 Good afternoon. My name is Alex White. I'm chair of the IEA's energy working group. I'm delighted to welcome you to this event, which is part of the we think 2021 lecture series brought to you by the ESB and the IEA. Throughout the course of this past year or so, we've been convening international thought leaders, renowned energy experts and political leaders to address a wide range of critical issues in energy policy. And the quality, I think, of our contributors has been high, and the response from our audience has been really universally positive. And on behalf of the IEA, I would like to thank the ESB for their generous and continuing sponsorship and support for this series. From the 31st of October to the 13th of November this year, the United Kingdom hosted the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties, the COP26 in Glasgow. The summit was a chance and important opportunity to evaluate the extent to which countries are taking the actions needed to limit global warming to 1.5, as outlined in the Paris agreement. COP26 president, Alex Sharma, said that the summit and the Glasgow climate pact had succeeded in keeping 1.5 alive, albeit with a weak pulse. Today, we've convened a distinguished panel of speakers to hear their assessments of COP26 and the direction of international climate action. It's a great pleasure to be joined by Professor Morgan Bazillion, Connie Hiddegard, Alicia O'Sullivan, and Dr. Sinead Walsh. The event will last for about an hour and a half, 90 minutes or so, no longer than 90 minutes. I'm sure people have plenty of other things they need to be doing, even in the middle of a storm, but it'll be no longer than 90 minutes or so. We'll do it in three parts. Broadly speaking, the first part of the seminar, we'll hear the individual reflections of our panelists on COP26. We then have a discussion amongst our panel group, our guests, before we turn most importantly to you, our audience, to address questions or observations that you would like to offer to this important debate. We do really encourage your contributions or questions, your observations. You can join the discussion using the usual Q&A function right there on Zoom. You'll see it there at the bottom of the screen. You're well used to it at this stage. Feel free to send your questions in. I always say this. We always say this. Send in the questions when they occur to you throughout the session, rather than waiting in because sometimes we have a difficulty of all the really great, insightful, amazing questions all coming at five to the hour, just more about to finish. Once they occur to you, pop them into the Q&A function. Please identify yourself when you're asking a question or making an observation and your affiliation, I'm going to say party affiliation, your organizational affiliation. If you have one and if you don't, that's fine. But if you're representing an organization, you might just mention that when you ask your question. Reminder that the whole event is on the record and you can join the discussion through Twitter also by using the hashtag, we think energy, if you'd like to do that. But anyway, before all of that, it's my great pleasure to hand over for the first time, not for the first time to Patty Hayes, because he joined us before, but to Patty for the first time in his capacity as Chief Executive of the ESP. And Patty, I know will be preoccupied with his organization, preoccupied with many things on this particular day, and we're absolutely delighted that he has had the opportunity to thank you again for all your support, but in particular for joining us this afternoon to offer some opening remarks over to you Patty Hayes, Chief Executive of the ESP. Alex, thank you. Thank you very much for those warm words and good afternoon everybody. And on behalf of ESP, I'd like to wish you all a very warm welcome to what is the final event in the 2021 Rethink lecture series. I'd like to thank the IIEA for hosting the series and for putting together a wonderful lineup of speakers, not only today, but over the past year. For us in ESP, having a platform where experts can share insights on the climate crisis and discuss potential solutions is absolutely critical, because we know that only by working together and mobilizing our shared resources and by building on one another's ideas, will we be able to affect the changes necessary to eliminate carbon emissions by 2050. And as Alex said, maintain global warming to under 1.5 degrees. So Ireland has shown real leadership and ambition in its 2021 climate action plan. And at ESP, we're very conscious of our role and responsibility and the role of other energy organizations as agents of change in this. Within ESP, our purpose is focused on the UN Sustainable Development Goals relating to infrastructure, to the revision of secure, reliable and affordable energy, and of course on climate action. And we know that decarbonizing electricity has a significant impact in its own right, but that this is then magnified by the use of that clean electricity in heating and transport and industry. And each part of our business is very much focused on investing in this at the moment. Through ESP International, ESP also operates at the moment in over 20 countries across the globe. So we're really clear as well that the outcome of COP26 is important not only for Ireland, but for all nations and particularly for the least developed. And as I hand back to Alex, I'd just like to say again, congratulations to the IIEA bringing together a really distinguished panel for this afternoon. And I'm very much looking forward to the discussion. Take care. Back to you, Alex. Thank you. Thank you very much, Paddy, for those opening remarks. And let me turn to our first speaker for some brief opening remarks and maybe about five ministers. So in each case, Professor Morgan Bazillion is the Director of the Pain Institute for Public Policy and Professor at the Colorado School of Mines. Previously, he was lead energy specialist at the World Bank. His work has been published in Science, Nature, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy. These are all the titles of journals as you'll appreciate and proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Previously, Professor Bazillion was a senior diplomat at the UN. He has served as the EU's lead negotiator on technology at previous UN climate negotiations. Professor Bazillion, as many of you will know, is also a member of Ireland's Climate Change Advisory Council. So we're delighted to have you, Morgan, this afternoon and over to you for some general reflections post COP26. Alex, thank you very much. I'm deeply honored to be back at the IIEA. It's one of my favorite places in Dublin and to be involved in an ESP supported event, a company I admire a great deal. Just a quick special thanks to Jill Donahue, who does amazing things at the Institute and to the memory of our friend Brendan Halligan, who first invited me into its doors. The COP had a terrific set of champions and wonderful branding and marketing. The UK government made a profound investment in its success and they should be congratulated for it. I also believe that in some ways, this nod to pomp and celebrity had negative implications for aspects of the talk. Several important things happened over the days in Glasgow. The role of the private sector companies and finance houses was clearly fundamental, not just announcements about their actions, but the concrete work that's taking place. It's both admirable and desperately needed. As usual, there was too much blah, blah, blah as Ms. Thunberg rightly pointed out some weeks prior to the event. Refrains of moving from ambition to action have been repeated so often as to be utterly hollow. Despite this, the Irish can be proud that our country not only came with its own long-term met zero goals, but is doing the much more difficult work of making detailed plans and policies to meet them. That is rare and utterly essential. I've said many times that I thought the Biden administration in the United States needed to arrive with considerable humility to the talks while still showing the world that they are back to the table. I do not think that they heated my advice nor accomplished that balancing act. Still, the U.S. can take much credit for one of the more important coalitions formed at the talks around methane emissions, and that is a key contribution. The negotiations themselves largely conducted the work in front of them in terms of the Paris Rulebook and Article 6 and the other detailed topics. But while Paris was widely and often praised, it represents the reality and limits of what the U.N. talks can do, create frameworks for voluntary pledges, and that is fine and good, but should not be mistaken for globally binding agreements. Perhaps most importantly, the massive gap between rich and poor was on clear display. Those issues are deeply entrenched in global inequality and not only in the climate arena, but they are in stark contrast to the good paths attempted to be sown to address climate. And the truth is that poverty alleviation remains the top priority of many of the world's countries and peoples, not climate change. Thinking otherwise by OECD countries leads to a muddled approach and too many missteps. Here again, the Irish can be proud. The work done by Dr. Walsh and her team, as well as Ambassador Nason's team at the U.N. Security Council, recently is nothing short of world-leading. Thank you again, Alex, for inviting me on this impressive panel and pending COVID issues. I hope to come back to Ireland this summer with a group of doctoral students to learn more about the cutting-edge work taking place in the country. Thank you very much and for being so faithful to the inner around five minutes of opening remarks. That's