 OK, so, I'd like to welcome you to this online event which is about zero carbon trade and investment. My name is Anne Chapman. I'm co-chair of Greenhouse. Greenhouse is a UK based think tank. We aim to promote, debate a discussion about green issues. In this event we're working with the Green European Foundation, who are a political foundation that receives funding from the European Parliament. And Natalie can tell you a bit more about it, Natalie Bennett when she speaks, because she used to be a director of the Green European Foundation. So we've also got, this is part of a Green European Foundation project called the Climate Emergency Economy Project. And our partners in that from the Netherlands and Ireland are taking part in this event. So you'll get to hear about them when their turn comes. So this is partly a launch of a report that's just been published on trade and investment requirements for zero carbon. And there's a link to that report, which is on our website. So I think that's all I've got to say. So I'm now going to hand you over to Natalie and just to remind you of your videos. Great. Well, thank you very much, Ann. And thank you everybody for joining us this afternoon from around Europe and beyond. I actually joined you just fresh out of the House of Lords through the joys of video conferencing having been having a debate about COVID-19 regulations, which leads me to reflect on the state of politics and where we are as we talk about the big issues that we are today. And, of course, we have a huge problem that the focus on the immediate urgency of dealing with COVID has been a distraction from the climate emergency, the nature crisis, the crisis of poverty and inequality that we're facing. But I think one of the positives we need to draw from that is that we've seen that the world can change very, very fast. We've seen in many parts of the world a massive shift towards home working. Of course, there's huge problems associated with that, but we've also seen that lots of things have been able to change. And that kind of urgency, that kind of speed of change is the sort of thing that we need to see with trade, with our economies, with the structure of the way all of our world is working. And for the people from the United Kingdom, this is of particular relevance, this report coming out now, because next week in the House of Lords we'll be debating our trade bill. And, of course, our other great crisis facing the United Kingdom debate about Brexit and handling Brexit is very much dominating our discussions. But in the first debate that we had in the Lords on the Bill, it really struck me that we heard people from the Labour Party saying, yay, this is the way we restore the economy. We heard people from the Liberal Democrats affiliated with President Macron and his group in the European Parliament saying, well, trade is the absolute foundation of our political philosophy. We had Conservatives, of course, saying very similar things. And all of these 19th-century philosophies that essentially go, yay, more trade, yay, trade, trade good, almost no matter what. They might add some qualifications about climate, about working conditions, but essentially they don't have a philosophical framework, a way of looking at these issues that says, well, we do have to think about how much trade do we need, what sort of trade do we need, what things do we want to do locally, what things, as the report says, we're not going to grow mangoes and bananas in the UK, and I like to consume both of those occasionally. But how do we do that in a way that doesn't cause unbearable damage to the planet to societies around us? And these are the issues that this really crucial report, I think, is important in addressing. And one of the things about the report that struck me is that one of the phrases in it, there's various quite good useful buzzphrases that I think I'll be using a great deal, is rubbish in, rubbish out. And I was thinking about every year we see stories round about September, October, round about now in the UK that a giant, the world's largest container vessel will sail into a UK port full of stuff from China for Christmas. And lots of that stuff will be in landfill burning up in incinerators within the next six months after that. And that's a kind of as a model, as a symbol of how we cannot continue to afford to do trade, I think is a very clear model. But what we've really lacked is a lot of discussion and a lot of analysis about what we need to do instead, how we need to approach it. And I think that's what's really valuable in this report and what we'll be discussing today. And of course, as you heard from Anne, they've also been other reports from the other foundations associated with this, with this project, which we'll also be hearing from their representatives later. So just very briefly, the Green European Foundation, it's actually the umbrella group for all of the green affiliated think tanks around Europe. So it gets some money from the European Parliament as other political groups foundations do. It works on policies, ideas, not directly party political things, but things that help us develop the policies that we need for the future. So that's the Green European Foundation. If you want to look on the website, there's also the Green European Journal, if I can put in a little advert that has lots of great articles, lots of great ideas, things to share. So please do check out both of those. I'll actually try and put a link in the chat box. But without further ado, I'm going to start on the events of the day and to introduce the report to present some of its main findings, its main approach. I'm going to introduce two of its authors, and I'll introduce them together so they can go directly from one to the other so you don't have to hear from me too much today. So I think speaking first will be Peter Sims, who's an electronic engineer who specialises in systems engineering. And one of the authors of this report, Trade and Investment Requirements for Zero Carbon. And the other speaker who I think will speak after Peter is Jonathan Essex, who's a chartered engineer and environmentalist and a green councillor in Surrey. And for those joining us from other parts of Europe, Jonathan has been a councillor there for some time and a real pioneer in an area that's not perhaps an obvious natural