it has been sort of puzzling to watch the United States take the back seat in international climate negotiations. You know, I was brought up with a firm belief that when the world needed leadership, no matter whether it was the First World War or the Second World War or the Cold War or the fight against terror, well then we could always count on the United States to show leadership. That leadership has been severely lacking during the last too many years. But I'm reassured that we will see movement come January by the climate policy signals from both US Presidential candidates. And they should be reassured by studies that show that the US can cut back emissions significantly at low or even no cost, even with existing technologies. With the change in the US position, we also expect emerging economies like China, like India, to step up their efforts. Last year, China surpassed the United States as the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases. And recent data suggest that in a few months India will be the third largest emitter on the planet. Two out of the top three global carbon emitters will, in other words, be developing economies. There is a painful truth to this. The most severe emission increases will be from large developing economies. It's therefore vital that developing countries contribute to the next agreement. It will simply be impossible to stabilize the planet at a safe emissions level without them. I mentioned before the 9 billion people we are going to be in 2058 of those 9 billion are supposed to live in countries that we today call developing countries. So it goes without saying we must have a truly global agreement. China has set a national target for energy intensity halfway in her present five year plan. China has a strong focus on delivering on their national target of a 20% improvement of energy intensity by 2010. We encourage China to pursue energy conservation efforts and at all levels of government. And we asked China to try to go even further. As a first step, we asked China to consider internationalizing national efforts as a contribution to a new global agreement. But let me be perfectly clear. We have no right to infringe on the growth perspectives of the developing countries. The 500 million Indian citizens who are currently without electrical light have absolutely the same right to this commodity as you have and as I have that. We need the partnership and the commitment of the developing countries as we move forward or we will simply not be able to solve the problem. And who will be the first to suffer if we don't manage to do so? We. Well, the developing countries and the poorest people. Fortunately, countries like South Africa and China are taking concrete steps and are capable of strengthening their efforts even further. As we move to the close the deal next year, we must also focus on what each and every country and economy is capable of providing, realizing that we will all feel the impact if we do nothing. In the existing climate change regime. Developing countries are all treated alike simply as developing countries. But after a decade of global growth, it should be clear to all that the group of developing countries is today a highly diverse group. Treating countries like Singapore and Saudi Arabia on par with Mali and Burkina Faso is just not fair. So we must ask for contributions from all countries in accordance with their specific capabilities. Some of us will have to do a lot of reductions. Some will have to stabilize. Others will have to deviate from business as usual. And the poorest and least developed in our midst must receive support and pledge to embark on a sustainable development path. For the least developed countries, adaptation is the core concern. These economies are vulnerable. Primary sectors such as agriculture are directly affected by changing weather patterns. The scarce financial and human resources will be stretched in order to cope and survive the toils of climate change. The least developed countries can only embark on a sustainable development path if we help farmers finance adaptation and their capacity building. We must help these countries to help themselves. And we must make an agreement that ensures that technology transfer can come by much faster than would also be the case here. We must develop new financial mechanisms. Therefore, let me elaborate a bit on the possible financial instruments in what could be a Copenhagen agreement. Finance is an integral part of the agreement itself. A toolbox of financing instruments is needed in order to activate private investments from companies and households. Investments which must go hand in hand with adequate public funding. The two most essential tools in the current toolbox are the carbon market and the Clean Development Mechanism, the so called cdm. We need to figure out how best to reform the CDM and to agree on additional mechanisms needed. We believe that the carbon market has the potential to become the main vehicle for financing emission reductions also in a new agreement. At least I think that it's fair to say that to this very date we haven't seen any better alternatives. Countries will build carbon markets with different coverage and ambition levels that vary with their different levels of development. But the carbon market is not the panacea of climate change finance. There is a need also to introduce other tools for activating private and public investment. This can be achieved in part through national policies that engage the private sector, in part through innovative arrangements such as, for instance, a levy on bunker fuels for shipping and for aviation. A levy will set a price and emissions, activate private investments and enhance mitigation efforts. And it will generate finance for domestic and global purposes. And it has the huge advantage that you will not have to ask for this year by year. It's a sort of a steady flow of of financing. The need for predictable financing will namely be great. This can be delivered through a fund structure that can support the introduction of financial tools and finance concrete measures in both mitigation and adaptation. Finally, here in one of the world's chief financial centers, I wish to stress the importance also of bringing business and industry from all parts of the world on board. Of course, the market has a key role to play. Support from key industries will make it easier for governments to commit to an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen next year and will ensure a swift implementation across the globe. My first sales pitch is the Stern Review underscored the risks of market instability if economies are affected by extreme weather events causing harm to roads, ports, refineries and other kind of infrastructure. The direct effects of severe weather were seen during Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf coast of the United states back in 2004. I think it was. And to a lesser extent during the latest Hurricane Ike. The costs were just massive. My second sales pitch is a global agreement will provide certainty for investors. Investments in green tech have increased significantly over the past couple of years. But uncertainty of profits and lack of predictability still discourages bold innovation. In all modesty here, the Danish example shows that both investments in greentech do pay off. Greentech actually is one of the fastest growing industries in Denmark right now and it is our third largest export area. Over the past 30 years, Denmark has built a strong green tech industry. Since 1981, we have experienced a growth in our GDP of 75%. And yet at the same time we have kept our total energy consumption almost stable. And Danish companies now have first mover advantages in the growing green tech markets. I think that the Danish example proves that economic growth and an increasingly sustainable energy supply can go hand in hand, to the benefit of all and for significant profits to a growing industry. My third sales pitch is even more cheerful. For visionary businesses. Green tech equal profits Today, European companies in the green tech sector had significant first move advantages. In 2005, the world market for environmental technologies was estimated at 1,000 billion euros, of which the European Union took one century. The market is now expected to grow to 1,500 billion euros in only 2010. European firms need to stay at the cutting edge for profits and to help the European Union meet its obligations in a global agreement. The portfolio of green tech solutions is already abundant and all countries should exploit the potential for low cost reductions to the the best of their ability. If deployed, existing technologies would already allow businesses and consumers to stay below the European Union 2 degree target and at the same time save money. Solutions range from more efficient light bulbs, refrigerators and water heaters in our homes to improved fuel economy standards in our cars and trucks and improved efficiency in our power plants and a lot of other things. Of course, solutions like these present many countries with an enormous reduction potential. They are low hanging fruits for industries and consumers to pick and save money. Governments must remove market barriers and speed up the adoption of low carbon technologies. The faculty and students at the Grantham Institute here at LSE can assist in identifying these barriers and prescribe ways to achieve technology adoption. You see, we are all in the same boat when it comes to climate change. Governments, businesses, scientists and citizens. Now we must move from an era of work and launch a new era of action. We need fresh thinking to guide us as we pursue the monumental challenge before us. We need social scientists to work more on understanding the incentives behind behavioral change. We need political scientists to work on the most effective policies, to overhaul our energy infrastructure and to identify new policy practices. We need economists and business scholars to work on business models that will drive sustainable production, from global supply chains that span every region to local transport systems that drive down reductions. Right here in London, I'm often asked whether I'm an optimist or a pessimist when it comes to landing an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen next year. My answer is I'm neither. I'm a realist. We know all that this is extremely difficult, and I must admit that current affairs darkened my mind. In just a few months, the world has slipped into a deepening financial crisis, economic recession is spreading, and the Doha negotiations have stalled completely. I'm sure that you agree that these changes are not entirely conducive to the climate negotiations. But on the other hand, the peoples of the world expect their politicians to act and to deliver on the 2009 deadline. To land an agreement is probably not at all that difficult. The challenge would be to land an ambitious agreement that will bring the world back on track, in line with what the IPCC tells us is necessary. A good colleague recently told me, Connie, don't worry about whether the Copenhagen conference is going to be a success, because all the climate conferences ever held have all been successes. After they ended, they were all successes. The only problem is that emissions have continued to grow after each conference. So the challenge is to make an ambitious agreement. We must do better. There is a window of opportunity. Now. We must take advantage of this and do what is necessary, not just because of the climate crisis, but because to take the climate challenge seriously also means taking the challenge of energy security, energy dependency, geopolitical security, international development and economic growth seriously. Only if we act will the world be able to provide sustainable growth to the billions of fellow citizens who have not yet received their fair share. To take this conundrum of challenges seriously will not hamper growth. On the contrary, it's a prerequisite it to growth sustainable growth. Thank you very much for your attention.
- [44:37]
A
Thank you so much for that. I certainly learned a lot and I think it was a very sort of robust treatment of the subject, if I might say so. We're very pleased that we have Hilary Behn here to give his reflection in response to that lecture, as I'm sure most of you will know that he actually leads for the UK on the negotiations about sustainable Development and also climate change. I actually first met him in what he calls his old job when he was dealing with dfid. And we certainly appreciated his special interest in the water sector and the radical changes that we needed to within the governance and financing of that sector if the mgds were going to be met. And that is a topic rather close to my heart, but it's also a topic that is actually quite relevant for climate change. So the two jobs are coming together, as it were.