terrific. It's great to have you, Morgan, and we look forward to the discussion as the webinar proceeds. So it's a pleasure, now a great pleasure, to welcome Connie Hedegard to the IAEA. Ms. Hedegard is Chair of the European Commission's Mission Board on Adaptation to Climate Change, which is an important element of the Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Program. She serves as Chair of the OECD's Round Table for Sustainable Development. She's Chair of Aarhus University. From 2010 to 2014, Connie Hedegard was European Commissioner for Climate Action, as many people on this call will of course know. Previously, she was Minister for Environment and Minister for Climate and Energy in Denmark. Connie, you have the floor and you're most welcome this afternoon. Thank you so much, Alex, and thank you to the IAEA for the invitation. I think I'm pretty much on the same page when it comes to sort of the takeaways, my takeaways from COP26, as what we just heard from Professor Basilian. Of course, it did not achieve enough. Having said that, then, I really believe that it could have gone much worse. I mean, in light of the COVID-19, the geostatistic situation, the finances not having been delivered from the developed countries in line with what was pledged back in Copenhagen in 2009, there were so many things that could have soured that COP, and yet I think that it really managed to create some real progress. I must say, I'm a bit puzzled that the developing countries accepted an end document only talking about that they urged the developed countries to deliver the financing pledges by 2025. I would have thought that that would source things quite more than what was the case, the fact that they embarrassingly did not deliver what they had pledged. Having said that, I think there are many things that we can sort of see as positive with this COP. First, for the first time, science was not questioned. Those of us who have attended many of these COPs, we know that normally there are a handful or more of spoiler nations, this time that was not so. On the sad background, of course, that everybody sees that now climate change is for real, but it sort of means that everybody is now sort of discussing the house, so that was a good thing. I think, as was mentioned, the rulebook was done good with that. I think we saw that the ambition mechanism worked, the mechanism that every five years we will have to look each other into the eyes and say, okay, if you are doing your part as you are promised, I will also do my and maybe I can do a bit more in line with innovation, taking up pace in line with prices coming down, in line with technologies developing. We saw that work with EU, with the United States, but with really, really many countries, actually now more than 140 countries have sent in their national plans, the NDCs. And I think one thing deserves to be mentioned, the engine performance in Glasgow. I mean, having attended, I think, 14 COPs, where India, most of the time, said not our problem, it's the developed countries creating the problems, it's not for us to sort of weigh in. And here, Prime Minister Modi stood and announced that by 2070, there would be climate neutral, and by 2030, more than half of the power generated in India would stem from renewables. I really think that was a real significant game changer that an economy like India weighed in like that. On the US-China thing, maybe we will come back to that. It was very, very well spun, I must say. So far, we haven't seen what is the content in it, but what it says is that this spring, they will sit down and really have a substantial dialogue on methane, among other things. And of course, that is a significant signal at a time where US and China really cannot have constructed dialogues on too many things. Just finally, what I also think was really important was the many action streams and alliances being formed in the periphery of the COP. The methane alliance has been mentioned, forestry, the Beyond Oil and Gas, the face down coal initiative, the initiative on buildings, the initiative on transportation, and the end of combustion engine. To me, that signals that we are moving from these rules and articles and words into the house. And maybe that is the most interesting thing of what we saw in Glasgow. And just very final point, I know that blah, blah, blah has already been mentioned. And one can get extremely frustrated with this slow UN process. I have to say that when you have followed over the years, we also see that when first words are into these documents, like for instance, now for the first time, the coal face down, then it is as difficult to get it out. And after some time, it really starts to generate real action. And it starts to direct the way investors behave. So in that sense, I also thought that it was actually key that coal face down was mentioned for the first time. Thank you very much for those insights. Very interesting. Just in terms of how you measure progress, there's a whole debate all about how do you measure progress? It can be three steps forward, two steps back, you've still got momentum, you're moving forward. Anyway, we'll come back to some of that when we're having our discussion. But thank you very much for those thoughts, Conny. I'm delighted to welcome our next speaker, Alicia O'Sullivan. Ms. O'Sullivan is a law student and Quercus scholar for active citizenship at University College Cork. She represented UCC and World YMCA at COP26 in Glasgow. Previously, Alicia represented Ireland at the first UN Youth Climate Summit. She's also served as an ocean ambassador for Ireland and is currently the environmental officer at UCC Students' Union. Over to you, Alicia. You're very welcome. Thanks, Alex. And thanks so much for having me here. I'm glad that I can bring, I guess, some sort of youth perspective to the conversation. I suppose I want to start with just something I wanted to note is that when I returned from COP, I guess many of my friends and family and peers and people I spoke to, they couldn't believe that I was there for two weeks. And people often wonder and probe me, I guess, about why I dedicate so much of my time and energy to it. I mean, as a young person, as someone in third level, I miss time with my family. I miss time from college. I miss time with my friends and doing normal 20-year-old things. And it's kind of been that way since I was 15. But the only answer I can really give is I do it because I feel responsible. I sat four years ago listening to my friend Selena from the Marshall Islands, standing on a stage and talk about how her parents' graves were submerged in water. I sat at COP listening to young people talk about how their six-year-old brother had died from water pollution or their friend was murdered trying to protect their home. And it sickens me. It sickens me to know that people are purposely not only destroying our environment or biodiversity and people's lives, but actually profiting from that as well. And I certainly can sit back and watch that for any longer. And I don't think anyone here should either. But I suppose the big question is, since returning from COP, I've been asked hundreds of times, how was it? The only word I can ever express is exhausting. Now, don't get me wrong. As kind of aforementioned, there was certainly positive from COP. Many of them, like the agreement to curb emissions of methane, the committing to phase-out coal power, the pledge to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation, the pledge to, in public financing for forest protection between 2021 and 2025, and crucially as well, the Paris Rulebook being finalised, which means countries can essentially watch other countries what they're doing and what they said they would do in regards to emissions and funding. Having said this though, unfortunately, it's my belief that 2.4 degrees is not at all good enough. Many negotiators call the agreement a compromise, and I don't understand how we can compromise with the climate crisis and essentially compromise people's lives. It means more heat waves, more crop losses, more water shortages, more unendated coastal cities, more disease and conflict, and millions more suffering. And already 166,000 people have died due to heat waves between 1998 and 2017. A huge issue at COP as well was the exclusion of Indigenous peoples and those from MAPPA communities and areas. COP26 was the most exclusive COP to date. I guess some of that was quite difficult with COVID-19 that obviously increased with vaccine inequalities and travelling and such, and there was a barrier that created immense difficulty that was almost impossible to overcome for organisers. Well, my friend Rebecca from Zambia made a point and point at one of our COP26 events, and what she said was, and it really struck me, it is the minority we need to listen to right now, not the majority, because before the majority even speak, they will be heard. And I think that's a crucial point and it really reflected, made me reflect upon my time at COP. And I suppose as well every time I sit down and talk to policymakers and politicians, they eventually all say the same thing, that it's very difficult to make the changes that young people are urging and that we're seeking. I look at the COVID-19 crisis and I think it's a prime example of how if you want to make the changes you can. Over 38 countries have declared a climate emergency, but I'm yet to see any developed country tackle it with the same urgency and seriousness as our current health emergency. But besides the negativity of all of that, I don't agree with people that say that COP was a failure. As my friend Rodrigo from Peru put it, it's not the blue zone that makes me hopeful, it is the friends and peers standing by my side. And what matters now and always has is