green heartland and the co-author of this greenhouse report. So over to you Peter. I'm Peter Sims, I'm one of the co-authors of this report and part of greenhouse think tank. So I'm going to start by just giving you a loose overview of the transnational project that is part of and what the contributions of the different partners. And then I'm going to come on to talk about the Trade and Investment Toolkit that we're proposing as an output of this project. And then Jonathan, after that, is going to talk about the trade and some of the trade analysis that is fed into that work. So that's the UK contribution from greenhouse think tank. There's then the Netherlands and Bram and Everett are going to be presenting on decarbonising industry. And then you'll hear from Davy looking at relocalisation and regional resilience and their work they've been doing with Green Foundation Ireland. So this is the report. Hopefully you should have seen a link to this in your registration emails to this, but they're the Trade and Investment Requirements for Net Zero, which was published in August. And the key output this report proposes is a zero carbon trade investment toolkit. So this is a brief overview. You should be able to see on the slides if you can all see that what it looks like. I'm just going to talk you through some of the different ways to categorise. And the colours and trying to explain a bit of it to get your head around it. And then hopefully some of the other speakers later on in the presentations will pick up on this and highlight some of the key areas. But firstly, why this complicated toolkit? So the first key reason for that is that our current economies is not compatible with zero carbon. That's obvious to see and it's clear that emissions are still not decreasing. And the next and quite important reason, I think, is that we've created a very complex economy and a very complex society. And therefore the set of interventions required to refashion that economy to be compatible with this new requirement to be net zero. It's a non-trivial set of interventions and this is why the toolkit required or the set of interventions required are many and varied. And the last point is that there are different roles for different actors in terms of intervening in our current society and economy to reach net zero. So hopefully the toolkit allows us to pick apart who has to do what. So the objectives of this toolkit was to take a full systems approach. So rather than just looking at little bits here and there, and often this leads to moving the problem around. We wanted to address these multiple symptoms simultaneously. So we wanted to address climate change. What would be required to in parallel address climate change, biodiversity loss, inequality, resource sustainability? How can we come up with a new economy in society that confront all of these? And how can we look at the root causes of the problems, not just the symptoms and patching? So they were the objectives. And the key way that the toolkit works is it splits the interventions into blockers. So things that perpetuate business as usual that we need to stop doing and then into enablers. So things that we need to start doing in order to reach a zero carbon sustainable society. And the other thing it does is it splits the interventions into three groups as it were. So this first group, which is called transforming business as usual. So these are things that we absolutely have to stop doing, absolutely have to start doing in order to reach net zero. And then the second group is looking at things that the government has to do in order to make that happen. So where does the government needs to show leadership? And then the last group is looking at society. So this is the bottom group. These are things that will have to happen in our economy and our society in response or in parallel with these other changes that the government are doing, which is the middle line. And then the top line is the things that absolutely have to happen. And then the things on the right of the blockers and the things on the left of the enablers. Now, obviously this is quite, quite, there's quite a lot in that. And I would encourage people to go look at the report if they want to find out more. But I'm just going to talk you through some of the enablers and blockers and highlight some of the key ones. And then Jonathan will pick up on some of the ones relating to trade later on. So within the first category of first line of things that we must stop doing the things you must start doing. So transforming business as usual. And I'm going to look at the blockers first and then I'm going to move on to the enablers later. So blockers of things that we must stop doing and locking in harm is a key one. So if we keep building fossil fuel cars and keep building fossil fuel power stations, we're not going to get to net zero. Another one is buying dirt. And a good example of this is Drax power station. And so we currently clear fell forest in America and ship it thousands of miles to the UK to burn it in a converted coal power station in the UK. And cool that sustainable against huge amounts of subsidies in the UK. There are also other ones and the pointless trade is one that Jonathan Essex will pick up on in the second half of this presentation. And another one is that Natalie mentioned earlier, which rubbish in rubbish out. So then I've moved on to the next next line down now, but still on the blockers, which can be signified by the X in the symbol. So the first government must block it is we have to stop asking the wrong questions. For as long as we keep prioritising growth and measuring GDP rather than well being or not, rather than prioritising getting to net zero. So our economy and our society will keep going in the wrong direction. Another one is sponsoring harm and a good example of this is air freight. So air freight doesn't have to pay me. Not only not have to pay things like fuel duty. So that's subsidy by exemption, but also post COVID. There's lots of subsidies. He's been given to aviation to prop up aviation. So this is sponsoring harm. And then lastly, there's things like feeding monster which is our pensions, our investments, company investments, investments, funding fossil fuels companies, which then perpetuates business issues. Right. So then moving on to the last