- [45:58]
B
Well, Judith, Connie, ladies and gentlemen, can I say what a pleasure it is to be back here at the lse? Can I join you in welcoming the establishment of the Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and the Environment. Can I say it's also pretty daunting to follow what we have just heard, because I have to say to you, Connie, for clarity and insight and determine determination, that is pretty hard to beat. And I think everyone who's here tonight will know that those talks in Copenhagen in just over a year's time will be in very capable hands. But the eyes of the world, not to put any pressure on you, you know it already, the eyes of the world will be on you, on Copenhagen, on Denmark, and on all of us who are there, without exaggeration, the most important gathering of the representatives of the peoples of the world, certainly this century, which is still quite young, but in truth, for many years. And what I wanted to do in response to what we have just heard and what you have said is to reflect really on the central point it seemed to me, that you made about how we find the political will to make this happen, because that is what this is all about. And as you alluded to, of course, the circumstances in some senses have become less propitious than they were when the economy was going fine, because it's got a bit more difficult now. And there are some people who will say, well, yeah, this matters. But you know, something else matters more now, which is the state of the global economy, economy. And I think we just have to be pretty strong and clear in saying, look, what is the lending hurricane that has hit the United States of America and the storm, the ensuing storm that has flown across Europe? What is the credit crunch? What are the rising bills we're paying for food, for petrol, for diesel, for gas and electricity, if not humankind coming face to face with the consequences of unsustainable use of resources? That's the problem that we're dealing with, isn't it? And when you find you are caught out by taking for granted that which we now learn we can't take for granted. You've got a choice if actually you want to reduce the impact of that. The action that you need to take is exactly the same action that you need to take in order to tackle the threat of dangerous climate change. The two are one, if you want to save energy, you will save money, and you will save the planet in the process. And one of the tasks we have politically is to make that argument and say, this is not a choice between either looking after the economy or looking after the planet. It is actually doing both. Because as you set out, I thought brilliantly, Connie, in the future, who's going to be best placed to get through these current difficulties and inherit the Earth that is to come? It is the low carbon, a low carbon household, a low carbon country, a business, a planet. And the sooner we get on with it, frankly, the better, not least because of the world's rising population. Now, you quoted Thomas Friedman. Well, one other thing that Thomas Friedman said was that the world has become hot, flat and crowded. And the truth is, if we don't take action today to ease the burdens and the costs that we feel, then we're simply going to be putting off the burdens that we will face in the years to come. And that's why all the tickets for Nick Stern's lecture here have gone. That's why I christened him some time ago, is the unlikely rock star of climate change. Because Nix did the numbers and he grabbed the attention of a lot of people who weren't at that moment persuaded by the science. Because Nick said, hey, I've done the calculations and let me tell you what it's going to cost you if you don't do it. And let me tell you what it'll cost you if you get on with it now. And why would you want to pay more later when you can do it now for less? The honest answer to that is because in life, in politics, as a society, the things we might find most difficult, difficult are the steps we need to take today for a benefit that will be felt by our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. Whether it is, you know, pensions, whether it's care for us when we're old, whether it is the greatest challenge, the twin challenge of overcoming poverty, injustice and inequality and the fight against dangerous climate change. It's how we find the will to turn the demands of today into the policies that will build us the tomorrow that we need. And we have just one chance to get it right, because there isn't going to be a bailout. If we get this wrong, there is no central bank for the environment that we can kind of call upon to fix it later, is there? So that puts a very heavy responsibility on all of us to play our part. Now, you know, what the government is trying to do is to play our part domestically and to social leadership, as indeed the government in Denmark is doing. You know, our CO2 emissions in Britain fell by just over 10 million tonnes last year. Now that's going in the right direction. We have a long way to go. We have much to learn from Denmark in the field of renewable energy. However, if I may say so, Connie, we are hoping in the not too distant future to overtake them as the country of the world with more installed offshore wind generating capacity than any other country on the planet. Onshore, we are lagging way behind. Do you know what the biggest obstacle to getting permission for onshore wind is? Planning permission. That is down to us. So we have to tell the truth in this process. When Parliament gets back, we will complete the final stages of putting the climate change bill on the statute book. And this is genuinely a word first and a very radical piece of legislation because within just over six months, we'll be the first country in the world to have carbon budgets for the next 15 years. And you know, one of the profound changes that having a carbon budget will bring to our society is it will throw into very sharp relief the choices that we have to make about where we're going to emit a declining quantity of CO2. That's what a carbon budget is. And this is the century in which human beings are going to have to learn a second meaning to the phrase living within your means. We all understand what it means in relation to what's in our