what we do now. Do we give up or do we do our utmost to ensure that we save our planet and stop climate change? Because actually the earth will live on, the earth will continue long after we're gone and the destruction we are causing is only making the planet inhabitable for us, humans. And currently we are on a suicide mission. My message to you all listening today is this, to the older generations, you are the past us and to the younger generations we are the future you. So essentially what I'm saying is that we all have to work together to combat this. The finger pointing and the sector blaming has to end because we'll never create any progress if we're all pointing the finger and not actually combating the problem. And this can only be done if we actually work together. And I just wanted to end on a note that again my friend Rodrigo from Peru said that this is not the final day of anything, it is just day one. And I hope young people are ready, so I hope everyone will join us in the journey ahead. Thank you very much Elise here for those remarks. And I think we'll come back to some of those themes in the course of the discussion but thank you so much for the moment. Now to Dr. Sinead Walsh who is the climate director at the Department of Foreign Affairs here in Dublin. Previously Dr. Walsh was ambassador, EU ambassador to South Sudan. Prior to that she was the Irish ambassador to Sierra Leone and Liberia. Dr. Walsh is the co-author of Getting to Zero which recounts her experience as a diplomat on the front line of the Ebola crisis in West Africa. So huge, huge experience. I know plenty of insight. Sinead you're very welcome this afternoon and we look forward to your opening remarks. I'm Alex really, really happy to be here. If I was a bit savvier I would have done what I used to do when I was in school and use my Irish name to get top of the alphabet with Brahanoch rather than Walsh. I feel your pain in other words. I feel your pain. I'm almost down the end as well. I would definitely make sure if I ever sit on a panel with Elysia again that I don't have to follow her for obvious reasons. So well well spoken Elysia. I also wanted to agree with Elysia that that two weeks was it just felt like a very long time. I don't know if people saw there was an Irish Times article about sort of immediately kind of after COP and the first thing it said was everyone looks seven years older than they did at the beginning and I can testify felt also seven years older. So it was a marathon but I do agree with what others have said. I think on the whole it was certainly productive and constructive although nowhere obviously near where we need to be. Ireland had its largest delegation ever led by Minister Amon Ryan and I'm sure lots of people on this call would have heard him kind of feedback on in the media on that sort of mixed nature of the COP but on the whole moving us forward in a way that you have to accept that when 197 countries have to agree on something you're only going to get so far. I think others have really kind of described it really well progress made on on kind of national commitments. I think we're up to 89% of countries now that have made net zero commitments up from 50% in a year as I understand it and I think people have talked about the the declaration you know the non-negotiation space methane deforestation so on. So I won't I won't dwell on those although I completely agree and I'll touch maybe on a couple of the areas where in foreign affairs we kind of you know lead I suppose on behalf of the government and they're mostly around climate finance and loss and damage which I think you know Connie when you were saying that you know I fully agree with you part of the reason why I suppose I would feel relatively positive about COP is probably because we were so aware how close we were to failing altogether and I think loss and damage was one of those areas where that was where that was at risk and so I mean maybe just just to start on that first of all what is what is this loss and damage business I mean I think it's one I find easy way to to think about it or to start to think about it is you know climate impacts that are so bad that you can't even adapt to them you know because we talk a lot about adaptation and that's a really key key priority for Ireland but there are just some things and I think Alicia you you touched on some of them in terms of you know the submerging of the graves and so on like there is no economic way that you can get over you know that those sorts of impacts and so I think loss and damage is really an area that came you know came to the fore in COP26 unlike ever before and was really the developing countries you know kind of standing up and saying you know this is this is not acceptable you know the impacts that we are facing are so severe and we really need more more support and and I think the you know what was agreed that one of my colleagues was sort of in negotiations on this till 3 a.m. every day starting again at 7 it was it was pretty it was pretty tough going and but I think what was agreed in terms of you know starting the process of coming up with the finance facility and starting a technical assistance facility which which Ireland is is going to chip into frankly it's further than we thought we were going to get so much as much as I think you know that's definitely some some developing countries would have would have wanted a lot more and we can completely understand that so I think we need to really focus on you know and I feel it's very consistent with Ireland's values and the areas you know that that we that we tend to focus on you know the poorest countries the most vulnerable countries the small island states and so on but we've got to really you know this has got to be a huge priority for COP 27 and just on on on climate finance and I think a couple of really interesting things happened I mean Connie is completely right as developed countries we have not met our our obligation to 100 billion although I will say on our side and our Taoiseach committed at COP to more than doubling our climate finance in the next four years so at least we we we're going to be very busy trying to to chip into that that gap from from our own perspective but I think you know a couple of the really interesting things that happened and maybe I mentioned this maybe because it's not very well known but the agreement with South Africa on you know the cold phase out I don't know if everybody would would be aware of that it's not really one of the headlines but you basically have the US the EU you know France the UK a couple of others put it pooling all sorts of finance and making an agreement with South Africa South Africa you know really needs to to transition from coal it's extremely difficult we all know how difficult transition is we know how difficult transition is if we look at our own Midlands in Ireland and we look at Pete and the communities that have been so dependent on Pete for for so many years so it's really difficult stuff and I think what what really strikes me about this it's 8.5 billion dollars um and it's it's people coming together and saying okay we're going to have targeted support to help you with this precise thing and I think this is what India Indonesia and others have been asking for they've been saying you know developed countries you're always asking us as you said Connie you know developed countries are always asking us to reduce our emissions but you know we are we are very resource constrained and what are you going to do and so I would just say that that South Africa agreement was it is one to watch and if it goes well maybe one one that we can replicate the last thing I'll say is just about the the the adaptation finance commitment that that got in in the Glasgow agreement which actually I have to say was stronger than we expected it to be so it's doubling collective adaptation finance by by 2025 no problem for Ireland it's already our our big thing um but I think what we'd like to to focus on is you know quantity of course is really key but we're we're very um keen to focus on the quality of that adaptation finance and the accessibility of it to uh to developing countries because it's all very well having these big pots of money but if there are 150 page application forms that cost you know that mean that that a small island state has to you know hire four consultants and take six months to apply for which is unfortunately the situation at the moment with some of the funds then what's the point so I think you know I think for Ireland one of the things that we can do is maybe read a little bit behind some of these pledges and kind of say okay that sounds very nice but actually in reality what does that look like and how can we how can we sort of try to fill in some of those gaps and so that you know these these kind of pledges are our reality so so I'll leave it at that Alex for now thank you very much Gideon and I want to Morgan you mentioned I think at the outset just about Glasgow and the I think you use the word pump or you know the sense of occasion and that can help but it can also hinder I think was your point and Alicia you made a great point that look when we reflect on Glasgow it's not the final word you know when you would say to colleagues and friends who perhaps were disappointed you know legitimately so we've got to see this as a as a place along the way it's not the final it's not that we haven't sort of arrived it's a what's that oh they're awful please you know it's a it's a marathon not a sprint all of those things right and I wonder and Morgan maybe I ask you first then come to Connie the sense of a political occasion and Connie you'd be well aware well familiar with the idea of you know the big political occasion whether it's an election