catalyst, the bottom line. The blockers are things like choosing the wrong scale. Things like idolising efficiency. And then things like false horizons. And a good example of false horizons beyond things like perhaps carbon capture and storage or things like plastic bags. Yes, plastic bags, you know, phased five plastic bags and reusable bags might be a good thing, but they're not going to get us to zero carbon and they're not going to avoid the biodiversity crisis. That's tokens and that's a false horizon. So then moving on from the blockers to the enablers and how we've got plusses in the symbols. So then we've gone back up to the top line. So sufficient action. Clearly we have to do things at the speed that's required to respond to the challenge. Quality lot quantity, and that's something that will pick up more on the trade side. And then lastly investing on what we already have. So if we want rather than demolishing old buildings, we need to retrofit them. We need to reinvest in all that infrastructure we have to improve it rather than just demolishing it and starting again. So then the government, what the government must do to achieve this. So it's got to set directions. There are key infrastructure decisions where the government needs to set a direction. And there's also a taxing harm is a really basic one, you know, we have if we don't tax harms. They would all the harmful things will still be cheaper. And the carbon tax is the critical example there. And then public money for public goods, which is hopefully quite for selfish battery. And then there are further ones of managing demand and comparing local solutions where although the actual changing might be things that is done by individuals or organisations or local communities, the government has to enable these things. Public information campaigns or devolution of powers to local funding to local government is something the government has to initiate. So then on to the last of the enablers. So making things last. So 10 year guarantees is a clear example or changing culture. And these are things that we in society might have to do in response. So rather than buying new books off, you know, off the internet, perhaps we need to go down to our local phone box and borrow a shared book. So I think I'm about out of time now as I'm going to hand over to Jonathan. Jonathan. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Maybe just move on to the next slide. I'm just going to talk to you a little bit about the work we've done focusing on the trade aspect. Now, to start with what we did was we analysed the full footprint of imports and exports of the UK's trade and broke it down by sector. And this was quite innovative. And it was also a useful update. Shipping was last estimated back in 2006 21 million tonnes of carbon from that. Next one. An air fate, as far as we know, there's never really been an estimate of what the freight impact of that isn't out of the UK. Next. And then road and rail, which is mainly within Europe totally, that's 36 million tonnes. So what that means is just the transport emissions alone of our international trade, not considering how trade gets to the border before it's exported into China or what happens when it gets here. Just the international transport emissions, things which are mainly excluded from the international Paris climate agreement in total would add 10% on to what we measure in the UK. And that's not even considering the energy used to make what we import into the UK. This is a massive carbon emission and it's something we need to take responsibility for. We've considered both imports and exports because we need to, if we're to localise trade, we will reduce both. So we need to take shared responsibility both for what is made outside of the UK and brought here and also what we make here and clearly sell far, far away. Next one. So what I'm going to do now is give you some examples of what that looks like from the report. I'm going to talk about salmon, roses, apples, pears, oil, gas and fashion. So to start with salmon, this is our biggest single air exports emissions from the UK. Next one. We and again. So literally for every five salmon we export, we import four back again. We fly salmon, Scottish salmon, all the way to the US and China. But then we ship the same product back again. This is completely an utterly pointless. This like for like for trade adds no benefit except we sell Scottish salmon at a premium and then we bring cheaper fish back to our supermarket shelves. Next. Roses gives us a different example. I mean, historically, there are farms in Africa which have produced for the UK. But we import roses that they're flown into the UK. So cut roses at around a million. I think it's a million roses a day. Some are flown directly and some believe or not a flown to Holland where there is a giant auction before they're flown then from Holland to the UK. So why are we flying flowers to the UK? Surely it's possible to grow flowers here. Next. 100,000 tonnes of carbon. So then let's just consider apples and pears. Now I can understand why we might import some things like bananas to the UK. But apples and pears are things we can grow here. Why is it that rather than grow and harvest apples and pears in our own orchards, fruit that's traditionally been grown in this country, we are importing three out of every five apples and four out of every pears are imported into the UK. I mean, this isn't just imported. Some of it is coming vast distances to the UK. And that's the problem. This is the sort of thing we need to challenge. I mean, so far these examples have mainly been about fruits and vegetables, which are part of apples and pears are predominantly flown into the UK. Next slide. But the biggest imports which we have by volume are fossil fuels. Now that surprised me because I think imagining trade, you can imagine shipping containers coming in and ships full of grain, but actually nearly half of the tonnage of the UK's imports and exports is made up of oil, of gas and coal. We still bring in coal. We bring in coal and we bring in iron ore vast distances around the world on the biggest ships you can possibly imagine to burn in the UK to make steel, which on the whole is then exported. And we export our scrap steel. So rather than, you know, use the steel we have to make use steel, we're shipping