pockets. But this is the century in which we also have to learn to live within our carbon means. Are we overdrawn at the carbon bank? And there's some very tough decisions that we have to take in that process. One of those is, is about the generation of our energy. And if I may just make a point about the negotiations in Europe currently, given the rate at which coal fired power stations are being constructed right around the world. India, you're right. The Indian Energy Minister was very frank. He said, I've got all these people with no electricity. We're going to build the power stations to give it to them. China building a new coal fired power station, one or two a week. And we need to find the funding in Europe to demonstrate carbon capture and storage operating on a commercial. And I hope that will be part of the climate and energy package. Because with the funding, with the skill of engineers and scientists, then I think we can as a world look to a future for clean coal in Britain and elsewhere and away from unabated coal, so it can finally take its place in the history books. And that's one example of where we need leadership. Leadership to get the technologies, leadership to build on what was agreed in Bali, leadership to get the fair deal. Now, the truth is we know what the elements are and you've set them out, we know what is required. You need those medium and long term targets, you need a carbon market and a carbon price because you've got to shift this supertanker of investment and decisions that we make away from high carbon growth and high carbon activity to low carbon growth. We need the finance of a carbon market and increase funding from the richest countries in the world will give to support the emerging and developing countries in paying for the adaptation, in paying for the investment in the low carbon technology. And as you set out really clearly, we need every country to make a contribution. And that's where the politics gets most difficult. That's the truth. Because up until now, the whole international architecture for dealing with climate change has divided the world into two camps. The Annex 1 countries, the rich ones. You cause the problem, you go sort it out. The rest of us will watch while you get on with it. I caricature to make the point. However, we know and never was the phrase an inconvenient truth better used to describe a problem that we face. We know that even if the rich world, Denmark, Britain, the rest of the eu, America, Canada, New Zealand and other rich countries managed tomorrow morning to get on a spacecraft decamp to Mars, taking all of the emissions that we produce with us, and left a note for the remaining human beings on the planet, dear rest of world have moved to Mars, taken our emissions with us. Good luck. Let us know how you get on. Now, Connie told us what would happen because the world would still face dangerous climate change because of the rising emissions from the developing and emerging economies. And therefore the phrase on which we have all comfortably camped common but differentiated commitments isn't going to do the business, is it? And you made the point. You cannot look at China and India and say you're in the same position as Mali and Burkina Faso. You can't, because you have this spectrum, spectrum of countries at different stages of development and each must make a contribution according to its stage of development and its ability to contribute. And finding the political agreement that gives us the formula to add up the contributions and commitments and then say, well, is that enough to avoid the catastrophic climate change? Is that enough to keep us at the 2 degrees? That is the political task that negotiations themselves have got to address. And the final thing I wanted to say was about how we build further the political momentum that we need to make this happen. One of the problems we've got, let's be frank, is when we talk about climate change, understandably, we concentrate on tales of the apocalypse. And it's right that we should do so, because it is a. It's not just an environmental problem, it's a security problem, it's a migration problem, it's a water problem, it's an economic problem. But when we think about it, doom doesn't necessarily encourage people to act, does it? And a friend of mine at Labour Party conference who was on a platform made, I thought, this really important point. He said, when Martin Luther King, who was assassinated 40 years ago this year, sought to inspire his countrymen and women to act in a great cause, he didn't make a speech that began, I have a nightmare, did he? He said, I have a dream. And he inspired many, many people to believe that what seemed impossible. And when we look at the scale of the task and we look at the state of our politics and we look at the pressures and the difficulties that governments face that people face in their own lives, it's easy to be transfixed by the size of the challenge and to say we can't do it. But human history teaches us that if we do have a dream and if we do put our minds to it, we can make one day possible what yesterday seemed impossible. And that is, in truth, is the story of human progress, isn't it? And doing this, rising to this challenge, making this change, is the greatest one of all. But if we do take comfort from history, and we should, it is that progress is possible. And I want to finish with a quote from somebody else who was assassinated 40 years ago this year, Robert Kennedy, because he said this memorably. Each time a man, and I'm sure he meant women as well, stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and different daring. These ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. And what we need to do is to start each of us our own ripples to build by December next year, a current that will sweep away both the fear that we have about our ability to do this and the future and the obstacles to. To achieving that deal. Because the future is not another place. It's our planet, it's our world and it's for us to build. Thank you very much.
- [59:44]
A
We're very lucky that both my. Our speakers have said they will take questions from the floor for about. About 20 empty minutes. I think we have. Okay, so can I have questions? Shall we start with one gentleman there?