or whether it's something big domestically or internationally inevitably that's where the focus comes and I wonder in this agenda is that it does it hold us back a little bit because we have to have this discussion did Glasgow fail or did or was Glasgow a success and it comes down to this binary thing of a great occasion a huge sort of pump and ceremony was it a failure or was it or was a success it it's it's it's not telling the whole story when we approach these single events and ask whether they're a failure or a success I'll go to you Morgan first Alex with with respect I'd like to defer to commissioner had a guard on that one because she is the best person to answer that question absolutely Connie well I don't know about that but but I think you know that yes it means something that governments heads of states themselves since the first time where they had to stand up there in front of the world on climate that was in Copenhagen 2009 cup 15 that helps that they know I'm personally going to Glasgow they will look at me they will ask what is your government doing my civil society my NGOs the activists in my country the opposition in my country they will all expect me there to come up with something so that's the good side of it I then just hope that after the cops now we need civil society and all the activists and the NGOs and all these good forces really to follow up on all these pledges because we all know that at the UN a lot is being pledged that is not really being delivered and that least it's not being delivered as fast as it is promised to be delivered so there is some some built-in dilemmas there but I think that it is good that we have now made it chef Zach it is for the top political level in a government to deal with climate change and that is good having said that and I really think that the cops have this role to mobilize political will to expose political will and lack of political will and that is good but I think that now when the rulebook is done Paris is done I think it's time to rethink the cop system slightly what do I mean by that it is so good that we mobilize people what Alicia and others have been mentioning you are there there is a community around it it focuses attention all good but it also does create false expectations that each year something fantastic new can be delivered and that is unfortunately not the way the UN system works so I think that now in light of Paris and the rulebook being done it should be considered whether the very big cops with heads of states and everybody flying in whether that should be every other year and then the years in between maybe we should rather have a more semantic cop with fewer participants but more experts zooming in on say adaptation or a loss and damage one year or financing how to mobilize private financing and you know there are topics enough there are obstacles enough where the big chunks there the big problems they are so big and complicated that they do not get the attention they deserve at each cop which is about everything so maybe everything every other year the big meetings with 20,000 25,000 30,000 people and then maybe in between 5000 people zooming in on some of the obstacles that we are struggling with that could maybe be a recipe it's an interesting question and dilemma because of course visibility is very important as well so that world public opinion can see that world leaders are engaged on a continuing basis and not just year to year so there's there are arguments of sure flowing in both directions Morgan do you want to come in on that point of momentum and the actual thing versus a longer term you just to say Alex I was correct that Connie was the right person to answer that question but I would agree with that last piece you know I wrote a little op-ed in the Financial Times before the before the event speaking about the need to hone in on those detailed negotiations and how that pomp and celebrity can take away from it and by the pomp and celebrity I don't just mean famous actors and princess princesses I mean even in some cases heads of state and you know that that while it's excellent to have that convening power and show that commitment to the to the task at hand I agree that it doesn't have to be every time and what what happens as many people on this call know when you go with the head of state or even with the minister that you know there's a whole constellation of people that have to move with that person and do talking points and and advise and all the rest of it and it can take away from the sort of more less sexy work of of of actually doing the nego negotiations and so there's a mix and but there is a lot of pressure on host governments of course to have the big win and to have their name of the city or the country on some sort of agreement so there's a tensions in it but I agree with everything Connie said. Alicia I wonder from from from your perspective I mean you you were there in Glasgow there were there was a discussion about whether youth voices really were being heard I mean we could see in the TV that there was a lot of presence there but was the word voices getting through I mean for you and do you think for your generation the people that you represent it is necessary to have a big event regularly so that in a way people are held to account on on TV like with the world gazing at me. Yeah it's it's a tricky question like I I we did find ourselves in conversations being like what is going on like what is actually even happening here today and like obviously as well it became increasingly difficult to get into actual negotiations because of COVID so I I do think I do agree with Connie and I I like the idea of something like that because I do think it was there was too much happening at once and it was like we were trying to sort everything at once with everyone in the same place and it was almost becoming too chaotic and then obviously COVID just added to that so I like the idea of of that sort of every second year or something like that because I think and I agree with that with Professor Morgan that the the show and it's not just a celebrity but I think it's the trying to do everything at once can lead to confusion and misunderstanding and a lot of frustration and actually people leaving cop with like 600 different variations of what happened which I don't think is helpful at all to any to any problem so as a young person I think I absolutely think that young people being there and public participation and civil society being there in some respect physically absolutely has to happen but I also think that to actually focus and and to create solutions to the real hard-hitting problems that that Connie mentioned you do have to have a scale back because I think we were just trying to do everything at once and it and it becomes I think it becomes unfocused actually and it's like I mean having been in Lima and in Paris and you know you see these things that they're coming the momentum is building and you know people are going in and out of rooms it's just like you described Alicia like who even are these people and what what exactly did they just decide even if they hand you a piece of paper and you read it what does that say like if you're not confused you're not paying attention as the old phrase goes so I mean everybody you know and then there's a finally there's an agreement but Sinead I wonder why you think of this because it's it's an amazing event really in many ways I mean with some of the drawbacks attention is withdrawn to some of the drawbacks but it is an extraordinary event literally under under one single tent okay it's not just one tent but figures would be speaking so it's the diplomacy is happening at a very high level but there's also this really inspirational very often civil society urge being being met in the same place and there's just so many things happening together would it be a pity to lose it or what do you say as a diplomat with experience of these events? Yeah I'm a bit torn on this Alex to be honest because I I agree with Morgan that an enormous amount of energy of you know people like myself and my team will go into you know preparing ministers or the T-shock and so on so forth you know for these kind of events and at the same time these events do push us further than we would go and you know I don't just mean cop I mean I think this is just generally how how how diplomacy often works it often is the event where you know the head of state will have to make a speech or your minister will be making a speech and you know they do push us in Ireland and other countries as well and that I suppose is one of the reasons why we keep doing them and I think the other aspect of it is that so much of you know for me and I agree with Alicia there's so many different things happening and you feel like you're in this little tunnel and everybody else is in their own little tunnel and you don't know what's going on you know often you'd get news you know from you got a text message from home from somebody saying isn't that great what John Kerry just said and you're like I have no idea what John Kerry just said I've been in a loss and damage conversation in a very micro level and but but I think we have to remember that actually a big benefit of cop is the conversations that it generates back home fundamentally we've got to remember that climate action will take place in domestic contexts in domestic political arenas and you know that's a 12 month you know challenge for all of us and it doesn't just happen in two weeks but those two weeks I mean certainly in the Irish context I mean the coverage in the media for cop was extraordinary I would say and so and all sorts of different you know panels like this were taking place and you know people in schools and so on support so there's that