coal into the UK to make steel. So even though there's promise of, you know, decarbonise the electricity supply and get them into coal, we'll start big uses of coal in the UK. And it shows up in these trade footprints. Next. Moving on. 20% of our carbon impact is shipping in fossil fuels, which we need to eliminate to do with climate change. Next slide. And finally, I mean this morning this was on the radio. I was on the radio about how we're moving towards fast fashion, you know, five pound dresses. And what we're doing is we're first of all, we're shipping in goods quicker, but also we're consuming more because fashion is considered to be just like carrier bags are disposable goods. So given from Love Island, something will appear on Instagram and suddenly there's a demand to make something different and new, the other side of the world. So it's not shipped here, it's flown here and a massive increase. So although it's only just over 6% of the tonnage. Next slide. The freighting of fashion in planes is four fifths of the impact. So just changing the mode of transport, slowing down our trade would make a massive difference into the impacts we have. But this is not being driven by consideration for the climate or consideration what's good for us. This is about how we make money out of trade. Next slide. We need to change things. What does this business as usual economic growth look like? What is the elephant in the room? Well, I would pitch to you the elephants in the room are the things we don't generally talk about when we talk about phrases such as the climate emergency. It's the big industries. The coal is still burnt in steel power stations, even though it's not in the electricity we buy at home. The trade which we're discussing here today and the large infrastructure which drives it. All of this is increasing scale. Next slide. Move on, increasing distance and increasing speed. That's meeting more energy and more stuff. Half of the carbonitions we have is in the stuff we build and buy around the world. Increasing automation rather than livelihoods. Doing as we know that trade does. Driving global inequality and increasing a more vulnerable world. What's the alternative to that? First, let's just explore those three things in a little detail. First, infrastructure is looking in the scale. HS2 is part of the trans-European transport network project of the European Union. The China Belt and Road Initiative means we now have one train a day directly from China to London bringing us freight. Next one. And cities and infrastructure is what's driving growth around the world. Next. So rather than this supply side folks on infrastructure evermore roads, we need to reduce demand. And trade is locking in evermore emissions. So our example showed that the average ton of trade from the UK with the rest of the world is over five times that with the EU. Next. So it's exporting processing zones, automation. Next slide. So this is production industries locking in consumption. Increasing scale. We are consuming more and increasing speed. Plastic bags and fast fashion are good examples of that. So what we need to do is we need to reduce the scale of trade and our material consumption. We need to localize our supply chains. And that means that we'll have more options to bring things slower. So more stuff is consumed locally, less air freight, less shipping. And that's what we need to do to trade if we're to reach zero carbon. So I'll leave you with two questions. Firstly, if we are to face up to climate change, it's not just recognizing that the climate emergency exists. It's stopping holding two things in different hands. So on the one hand, we say we want to deal with climate change. Well, therefore, on the other hand, we can't continue to grow the scale, the speed and the amount of stuff we shift through our infrastructure, through our industry and through trade. And finally, we have a choice and the choice is quite straightforward. Do we continue to back a world, which is about globalization? It's a business as usual growth driven vision of the future while talking about climate change, or do we relocalize economies, jobs and livelihoods? Now this trade research, I think, shows you two things. Firstly, the impact of trade and also it shows what we need to stop to create those different sets of possibilities. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jonathan and Peter, for that very clear introduction. I have to say there's some great figures in there and some great stats. The salmon one is lovely. Although if I do have one disappointment about this report, one of my favorites of the nonsensical nature of trade has always been how much ice cream goes back and forth between countries very often in equal balance. And if you think about something you really shouldn't be shipping around its ice cream. But nonetheless, there's a huge about there in the reports, so I'll forgive the lack of ice cream. So we've now got a brief period of interaction, discussion in groups of three. Okay, yes, sorry, I'm just having one of those press six buttons at once and none of them are actually registering, but I'm back now and I had a lovely discussion, so I hope everyone also had a lovely discussion. And so we're moving into the next element of the day's events now, which is, as a couple of people have already said, this is a part of an international project on the climate emergency economy covered by the Green, overarching the Green European Foundation. And so we're going to hear about the associated work in the Netherlands and Ireland, which all of this comes together to give us a broader picture. And I think the UK may no longer be part of the European Union, but we're certainly very much part of Europe, and we're all in this together, as you might say. So it's really important we join all of this up. So our first speaker, and I think I'll introduce each one of these individually, and apologies in advance if my pronunciation is a little off, but I try. I'm going to introduce Evert Neuenhouse, who's a researcher at, Let me go the Bureau of Green Link Steak Tank of the Dutch Green Party, and we'll be presenting the findings of an expert meeting on green industrial policy that was hosted in May. So over to you, Evert. Yeah, so my name is Brom. I'll actually start. Thank you, Natalie, for introducing us. We