- [60:06]
C
Okay.
- [60:08]
A
All right. I'll try and remember where everybody is. There's a gentleman there.
- [60:18]
B
Thank you.
- [60:19]
A
Is that working?
- [60:21]
D
I don't know if I need it.
- [60:24]
B
Connie, you alluded to.
- [60:26]
A
You alluded to a levy on bunker.
- [60:28]
B
Fields for aviation and shipping. And my understanding is that there is no discussion of this. I don't think it. Oh, it's working. Now. The thing is that there is this. There's been no discussion of this and there won't be any at Poznan. And I'm just wondering if you could expand on that because. Very serious issue.
- [60:50]
A
Thank you. Shall we take one or two questions.
- [60:53]
D
At the same time?
- [60:55]
A
Sorry to get people running around. There's a gentleman right up there. Very, very keen. So we'll take two or three questions and then. Okay, I've seen you in the middle there. I've seen you.
- [61:06]
B
Fantastic.
- [61:07]
D
Yes, I am very keen indeed.
- [61:08]
B
I'm Edward Anderson. I work for an organization called involve and I'd like to ask you a question about the role of the public, because we've heard a lot about the role of the politicians and others. And my organization is actually involved with the Danish Board of Technology on a project called Worldwide Views on Global Warming.
- [61:23]
E
Which I think Minister Hiragard has actually.
- [61:26]
B
Endorsed, which is all about global deliberations, members of the public on climate change policy. And so my question is really for most of the ministers, how can members of the public and public engagement help deliver those ripples that Hilary Benn spoke about and improve the governance of climate change?
- [61:44]
E
Thank you.
- [61:46]
A
We'll take one more in this round. The gentleman in the red tie. I'll take you first. Next round.
- [61:55]
F
I give you a scenario in Bangladesh.
- [61:58]
B
Can we.
- [61:58]
A
Sorry, can we have a question? We don't want statements from people, just questions.
- [62:03]
F
As the ice cap is melting and sea level is rising to 130, 40% of Bangladesh will be permanently underwater and the population will be at that time, by 23rd, the process will accelerate when 70 microns of the Hebrew and vessel will disappear. That's just consequences, particularly naturally. My question is, it is a question of time. Bangladesh will disappear from the face of the earth unless the international community do something outdated and not tomorrow that will be too late. And what is your program on global implements in Copenhagen?
- [62:52]
A
Thanks very much. Can I ask you, Connie, would you like to start?
- [62:57]
C
Yes. First you asked about Levy and Bunger Fuels, the International Maritime Organization. They have a meeting, it's later this month and Denmark has proposed to them this kind of Bunger fuel levy. But we've also said to them it's best if you, as the international organization for. For the shipping, if you can take care of this yourself, how you sort of fight climate change, that's fine, but if you cannot agree on that, then we will do whatever we can to bring it into the international negotiations. In eu we have already done something about aviation on a European scale. We simply gave up to wait for the International Aviation Organization because it could not decide anything. So now we do something, we take it into the European Trading scheme and we have. Actually we have. We are discussing this later this month in the Council in Brussels, but also there, I think that that should be considered to be one of the ways of financing and to get a steady flow of financing. I don't know if it's true and so I'm a bit reluctant to mention, but I heard that there is this figure that each day there is around 1 million planes departing from somewhere around the planet. It sounds very, very huge, but still there are numerous effectivities there. And if each time they generated some finances into what this gentleman spoke about from Bangladesh, which would be needed, we need huge funding, for instance, for adaptation. And that has a huge priority for the Copenhagen negotiations, because we cannot make a deal without giving very high priority to adaptation. So that is one of the four building blocks that is sort of in the roadmap to Copenhagen from Bali, where it was sort of agreed upon, says you must look into adaptation mitigation. That's the reduction target, technology transfer and financing. And it goes without saying that that assistance to adaptation, disseminating technologies to adapt, knowledge, best practice, all these kind of things, and also capacity building, as I mentioned, to the developing countries, and particularly aimed at the least developed countries, that has a very, very high priority, but that requires some kind of steady financing. If I could just come on one more thing. Some would argue, well, couldn't you just set aside a special percentage of your GDP in the rich countries or whatever? But we all know from the oda, the developing aid, that how many countries in the end have lived up to the UN call for 0.7% of the GDP for developing aid. So that's not good enough because we'll have to fight each year to take care that we get the financial flows that we need. And that's why we must invent some other kind of tools. And then I would just like briefly to comment on what Emerson spoke about, the role of the public. And I think that is absolutely crucial in democratic societies. For instance, I cannot as a politician talk about we should do something today because something is going to be very, very bad for generations to come unless the citizens accept it and understands it. And my experience is that the more people know about this challenge, the more inclined they are to act in their own lives, but also the more they are inclined to ask for action from their municipalities and their governments and also from business. And I'm not going to go a lot into this. I'll just mention that as consumers we have a huge part every day each of us make choices and we can make a difference. And each day we can send some strong signals to the market that we look for the energy labeled things for the energy efficient cars and all the things that we have. There are lots of things where we have a power to send signals to politicians and to business. And that is also why I think, I think it's important to have this public discussion about these things because that activates people.