aspect of it as well the protests you know were where I think you know really important again you know they're different to the negotiation so I think we we need to see cop as a negotiation space but also as a moment that can help mobilize and also at a moment that can help domestic actors and domestic activists and and you know so so that maybe maybe complicates the picture a little bit and but I also do that's why I say I'm a bit torn because that you know Connie suggested really does also resonate with me that maybe we don't need to have the big hullabaloo every year you know maybe every every every second year and the only thing I wanted to say here Alex just because I think it's so important it is worrying the participation you know aspect of it I mean we we had a bunch of civil society on our academics on our Irish delegation but we also funded you know youth and women activists from from various developing countries to come and you know kind of talking to them on a daily basis real limitations to access and we absolutely I think have to acknowledge the UK had enormous COVID challenges and all of this but let's hope it doesn't set a precedent right that you know the back now is a new baseline because I think that is one of the that is one of the possible advantages of cop is is the voices that it brings it brings in but but I mean to to sum up I do think Connie's Connie's idea I think does does merit some some good solid consideration all right I was very struck Connie by your reference to India that that was something that really stood out for you and in Glasgow that that was something that perhaps you you hadn't expected and and because of course a lot of the a lot of the commentary or the narrative wasn't particularly favorable to to India and India's position but in fact you've singled what they said and what they did out as being a cause for optimism is caused for you know a positive response and so do you want to elaborate a little bit more on that and we might talk a little bit about China in a minute as well with Morgan yeah Alex I think it's because I have seen so many cops where in the last 24 hours in the last plenary is we have been sort of up against sort of basic China Brazil South Africa India being against ambitious language it was not their problem they were developing countries it was the developed world who had created their problems which is of course true but they sort of stood back and said we don't want this kind of language and and really often the Chinese to be very blunt they had just kept silent during these plenaries just sitting there and looking straightforward not taking their blame not taking the battle and left that to the Indian ministers to changing Indian ministers so that has often been the role we have seen India sort of having in these talks and then suddenly Prime Minister Modi comes there and he really weighs in and say okay this is also for us we still have 300 million people without access to electricity nonetheless we are saying that by 2070 we want to become carbon neutral and eight years from now at least half of our electricity will stem from renewables I thought that you know we don't know we haven't got the exact detailed plans can they actually achieve this we don't know but the fact the political spec fact that they weighed in there I saw that was really really interesting and and I think that that is also somehow maybe changing the dynamic among the emerging economists and indirectly it can also help making some of the push further needed for China for instance to fast forward the year when they want to peak their emissions because I guess that some of us had really hoped that China would fast forward that date from 2030 to 2025 which many scientists also at Chinese universities would tell us should be feasible for China I think some of us had hoped that they would come forward with that announcement now here in Glasgow which they didn't but one could hope that should the dialogue between us and China actually come to some fruitful results and such a thing could be among the deliverables coming out of that dialogue that was in place before the next cup in in Egypt very interesting and Morgan the the US China joint declaration that that that was mainly how how do you assess that is that you know what kind of impact do you think that's going to have just picking up from what Connie was saying there in a way that these kinds of initiatives can drive further initiatives they're not just standing on their own they they're a great signal as well to others to follow yeah I think that the the one of the successes as I said of this cop was outside of the negotiating table in these coalitions and while they do not have binding targets and they're not legally enforceable in any way they're significant and and I mentioned the methane pledge as did others that has now been taken at least in the US into domestic policy so the domestic EPA here in in the United States has put out a proposed rulemaking around methane emissions significantly decrease them especially in the oil and gas sector so what we saw was international coalition moving into domestic policy which I mentioned has happened in Ireland in other ways but in the United States that that is no small feat and so I think those outside coalitions can be really important and building you know on the on the India piece if you don't mind Alex yes I thought that I thought that was I thought that was more significant than the China US agreement in as much as you know immediately after the Modi made the announcement about the net zero there was criticism which I was surprised about because of the the year in which the goal was set I think that is deeply misplaced criticism and the fact that there was a goal at all is is really significant and and shows something really important momentum and one of those un un unmeasurables at the climate talks but something that's really important for for soft power or however you want to call it in international relations the the US-China agreement the paper is I think it's nice that there was there was something there that there was acknowledgement by the world's two largest emitters that they were going to work together in some way that they had a special need to take ownership over this problem you know years ago before Paris I traveled to China with then Todd Stern who was the climate envoy under President Obama in the United States for those secret climate talks between the United States and China and those were covered actually in the Rolling Stone without my name which is too bad but the the I thought that diplomacy which was much more lower level quiet diplomacy was actually perhaps more effective than this very high level statement which is lacking in detail but okay useful nonetheless okay thank you both for that and Alicia and Sinead I'm going to come to you in a couple of minutes but Connie does need it does have to leave us at the top of the hour so there is a question here Connie I'd just like to ask you maybe to to address it's Christiane Ritimal who who says that considering the current updated NCDs the main portion of the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 is still being consumed by developed and industrialized countries considering such emissions projections how do you foresee the global stock take might address the equity issue in regard to implementing Paris yeah that is of course the question how to do that I do think that we will never manage to close the gap unless everybody tried to pursue a much more sustainable pathway so I think that what developed countries will have to do they will have to sort of go first and do more and be committed to more than others but then it has to come also through the financing that was why I mentioned first financing of course not just public financing that is just a tiny drop in the ocean important politically important but also important for adaptation but the real important stuff is how to get private investments really going into you know african countries the most vulnerable countries all the countries where there is an additional risk to be had and I think that that is one of the really really big challenges now and there were good signs also in Glasgow and for instance the Nordic pension funds now work together and and it sums up to you know hundreds of billions of dollars that they are risk investing in developing countries but I think we really need to scale significantly there help with enabling technologies help setting up stronger ministries I know that there is an eu african initiative for instance to sort of put up a african eu african school of regulation things like that not not all of it rocket science specifically how do you do this and how do we disseminate the good technologies and the practices much faster than is the case I think that that is very much needed and that is why I come back to the fact that financing is also at the core of of this whole thing or we will not make it and just because I'm conscious that we need to let you go in a couple of minutes I again Morgan mentioned something earlier I made a note of it and at least I think it was Morgan and Maven Sinead but I think it was Morgan's early on and the need to to to strive for globally binding commitments so that's a phrase that we need to I suppose interrogate a little bit because at the international level where we're talking about treaties and international agreements there's precious little kind of real enforceability that we can bring about it so it's it's about agreement it's about agreements about a willingness to keep two agreements it's not like it's in our domestic legal orders where if people don't keep to their agreements or if governments don't do what they're supposed to do they can sometimes be brought to court