will just give a super short five minute presentation. We're actually doing quite a big project on how to decarbonise Dutch energy intensive industry. So this will only be like the highlights of our research. Next slide please. So first the number 30% of all Dutch emissions come from industry. So this is really a big chunk of all the emissions. So it's really important to address this. And it's important to realise that most emissions come from producing basic materials, for example, steel. And these materials are used later on in the economy again. So it's very important. But the key word that we focus on in our project is how can we do this? What policies do we need? Perhaps what technologies do we need? Next slide please. Yeah, so this figure shows the greenhouse gases of Dutch industry. And you can see that the blue, red and yellow ones, which are the chemistry refinery and basic metals, they cover almost 80% of industrial emissions. So it's just three sectors that are responsible for this. So our research really focuses on these three industries. Next slide please. And if we look at the developments over time, we know that from 1990 until about 2010 emissions from industry declined quite a lot. But since 2010, as you can see in this figure, it's actually fairly stable. So the carbonisation is not really happening anymore. So next slide please. So this is the key question that we ask. What is blocking the Dutch heavy industry from decarbonising? And what are some of the enablers? Aver to continue. Yes, thank you very much. Well, again, we're just highlighted three of them in our reporter and much more. I think one of the much more blockers than enablers. I think one of the main blockers is that emitting CO2 is way too cheap. Next slide please. And a clear enabler could be, I think you're aware of the concept could be a CO2 tax. We believe that we should have a national CO2 tax on top of the EU emission trading scheme. Because when prices are get too low at the ETS, you can raise them on a national level. And this should be a stick for the industry to decarbonise. But at the same time, it can also be carous when you return the revenues of the tax for green subsidies for the industry to decarbonise them. So it will also be an incentive for them to stay in the Netherlands. Someone is calling me. Sorry for that. This could also be an incentive for them to stay in the Netherlands and not go abroad. Because in some other countries, the climate policies might not be as well developed as in the Netherlands. And this might not be a benefit for the climate on a global level. Next slide please. Well, a second important blocker is that there's uncertainty for the industry. Industry makes investments for about 10, 20 or 30 years. And they're used to have abundant supply of cheap natural gas, which is produced in the Netherlands and therefore it's cheap. Next slide please. An enabler could be to that the government should make choices and put their money where their mouth is. This might sound a bit cheap or shallow, but I think it can be translated into policy. And a good example of this can be the way the Dutch government a couple of years ago, a couple of governments ago actually dealt with offshore wind power. There was a lot of debate about it and because of this debate, there wasn't much going on. And then the government made a decision. He said, yes, we are going for offshore wind at the North Sea. But also we are going to pay for the infrastructure and we are going to build it and we will start now. And this was a clear impulse for a lot of energy companies to write into the tenders for the offshore wind and things starting to fly. Now I think we should do the same for building an hydrogen infrastructure infrastructure in the Netherlands, which is absolutely crucial for the Dutch industry to be to decarbonise. Next please. Another blocker is that the fear of the government of picking loser so to speak the government is hesitant, hesitant to make clear technological choices and this sort of well slows everything down. And then the neighbor could be to have a different attitude, and I think the attitude should be like just do it and accept failure. Again, this might sound a bit cheap and shallow, but it can be translated into policies. I think the government should do is to start 10 pilots that are five industrial clusters, we have five localised clusters in the Netherlands. We have to do those pilots experiment with techniques, and after two years they should scale up the three most successful ones. If ten are successful, bingo, that's good news. If it's just one or even zero is successful or none of them is successful, we should accept it. This might be a failure, but actually it's not really a failure because you would have knowledge about what kind of technology would work to decarbonise the industry. And it also helped to make clear choices what kind of industry we want to have in the Netherlands and what kind of industry we don't want to have, what kind of industry fits into the 21st century, which should be green and decarbonised and which not. Next slide please. So these were just three of the enables and blockers we we highlight in a report report is focused on government policies on a national level. The report is expected in February 2021, and here you find our contact information, our website and our email addresses. If you have any questions or suggestions, we love to hear from you, as the Americans like to say. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much, Eva and Bram. Apologies for not introducing you at the start, Bram. Just a note for everyone that what we're doing going forward is we're now going to hear in a minute from Davey Phillip about the Irish project. And then there'll be two stages of small group discussions where you can sort of formulate questions, have a discussion, but do feel free at any time now to drop questions into the chat box if you're thinking about questions now. And that will give me a chance to pull them together and try and make sure that we recover as many questions as we possibly can. If all the questions land in the last minute of the question period, we're not going to get to the ball. So just with that little encouragement to get typing, I'm now going to hand over to Davey Phillip, who's the president of Ecolies, the European Network of Community Lead Initiatives for Climate Action and Sustainability, and co-founder of Clojordan EcoVillage Intemporary. He'll be reporting on a meeting that was held in Ireland this week, which had the subject a question of scale, imagining a cooperative community-led approach to regional resilience. So over to you, Davey. Thanks, Natalie. Thanks, Peter, for the opportunity to make this short report. You just go to the next slide. So I'm just introducing micro-projects that I'm doing through Cultivate, which is the Sustainable Ireland Cooperative, who I work through in Ireland. And Green Foundation Ireland supported in the partnership with the Green European Foundation, and part of this bigger project that this event today is part of. Focuss was around the question of scale, and our approach is a community-led social solidarity cooperative approach, looking to build regional resilience, and as well as reducing our climate impact strengthening our resilience, especially at the regional level. Next slide, Peter. So the project is more than the event we held on Tuesday. I'll tell you a little bit more about the event we held on Tuesday, but we launched the event in August. We released a short paper late last week, which brought together some of the findings and research from different academics and researchers in Ireland, especially from this social solidarity cooperative sector. And I'll tell you a bit more about that. Then we held the event on Tuesday, quite a dynamic online event, and we're synthesising the outputs of that event to publish an illustrated paper. We've got working with a graphic harvest to illustrate a paper, so it's not going to just be an academic paper, our aim is to publicise this approach. And then we're going to host a podcast in November, as we launch this paper. We've worked on a number of projects with Green Foundation Ireland on localising the circular economy, or with other partners in Ireland and Europe on the local response to the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. Next slide, Peter. So the question of scale, scale actually meaning supply chains and local economies. And in the context of the global vulnerabilities, we're really again identifying the blockers and enablers to this community-led approach. How do we secure local supply chains and strengthen our regional economies? What are the opportunities here, especially in the new trends of community wealth building platforms, platform cooperatives, circular economies? And then encouraging a corporate effort in local production for local needs. So relocalising, especially around food and energy, and that's what our focus has been on, and identifying the potential livelihoods and adjust transition with our focus in the Midlands of Ireland. Next slide, Peter. So our objective is to create this paper and build on a lot of the work the different green researchers and academics have been working on the social solidarity economy and the opportunities of strengthening our regional resilience around that. The idea of local wealth building, taking the model that we see in Preston for cities to keep the wealth circling in their local economy, but looking at that from a regional scale. The new trends in cooperatives, especially solidarity multi-stakeholder co-ops or federated co-ops that act like in work as an ecosystem with other entities in an area to add impact, like we've seen in Mondragon and other places. The new ideas are platform cooperatives where we can enable a local regional economy. We're really highlighting a platform for virtual markets, the open food network that we've been over the last six months bringing into Ireland operating in nine countries. The idea of donor economics and ecological economics and regional food webs, a local approach to the circular economy and a sharing economy that isn't extracting wealth for shareholders like many of the sharing platforms we see. Next slide, Peter. So a question of scale, the event we held had contributions from Dick Homan's, the co-president of the Green Europe Foundation, as Ganka Becheva from a European perspective in and then a number of academics and researchers gave short presentations and we had conversations that allowed us to build on the paper that we had released to weave together to launch in November. And you can see our digital studio here, which we've been using a lot now to do distributed events. So that's just a taste and a sense of what we're doing. Thanks for the opportunity to share that. Back to you. Thanks very much. Great and some really positive things happening there. That's really good to see. And thanks very much for that. So what's going to happen now is we're going to, I believe, have two stages of small groups to discuss. All of the things we've just heard, and there's a pretty wide range there. And then those small groups will come into bigger groups. Perhaps you have bounce for the discussions what you think the main points are. If I can feed in just a thought for a second, I think it'd be really great if we can focus as much as we can. I think we all pretty well agree on what we should not be doing. But what we really have to do is think about the alternatives and the positive ways forward and that's perhaps where we need more creativity, more thinking, more explanation to the public. So if I can take my chairs probably to perhaps provide a little bit of thought and direction in there, and then you'll buy the magic of technology all disappear off into those groups again. So see you back shortly in about 10 minutes or so. Okay, we'll just leave a minute for everyone to make their way back to make sure we've got everyone back. And a reminder as the screen is showing you post questions in the chat. And these are going to be questions going to all of our speakers from the first. And perhaps I've been, should also just note there's been a no chat, but we are recording this session and I'm assuming it will be placed on a website somewhere later. I'm going to name people who ask questions from the chat box. If you don't want your name mentioned, just drop me a quick private line. So you know, although I do kind of know quite a lot of the people who've already posted their questions. So I'm going to assume it's okay with some of them because I know who they are. And so I think to start off with you, we've talked quite