- [67:16]
B
Yeah, well, aviation and shipping are of course the two examples of the even more complex bit of the negotiations. Because how do you divvy up responsibility of the emissions? See, the great countries have a lot of merits, a lot going for them and they are good units on which the basis of which to count emissions. But you know, ship leaves Britain, Panamanian flag refuels in international waters, docks at Dubai and then Sydney. What's the mechanism for divvying up responsibility for those emissions, given that we've got to get a deal where you count contributors to the countries. And that's why it's been difficult to deal with. And I really do welcome the fact that so many of us as ministers in Europe pressed to get aviation in because as Connie rightly says, we lost patience with the international IATA whose job it is to do it. And they haven't got their thing around, just to be blunt. So Europe has and we need the rest of the world to get on with it. Our friend up in the gallery. About two weeks ago, I went to visit a village called Ashton Hayes in the Wirral.
- [68:24]
F
I don't know if you know about Ashton.
- [68:26]
B
Well, you do, but probably a lot of other people don't. I haven't. And it's a very nice English village where about two or three years ago one of the villagers had been off to a conference whether he'd be talking about climate change. He came back and said, we've really got to do something locally. So he got organized. One of the things he did was to put signs around the village saying, ashton Hayes, England's first low carbon village, didn't tell anybody what he was doing. And people thought, wasn't it funny? And then they called a meeting. About half the villagers turned up in the school hall. And now two and a bit years later, they've got their emissions down from memory, from the chart that was pinned to the building in the village by about 20%, as I recollect. Don't hold me to the figures now. What was interesting about that was one of the witnesses, women I met, said, you know, there's nothing special about us living in Ashton Hayes. And I said, that's true, but what you've achieved is something special. And I suppose the question is whether it's that example, whether it's businesses that have been able to make a significant reduction in their energy use, whether it's other ways of getting around in cars that don't destroy the planet. Once you see what is possible, if they can do it, why can't I? Why can't you? And for me, that is the way in which you begin to overcome the threat of immobility. Because people are transfixed by the size of the problem and you have to ally the passion and the commitment and the understanding and yes, in some cases the worry about what the future may hold to showing people what can be done, making it easy, helping them. Because unless each of us does it constantly. John is absolutely right. If you're looking to government, say you're the ministers in charge, you sort it out and we'll get on with the rest of our lives. We will say to you, it doesn't quite work like that. We can't do it on our own. We have to do it together and we need more of that. Bangladesh. The first time I ever visited Bangladesh, I went to visit some people who live on the chore lands, the shifting fact sandbanks of the great river delta. And I remember asking a group of women, how often have you moved in your life? And one of the women put out her hands and she must have been about 50. She said, I've moved about 30 times in my life because literally as the flood waters come down, it floods, they move and when they come back they find that the sandbank isn't there anymore and they have to go live somewhere else. So those citizens are. Bangladesh have already experienced the consequence of a changing climate. And bluntly, if what you put in your question comes to pass, then a lot of Bangladesh is moving house. That's what's going to happen. And probably to start with, they're going to move next door to India.
- [71:23]
C
Now.
- [71:25]
B
You just have to sort of come contemplate that for a moment, given the size of the population, to say, blimey, we really do need to do something about this. And it reinforces the point I made about every country making a contribution. The one other thing I would say is that the voice that's been heard loudest up until now in some of the international negotiations, and Connie will have heard it too, is the association of Island States, because they put up their hands at the conference and say, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, while you lot are all talking about what you might or might not do, we are going to be the first who go under the waves and who's housing us when that happens. And I think what your question very starkly reminds us of is the need for the urgency that comes.
- [72:19]
A
Okay, well, we've got time for another round, I promise. Two people already who didn't get in the first time. Gentlemen there, gentlemen there. We'll have one from the front here and the lady at the back. And then I think that that'll be it.
- [72:34]
B
Check.