so will we always be limited by the absence of real enforcement mechanisms as we would understand them in our domestic legal orders will we always be limited in that way on the international stage? Alex I'm really afraid that the answer is yes but I guess that some of the audience will remember that up to COP 15 in Copenhagen that I was very much involved in that was exactly what that was what Copenhagen was all about we tried to get a legally binding agreement and and and that was of course what was needed needless to say that is better than having you know just voluntary commitments that nobody really can come after I know there is a whole philosophical discussion what does it mean that it's voluntary because you cannot bind anybody in the international community so does it really make a difference but what we tried to do back in 2009 that was to have a much more legally binding transparent international deal but what turned out was that it was not achievable and many of the big economists don't have to mention who I guess they did not want the transparency coming with that that they did not at all like the binding nature and that was why we had to work in the years up to Paris to try to construct something on the basis of a voluntary system where at least now we got the transparency and the rule book but we also now have this ambition mechanism where at regularly times we will have to look each other into the eyes and to sort of you have to stand up and be accountable to whether you have delivered what you pledged to deliver so the only thing we have sort of left is naming and shaming civil society really you know pushing governments as much as they can so that's the kind of tools we have it's not ideal but I think that the honest answer is that that is what we are going to have for a foreseeable future just last point I think that what EU is trying to do with the CBAM the carbon border adjustment mechanism the pricing instrument things like that can also be a rather efficient tool if it's done in the right manner to try to push other economies also to now now to implement real efficient climate policies. Connie Hedegard thank you very much for being with us this afternoon and I know you have another commitment on top of the R has been terrific to have you and I hope we'll see you again at the IEA in some point just in future thank you very much. Sinead just briefly would you would you pick up on that just that notion of how do we make things happen like how do we again as a diplomat you know people make commitments the public gaze the the global gaze is there is that is that the enforcement mechanism ultimately? Yeah I think and maybe this I think there's a question in the in the chat about this I think as I said earlier Alex the you know our systems are you know as governments our systems do do move in general with peer pressure and I think I think we can see that you know that is is maybe more you know it does of course vary by country but I think the COP processes can show us that that all countries feel that way to some extent but I also wanted to come back to the point about you know domestic activism because you know fundamentally you know you come back from COP everybody comes back from COP to a country right almost everybody right there's some status people but let's leave that aside for the moment big problem but you know and in each of those countries there's a whole series of you know challenges because this is such a fundamental shift and transformation in our in our way of life and so I think there is really only so much that these international processes can do and I think you know in the end of the day you know the progress will be made at the country level so then the question becomes how is that kind of best done and and then I suppose the question for you know activists you know such as Alicia and so on is you know to what extent it comes back to kind of Connie's very interesting proposal to what extent are these international processes you know helpful in that in that domestic you know kind of journey and to what extent are they maybe distractions if they happen too too too often and but but I think coming back to the the question in the chat I think Pauline Conway may have may have asked it we haven't really you know talked too much about about the rather I think surprising and and significant fact that you know there will be you know another you know in one year in one year's time not five years not 10 years there will be another call for for increased commitments and I think you know you know to a lot of us that that is you know one of the biggest positives from from COP because you know at the very very best case scenario if every single country commitment is realized on time and if every single declaration is a hundred percent realized on time and you know we all we all know enough I think to be to be skeptical and we're still looking at 1.8 and 1.8 you know I think you can say goodbye to to some some entire island island states for example and and you know the consequences and you know I think we all know particularly for a lot of you know kind of resource poor countries are just going to be devastating so and so yeah I think I'm quite encouraged by that by that check-in and but I think we just also have to be realistic that most of this progress will will happen in domestic situations and how how can we facilitate that thank you there's an interesting question here from Caroline White and Alicia I'll put it to you because you might want to pick up on that that issue there that we were touching on in terms of how you enforce how you make things happen and the value and the importance of activism on a continuing basis but Caroline White is thanking us for the webinar she's a question for any one of the panelists really she says given the challenge that has been described of ensuring that climate adaptation funds actually get to the people and projects where they're needed as Sinead has been speaking about earlier has there been much investigation into the potential role that could be played by per capita cash transfers or participatory budgeting in climate adaptation in global south countries so I suppose it's this Caroline White at FASTA and so it's it's you know ensuring that I suppose the actual specifics are implemented in terms of money that's promised that's pledged by countries at the cops to really get that through to the places where where where it's needed internationally so I suppose at least you feel the two things you can pick one or other or both the activism point or the the finance point well I think probably Sinead is definitely best suited to to answer that specific issue but I will say is is that I suppose at my time at COP I and like I kind of mentioned in what I said at the beginning I really tried to focus on going to events about small island nations and people from indigenous communities and I did that because I kind of thought well if I walk into some sort of climate finance talk I'm not going to understand any of it anyway and I'll probably leave more confused than if I ever didn't go in and as well it wasn't just that but it was that and it was the one opportunity where I was firsthand able to listen to these groups of people and listen to what they needed and they actually have a lot of solutions and I was at an event with Mary Robinson and it was actually about I think it was about climate financing in some respect but my understanding is that there's still a lot of barriers to even if the money is there and even with all these pledges and maybe Sinead can pick up on this in a minute if I'm right and but even if with all these pledges of giving the money which thankfully now we've kind of got and there's still a lot of barriers for these countries in actually accessing the money and and and using the money and so that's that's like a huge issue that I again I think we think oh the money is there but actually are those people getting the money at the end of the day and maybe Sinead can can weigh in. Yeah I come back to Sinead but I do want to ask Morgan because as I mentioned earlier you've now got an involvement in the Irish debates and the Irish public policy space now in respect of your membership of the climate change advisory council appointed that by the government by the minister, minister Ryan in recent times so I know you're familiar with Ireland but do you have any particular insights into where Ireland as a relatively small country and a relatively small player but I think an influential one and frankly that where Ireland stands in all of this internationally because you're in a good position to view us from abroad and now that you're going to be working here as well. Yeah Alex, a little bit of a loaded question I think you know rather than it wasn't intended to be loaded I promise you but I can see how it might have been received that. I haven't been in the Irish papers in some time until recently for issues related so you know Alex what I think is that I said in my opening remarks and I meant it that you know the work that is taking place in Ireland which is difficult politically which is difficult from a even from an analysis and research perspective and it is certainly painful to different parts of the country and the sectors is the real work and the fact that Ireland is getting on with it warts and all as we say I think is really important globally that is it is relatively simple and expedient politically to announce political targets decades in the future as we as we all know and and now it while it's a good thing that many most of the large economies in the world and smaller economies in the world have these net zero targets for mid-century it's it's really not the difficult work and and that does happen on the domestic front with with