a bit, particularly from Ireland and also in UK about food product. And David Newman raised the question of what's the practicality in what we're talking about three countries represented here that are all a population dead compared to much of the rest of the world. So how realistic is significant local food production? How much can we do? How much might still need to be imported? Perhaps if we can start with either you, we can start with a greenhouse, either of us two speakers from greenhouse. Which one of you would like to perhaps respond to that and then perhaps we might go to Ireland? I'm happy to pitch you Jonathan, unless you have anything to say. So I think there's been a couple of estimates work done. I know Simon Fairley has done some work. I think there's others have also done some work about what there has been a book published by a guy called Tim Lang looking at food security as well. So there's been a fair bit of work recently around how about the potential for the UK to become more self-sufficient on food. And I think the important point stresses that it's not let's become 100%. It's let's focus on importing the things where we can't grow them in the UK. So importing bananas by ship, maybe that's fine, but it's the flying of the mangoes in and it's the importing of things fresh rather than juice or dried. Importing spices, we're never going to grow spices in the UK and they contribute to our lives. But you know, so it's I think it's about doing the bulk of things rather than trying to do 100% of efficiency. Davy, any thoughts you'd like to share on that? Yeah, just to build on what Peter said there. I do think we it's not 100%. We need to be relocalising the things that we do well. The example of flowers there for the UK you can grow flowers. We export as many potatoes as we import as madness. And the farmers need a better price and they need a better arrangement. So to localise for the food and the energy and the things that we can do locally. I mean, we're interested in going one step further with digitisation with local manufacturing production through Fablabs. And we've set up a Fablab here and part of the Fab Foundation just for local industrial production at a certain scale, which is I think a lot of potential. But food is a no brainer and energy and no brainer. We could do that locally be more self-reliant and more resilient to shocks of those long supply chains. Yep, that's a word I always like to hear resilience being mentioned. I'm going to throw also to Ebert and Bram if you'd like to comment on food. But I also want to pull in a question from Les in the chat box. You were talking about decarbonising industry and Les was expressing concern that often that's kind of used as an excuse to say, oh, we'll just find technological fixes and keep going at the same volume of stuff that we have now. So what would be your response to that question and also any comments you might want to make on food? Thank you very much. Well, if it would be. What was the word he used? I'm looking forward to an excuse that would be a bad thing. So by decarbonising. No, let me say we need the industry as well even to become a CO2 neutral. We need windmills, for instance, and therefore you need industry. You need steel, although there are experiments in Sweden at the moment where they are building windmills from trees, which would be even better. So we need to have an industry for a lot of stuff. We need to use it differently. We need to consume less. We need to consume differently. We need to have a circular economy, of course, which also mandates circular design. But again, I don't think it's an excuse. The industry should decarbonise because we also need it. But of course, there are a lot of systematic change as well. It will be a little bit too lengthy to explain them all. And about localisation, on a personal level, I would be against localisation if it would be just because of the localisation. For instance, when you look at the steel industry in the Netherlands, we produce about 4.2% of all the steel produced in Europe and about 24% is being produced in Germany. And a lot of the where it is now located has to do with factors which were important in the last century, in the previous century. And in this century, there might be other factors as well, very important, and they are of course ecological ones. So when I went and it might be a solution to say, OK, maybe if we want to have steel made from hydrogen, it might be expensive to do so. So maybe we should stop making steel in the Netherlands and do it in Germany, for instance, where it will be produced with hydrogen. So that's not localisation, but it might be better for the environment. So it's a complicated question and it's not localisation per se, if that's correct English. It is indeed. Thank you very much. I'm going to move now to a sort of set of questions that seem to be, I think, interrelated. Almagir said, can we have a whole life carbon footprint? And Andrew Squire was also contributing to that discussion. And I see just posted in the chat box, David Wild has said that a carbon tax on imports. How do you actually quantify that impact in order to set an effective tax rate? How much work has been done on all of this? So I'm going to come to each of our groups of speakers in turn, perhaps starting with greenhouse. I mean, I often say that what we need is the real price of something to be reflected on its price tag. And I would say that if you take a carbon footprint or water footprint in a waste footprint and some kind of social measure, you're probably getting to something like the real price of things. Cheap food is costing us both our health and the planet. But how far down the road are we to actually being able to deliver on that? If we said, you know, right next year, we want to introduce something that really ensures that the real price is reflected in taxes or is reflected in the price tag, perhaps starting with greenhouse. I'm happy to start. So I think, you know, if you can look at introducing a carbon tax, clearly you have to do it in multiple areas. So, you know, you taxing fossil fuels at sources the easy bit and you can do some of it on planning permission for land use change and so on. When it comes to imports, it's difficult. I mean, it's easy to apply the same price based on the embedded carbon. The challenge is