- [72:34]
A
Right.
- [72:36]
D
My name is Bramley, I'm from India. I'm an LSE graduate and founder of Worldview Impact. We're mitigating climate change by creating sustainable livelihoods to lift the A lot of poverty in Asia, Africa, Latin America. Going to the village discussion. My village is on the other side of the border of Bangladesh on the Indian side, and India is building a wall. But the question I want to pose to you guys is much more complex. It's about the go nuclear. Go nuclear because it's clean, because it's environmental friendly. And my government just signed a deal with the French government today and also is going to deal with the US government for a civil and nuclear deal. But the villages, I was doing my research. While I think the LSE sits in the largest deposit and the richest deposit uranium in the subcontinent. So I don't know whether mining the uranium is clean and sustainable and green, but there are lots of debates about that. We also have a nuclear weapons program, but we also have a huge population to feed. So the nexus is, what do we do if you say no to nuclear. Is there enough clean fuel to generate to feed the Indian population? I sleep. Denmark, the superpower wind. India has the third largest wind generation power in Tamil Nadu. But what can be done to address those issues? This goes also to you, Hilary. What do we do with nuclear energy?
- [73:45]
A
Thank you, thank you. The gentleman on that. Yeah, the gentleman right on the subject.
- [74:04]
B
To what extent is that Copenhagen? What do we need to see from Copenhagen?
- [74:12]
A
Very much gentleman in the middle here, the stripy Louvre.
- [74:23]
E
I was wondering if Hilary Ben could tell us a little bit more about how exactly the UK is going to meet its 15% target, EU target, which is overall for EU state, 20% of electricity production from renewables, when we've been at around about 2.8, 2.9% for the past 10 years. Presumably there must be a fairly kind of large strategy waiting to be unveiled because it's about, there's about 11 years to make a fivefold increase and there's been quite a lot of doubt in the press. So I'm not, you know, I just like to find out a little bit more about how it's going to be achieved.
- [75:06]
A
Okay, and then the very last question, and I have to leave it to a woman, of course, the lady right at the back, you will need the mic, I think.
- [75:18]
C
Given that half the population now lives in cities and cities contribute more than half the carbon emissions, can you comment on what role cities will play and more specifically urban leaders in encouraging the practice of sustainable urban development?
- [75:38]
B
Okay, Remy, first of all, nuclear. Well, the government's position in the UK is that nuclear should form part of the mix to provide our energy in the future. Now, what are the facts? Tell us. Nuclear in operation produces between 20 and 40 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Gas about 380. Coal unabated, coal 755. Now, which of those is the lowest carbon technology? And it's led some, not all, but some in the environmental movement to change their minds about it. I think the Keynes famously said, you know, when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do? Secondly, all forms of energy degeneration have a consequence. And part of the problem we have in our society is if you say to people, do you fancy a nuclear power station in your back garden? I think I'll pass on that, thank you very much indeed. Coal fired gas fired turbine goes back to the point I made about planet Permission. I think, can you go somewhere else? Thank you very much. Energy from waste, whatever. And yet people say, but when I flick the switch, you know, half time in the football, put the kettle on, turn the oven on, you will make sure, won't you, that the electricity will continue to flow. And we've become quite disconnected as a society from the way in which our energy is produced. Now one of the ways that in which we have to change that, and it partly links to your question, is what much more we can do to encourage people to generate energy at a local level. And the renewable energy strategy, which I hope you've read, and if not, do have a look, because the truth is, why are we behind on this in the uk? One very simple reason. Well, two very simple reasons. They're called North Sea oil and gas and we have lived off and heated off and lit off those two substances for a long time, but they're not there anymore in the same quantity. And that is why the profound transformation that the renewable energy strategy represents is a genuine determination on the part of the government to change that. And we're making some progress. Offshore wind I gave the example of we are the home of the technology that has generated the first offshore electricity from wave power. Three weeks ago I climbed down into the pelomis snake, which I think is what you know, Pelomis I think means serpent, doesn't it? Which pine, which actually generated the first of it four years ago. And as you probably read in your Guardian last week, there's a farm being developed in Portugal and they're going to be a couple more around the coast of the UK which got the renewable obligation system. We're consulting on feed in tariffs, which if you look at countries like Germany and elsewhere, certainly do a lot to generate energy generation at the household community level because the renewable obligation works pretty well for big renewables. The truth is it doesn't work for small renewables and that's what we need to do. Urban leaders have a hugely important role to pay in the same way as that guy in Ashton Hayes had a role to play. Two big tasks. One is what do we do about the energy efficiency of our existing housing stock? Because the government is trying to sort out through zero carbon homes from 2016, not going to build any new ones that cause a problem, but what are we going to do about the 21 million ones that we've got and therefore a national