all of those tensions and you have those tensions in Ireland we have them in the United States very clearly and so I think I think what I said at the beginning was you can be proud that that hard work is underway no it won't go completely smoothly and there'll be all kinds of setbacks and messiness but the fact that it's ongoing is really important and and there has been wins and I think you know it some of the things that ESP has done in the past have been really world leading as far as getting you know high amounts of renewable energy integrated into a grid a very technical question but one that that that is important and and the work the myriad policies that are that are underway so I think there's a lot lot going on a lot to be proud of and importantly and as Shanaid can say much better than I also a leader internationally and so while the the the amount of that of money is not comparable to the large larger economies the certainly the percentages are and the leadership in places like the Security Council over the last year and a half or so I think it's been deeply significant and people have seen Ireland as a as a real leader because of because of that work so I mostly have positive things to say in that front and you've got some people on the call here remember Fergal McNamara remembers you at the IIEA in 2005 when you were reporting on the then meetings of the parties ahead of the ratification of the framework convention so that's some time ago and he wants you to take a longer view of the cop process but we've kind of touched on that that debate and we've sort of touched on that debate already but as I said you have you have plenty of people who remember you and Mario and look forward to working with you here in the period ahead and Shanaid I think I do want to come back to the to the finance to broadly you know the loss and damage and for example one of the I suppose the hitches are the things that didn't work out and but the broader question of finance commitments the equity issue and and you know the climate fund I'm going to make an public admission here which is that one of the I sort of relatively short period in politics and had highs and lows that people will appreciate but I have to say that one of the lows was our position which I was there to articulate in 2014 and Lima and when I represented Ireland when really our position on the climate finance was very poor and I think I think I'm qualified to say that because I was the person who was there having to having to communicate it and it was you know it was embarrassing with it with it with a capital E to be honest now things have definitely moved as you have described briefly earlier and Mary Robinson was there at the time you know Mary Robinson such a key player and so on and you know it's it's it has it has evolved in a very positive way since so from again from the point of view of how Ireland is seen in the diplomatic context on this finance question okay relatively small country it it must be helping how we're seeing the fact that we have upped our game with money yeah no look I think I think 140% increase in four years I don't think anybody can sneeze at that I mean you know it is it is really really significant the challenge that we're going to have and we're actually we're working on a kind of a roadmap at the moment across across government and and kind of with inputs from civil society and so on is how do we do that maintaining the quality because what a lot of you know countries do and and you know we we also invest in some of these funds but a lot of countries when it comes up to something like cop and you know there's these big global funds that exist and and the you know you know one one way to quickly spend money is to you know add lots more millions into this fund than that fund and the other fund and I think there is an efficiency to that because we all need to make you know these global funds are you know they they're very serious players and you know there's an efficiency to saying you know we'll be part of that and then we'll we'll sit on the board of that fund which we do for example for the for the global for the Green Climate Fund and you know we we share a seat on that and then we try to make the fund better and but I think it would be a mistake to put all of our money into those kind of big global funds because coming back to something that you know that Alicia talked about and that question about adaptation finance like this stuff is not easy right I mean we've been working for you know almost 50 years in the Irish aid program you know on on poverty and one of the things I find kind of extraordinary because you know I kind of spent 20 years working in in sort of international development and emergencies and so on and now I'm in the climate world and it's almost sometimes as if as if the expenditure in the climate world is happening in parallel even though it's happening in the same countries and many many cases on the same sectors so it's like well climate adaptation well what is climate adaptation well often it's agriculture work I mean it's not some new magic thing and I think one of the advantages we have is because we sit inside the Irish aid program we can bring some of those lessons you know here's what we found over the last 50 years is really difficult in terms of you know supporting health systems for example just to pick something topical in in you know some of the most sort of difficult and you know poor and conflict affected countries our climate finance is not going to be any easier than our development humanitarian finance we've got to use these lessons and I think the value that Ireland can add is to kind of get below or beyond some of the again blah blah blah like the sort of rhetoric and the big announcements and so on and actually ask the question but what does that actually look like in Catacly in eastern Uganda and and so I think you know that that is the you know I think that is what we can add and and you know it's a bit challenging because you obviously it you need you know you need the resources for that you need the staff and the minds around around the table but we've we've made some progress there as well we've we've kind of increased our staffing and I know for Department of Environment as well so so I think I think that is what we what we need to do and I think that's kind of where we're known in general in Ireland is we often sort of put up our hands and ask the awkward question and and try to get you know beyond the you know the talk as it were so I think we need to continue to do that and again bring the lessons from you know almost 50 years of Irish age to to climate expenditure because you know what it's it's pretty similar stuff. Interesting and there's a couple of questions there's one I'll just I may get a chance to come back to you Sinead on it Connor Galvin UCD if you'd say something a little something a little more about the technical assistance facility and I will come back to you in a moment to just kind of bank that for the moment but just as if just reflecting what you have been saying and indeed Morgan before you two questions which I think I'm going to I'm going to put them out as as comments but there they are actually questions so if anybody on the panel would like to answer them but there are as much assertions as they are questions about where we are in terms of policy here and Raj Tuari says why asks why the Irish government is not promoting and incentivizing shared mobility in the community to reduce the number of cars on the road and ultimately to reduce carbon emissions. This piece was kind of missing from climate action plan 2021 Deborah McDermott is not sure whether this is in the wheelhouse of any of the presenters like that phrase in the wheelhouse of any of the presenters but she's going to ask it anyway with methane so I'm quite right to with methane such an important part of this cop Deborah is really curious how Ireland in reality on the ground is going to meet its methane targets given the importance of agriculture in this country too so there are questions to some extent rhetorical but there are questions of of considerable substance and moment obviously in terms of the broader debate that were that were that were in so briefly on the technical assistance facility don't don't don't be shy by picking up about those other two points as well Shanae if you want agriculture and transport but if just keep that tight and then just detecting assistance and then I want to go on to some of the other questions as well. Yeah I mean I actually think this this this may be an opportunity to make a point that keeps coming into my head and you know thinking about you know that you know those two those two questions and again you know I'm in foreign affairs so I'm not the best person to give detailed answers on them that would be Department of Environment or Agriculture indeed but I think that the the issue about co-benefits is something that we we haven't really touched on and I think it's really crucial so you know like you know farmers for example you know all over the country you hear it's not just about climate there are also you know pollution related benefits there are also sometimes you know like new markets if you if you you know maybe go into organics or different things so there's different ways to to look at the climate challenge and I think that's so powerful because you know generally you know people are trying to make a living you know nobody sort of wakes up in the morning and says I want to do bad stuff for the climate right everybody wants to do good stuff for the climate but you know we have we all have these these habits of lives and livelihoods and so you know thinking about for example you know the high rates of asthma in in this country and and bringing that into the conversation not just you know the sort of climate impacts of the transport sector for example but you know the health the health benefits so I just think that's that's just something important for us to bear in mind but I can't just time is is short and on the technical assistance facility basically just to say it's it's called the Santiago facility we along with deck we have pledged five million euros to this it's basically going to try to help developing countries deal with the issue of loss and damage so there's there's one conversation about the kind of the finance to do that and this is the conversation about the expertise to do that so so and we're we're interested in supporting both of those tracks but the one that's further ahead at the moment is the technical assistance so we've we've pledged money but it's it's only now getting started so I I don't have so much more to say about it but that's really helpful thank you Kevin O'Sullivan of the Irish Times has a question that I'm going to go to Morgan and then Alicia in fact all three of you Kevin asks 2021 has been a year of climate progress confirmed by the imperfect outcome at COP26 is the problem now an issue of pace we are winning we are just not winning fast enough what can be done to improve the pace of delivery on commitments that's Kevin O'Sullivan and first to you Morgan if I may on that sure Kevin it's it's it's an excellent question he knows very well it's a very difficult question to answer I'll put it this way you know the the optimistic tone of the question is lovely of course but you know where I'm sitting right now in the United States we're we're as the world's largest producer of oil and gas we note that just in the past couple weeks the global oil demand has rebounded back to pre-covid levels of about 100 million barrels a day there's increased use of coal recently because of the European and Asian energy crisis that's ongoing and so it's it's not at all clear to me that the direction of travel is even in the right place so yes there is a magnificent strides being made in electricity and power markets globally around renewable energy and that's significant and going in the right direction there is a good progress on say things like electric vehicles but in the very short term that that lowered emissions we saw from the response to the global pandemic appears to be a blip and does not appear to be a sustained downward trend and so you know the question is always one of pace and scale and if anyone had the answer to that question I'd love to hear it I don't think they do I'm afraid it's going to be a piecemeal approach country by country region by region and we'll take the wins where we can get them and going to that methane question the methane piece is a real opportunity to make a short-term win for the climate also in some places for air pollution and I do see real progress being made in the big producing countries like the United States on those issues so there's there is positive as well. Alicia would you like to just agree or disagree with that notion that it's about pace so also the questions about goodwill are people serious are they doing enough are they living up to their previous commitments all of those questions that can be turned into criticisms of where we're appropriate but what Kevin O'Sullivan is saying he's putting it this way that it's about pace we are winning but we are just not winning fast enough would you embrace that as a description of where we are? It's difficult one like I suppose from my perspective and I hate to be too negative as well because I think and you know I don't like this notion of not having any having any hope because I think if we don't have hope then what's the bloody point but just something that I would note in terms of what we're doing or what people can do I think often we're turning to governments and at the end of the day yes they make the decisions and they make the policies but it's us that they represent it's us who votes them you know it sounds so simple there but they represent us as civil society and I think it's a what they do is a reflection of what we want and I think it's crucial that and it goes back to the point you made earlier that you know that we're doing what we can do within our own power so I'm a young person I'm a student in university I'm a citizen of Ireland and you know I'm part of the EU so like what are the things I can do within each of those with each of those hats per se and that that can that can push and drive change in each of those areas and one of the things I'd mention is climate case Ireland which I'm sure you're familiar with Alex which was a huge significance and was just a group of a community of people in Ireland who decided to take the Irish government to court and and they won and it's happening all across the world so I mean that's that's obviously a big kind of example but and it's not the only one internationally of course but I think we can it just goes to show what you can do in your different you know seats you sit in in society and it's not just about plastic straws or having an electric car and there's various ways you can you can you can drive the force going forward but in terms of the question I think we are moving of course we're moving well we just have to continue that the drive is in the right direction and and that that I suppose that we're being continued to be heard at all levels thank you Shanae do you like Kevin's characterization of it we're we're winning we're just not winning fast enough of course we don't know yet do we because we don't win fast enough we lose and we lose big so um yeah I think as Morgan said it's uh I'd love to I yeah I certainly hope that's that's the case I think I think we all do but um and I think it comes back I think uh uh Philip at your haze talked about you know it was both a good cop and a bad cop at the same time and and it's it's this whole thing well are you thinking of it as you know relatively urgency of course it was a terrible cop you know because we're nowhere near where we need to be but relative to where we were before then you know it's definitely a step forward so I think it just comes back to that same dilemma um Tara Kelly of the ESB um apologizes in advance that it might be an oversimplification but she's about to say but it's not at all an oversimplification I think she says look money that decarbonization costs money money that some country countries either do not want to part with or cannot afford to part with how can we make decarbonization worth paying for carbon tax question mark legislating triple bottom line and environmental social and governance ESG reporting can we learn from the shortcomings and build on the carbon credit system again these are these are questions I suppose about the the the the detail of of policy as it plays out um unconscious obviously Shana you're dealing with this at the level of of of the diplomatic input but obviously with it with an interest in what can be achieved domestically as well and the carbon tax actually on on carbon tax Morgan would you have anything observation to make as as between the US and we'll say the ES US and the EU on this question of carbon tax and the completely rather different approaches taken by you know on those on that kind of high level policy approach to incentivizing decarbonization yet look Alex the discussion about carbon tax as they say in the american west it's like beating a dead horse it's it's it's um it's been around the block many times it is um it rises and falls in its political possibilities over for very different reasons over different time frames and different politics um it's fundamentally political everywhere but especially in the United States where we hate to use the word taxes um for anything and so you know you can put them in a carbon tax in another name or the the devil in the detail whether you do a price mechanism or a quantity mechanism um in the US currently it was long long thought to be dead and then it raised up recently in the context of some some uh budget um negotiations that were happening so it's pretty hard to say but I don't see um what the economists always ask for from a theoretical perspective as you know is a low start rising continuously and across the economy uh taking care of the regressive nature of of attacks etc to sort of perfectly design policy and Alex you would know uh as well or better than most of us how the likelihood of putting in beautifully designed thoughtful policy through a political process is uh well nearly impossible so uh at least in the US that's where it stands I won't go into the EU because I I think others on the call have a better sense of it okay well it might have to be a part of our continuing discussion for the future because we've come to to the end of this really interesting and stimulating debate and discussion and I want to thank each each one of our our panelists um Morgan Bazillion uh um Alicia O'Sullivan um and Sinead Walsh and also earlier um um Connie Hedegard each one of you for joining with us this afternoon for giving us your insights being prepared to answer the questions address the issues it's a continuing debate if COP is continuing our debate is as well um we'll into the future and I want to thank again warmly thank the ESB and Paddy Hayes for his introductory remarks for his support and the ESB support with this series but um most of all I want to thank those of you many of you in your hundreds who who um booked in for this uh session and I've stayed with us right to the end many of you 100 or so stayed with us all the way to the end so you've obviously found it stimulating I certainly have thank you all to the panelists thank you everybody who participated and have a good rest of the day and mind that storm