program to try and retro fit. And what the government announced a couple of weeks ago is the next stage in that process is very important. The second is how we move about because we want the mobility that cars have given us and you can quite easily see a future in which the cars are powered by batteries that are charged by renewable wind energy. You've still got a congestion problem if you haven't got a climate problem in the same way. So there's two examples of where urban leaders can live. And finally, on your question, sir, about are those principles agreed? Not in part, I think, is the honest answer. Because at least at Bali, we moved beyond, well, we'll come back and negotiate a deal. And it's about the MX1 countries doing even more. And what nearly wrecked Bali was a debate about reportable, verifiable and measurable. And a comma, that's what history will record in the paragraph about what developing and emerging economies would do. When it came down to the last morning on that extraordinary day, at the end of that extraordinary week, what do we need out of it? Well, we need commitments that we can rely on as a world because in the end someone's going to be keeping score and say, okay, well, what are you going to do? Right, and what are you going to do and what are you going to do? And you add them up and you say, well, now is that enough to avoid what the scientists tell us will be the consequence if we don't achieve those things? And then we need a mechanism for holding people to account for what they promised. Now, it sounds very simple and it's going to be incredibly difficult to achieve, but that in essence is what the deal is going to have to bring us.
- [80:51]
C
Well, first to you about the question about sitters and a huge and complex area. But if I should answer in just one word, I would say planning. I think planning is absolutely essential. That's about the sprawl of our cities, that's about our transportation systems, that's about taking care that we have an attractive public transport system. For instance, in Denmark, you cannot get the permission to arrange a new city or a new part of the city unless you have the train station to come there at the same time, or you will not be permitted to sort of start this project. I think that here politicians not believed in the municipalities can do a very, very big difference by being very good at planning. And then in many ways, that people live in cities could also be an advantage in the sense that the combined heat and power systems, the integrated energy systems, the incineration of households, it's possible to sort of collect the waste and get energy out of it. The central district heating, many of these technologies will sort of apply better for the cities than for sort of rural areas. And then one more thing, the sustainable fuels, I think it's very important And Hilary just mentioned a bit, but also hybrid, hybrid cars, electric cars. I think that will be one of the areas where technology really will have to help us find better solutions in the future. And then agree very much with the building regulations. We could do a lot then when we have strict building regulations, we are improving them each fifth year. But now we are starting also to look at the existing buildings. How can you sort of increase what they have to do? So it's, it's an example of we must have this push pull effect where the market will have to do a lot of things, citizens will have to do a lot of things, but the politicians must sort of push people in the right direction by also setting up regulations, taxating energy so that energy comes at a price and all these kind of things. I would just mention one thing to you from India asking about, about nuclear. Back in 1985, Denmark decided not to have nuclear. But I think that if you look at it globally, there is no discussion that you will need all the kind of energy sources that we can get in the next decades. One should just be aware that nuclear is not a cheap solution. Actually it's a relatively very expensive solution. And as far as I recall it, the International Energy Agency has said in 2020 nuclear will only be able to account for a maximum of 5% of the energy we need. So we should also sort of remember the proportions here. And then the last thing, what is the attitude, what is sort of the whole thing around this discussion about differentiation between the developing countries? And to be very frank with you, it's a highly controversial issue. And the thing is rather recently that at all we have started to say it openly that here we have a problem that, I mean to me it's obvious now I mentioned the figures Kissinger wrote about how much money sort of pours into the Middle East. It's not logic that in these kind of negotiations we should treat the Saudi Arabia like we treat Mali that I referred to or take a land like a country like Singapore, Singapore due to the fact that it's a small island state. So in the international climate negotiations they have no obligation, their GDP is bigger per capita than that of Portugal, not to talk about some of the new members of the European Union. So we must take this discussion and I think that we will never have the financial assistance that is required to help the nation developed countries adapt to climate change, to get the technology that they need and all these things. If it's a question of that, we should also sort of pour adequately money into the very developed developing countries. If I may end up just giving you one example. It's sort of in the funny spectrum. I went to Sao Paulo in Brazil recently, and I was interviewed outside. And it was sort of outside Sao Paulo and there's a network and they were sort of conducting this interview. But then we heard all these helicopters coming all the time, so I staged this act. Oh, we must stop. We must stop the interview because we must wait. It's rush hour now. I said, what could you say? It's rush hour? Well, it's because the rich people have given up.