the assessments of what the embedded partner of all the goods are. Clearly we've never really, you know, the work to work out whatever the embedded carbon of everything that's traded is, you know, has your people have done investigations here and there. But there is no consistent reporting on it. It doesn't require to be reported. So I think the first thing is to go, which is just to say everything imported or exported has to have its embedded carbon declared. And obviously the moment you do that will be wildly inaccurate on half of them and companies will put them all over the place. So then, then there's got to be, you know, a series of sort of, you know, homing in so that on the on, you know, and forcing companies to review their methodology and ensuring consistency between different things before you can then apply any serious tax to it. I mean, I don't know everything there is. No, do you want to add a thing on that? Very briefly, I would say if if we look at carbon of imports, it should include the transport emissions, which was what we've highlighted here, which is quite easy to calculate. Possibly easier than what goes into it. But my challenge with just focusing on pricing things is infrastructure industry and trade involves investment in big things, which then makes it cheap to do them afterwards. So we need to change the capital spending decisions, not just the consumer spending decisions and capital, that's capitalism. So we need to look at the linkages between big infrastructure, big industry and big amounts of trade. And then in terms of the life cycle thing, we'll say, I mean, there was a discussion about apples on the chat. Clearly, it might be better lifestyle life cycle carbon to import currently apples and far away. But I think if we start by looking at this sort of comparison approach, we also need to look at a budget and say how we're going to get to zero carbon. And I think the biggest challenge for trade in this area is frankly all trade requires fossil power, whether it's fuel for ships, fuel for planes or road freight. And frankly, you know, you're not going to get to zero. You might get slightly better, but you're not going to get to zero as long as we continue to ship, fly and truck large amounts of stuff around the world. So Evert and Brian, would one of you like to come in on this discussion? Yeah, I can add a little bit on CO2 tax. I agree with Peter that a consumption based CO2 tax would in theory be great, but practically very difficult to make happen. For industry, it would be a very good solution if you, I'll turn on my video. For example, steel, if you produce a car with sustainable steel produced with green hydrogen, a car would only be like 100 euros or 150 euros more expensive. So actually for the consumer, this is not a lot. So if you could actually do this somehow with a carbon based tax on consumed goods, this would be the solution, but in theory it's great. I think in practice it's very difficult to do. So I agree with Bram. It might be difficult, but it's not an excuse not to do so. And there are schemes in which you can have the consumer pay for the CO2. I don't know the English name in the Netherlands, it's called VAT. And it is based as Bram Haricol, BTW in English. It's a VAT. VAT. And VAT is not so old. It started about 40 years ago. And it was also said it was impossible. And you can have your CO2 tax raise like a VAT. It's difficult to calculate for sure, but it's not impossible. And for the ETS, it's already done. It's only done by lump sum. And you can start with a lump sum and then continue. It's difficult, but it's not impossible. And it might take a decade, but it is possible. Thank you. Davie, I'm going to allow you to comment anything you want to on that, but also throw into the next question in the mix, which is a couple of related things. One was the question about finance and where do we get the funding to institute the new and different ways of doing things, to use perhaps a very old-fashioned term, the export replacement and the local development of things. Where does the resources come from, particularly in poorer areas, because there's a real risk that it will be the richer areas that are enabled to develop the local industry and the poorer areas don't have the local capital. And this kind of relates to a question also in the chat from Neil Peckern. Countries such as Kenya and Ethiopia get their hard currency earnings from flower exports. So, you know, how do we ensure that we don't suddenly impoverish systems that are really reliant on these exports at the moment if we cut them off or put the high carbon taxes on them? So, Davie, if I can throw that rather large lump of questions to you and then we're going to sort of briefly come back to the others and that'll be the end of this session. So, everyone, this is your final comments as well. Thanks over to you, Davie. Well, there's a lot there and there is so much to do in a very short time frame that we're going to need all mechanisms. I'm cautious around taxing people and we see the resistance to that, the yellow vests in France. So, there'll have to be as many incentives. I was very taken with the work of David Fleming, who some of you might know here, who did the tradeable energy quotas. I think that rationing of carbon or energy could be something that we may have to do in the future. Cap and share so we can cap and tax the polluters and share a dividend to society. There's many different mechanisms that we're going to need to decarbonise and make the transition that we need to make. How do we fund that locally? Well, obviously there's going to be new supports in Europe. I don't know how the UK is going to benefit from these green deals, smart villages, the new leader programme caps that will start to incentivise and set us in the right direction. A lot of the initiatives and the social solidarity economy just need to be enabled. They can create wealth in a different way. We can keep wealth in our regions in a different way with this community wealth building and changing procurement rules and enabling local industry and local production and consumption to be enabled. There's a lot there we'll unpack. I'll maybe just leave it at that. Thanks, Natan. Thanks very much, Davie. Certainly in the UK substance model, named after a particular area in the north of England, P-R-E-S-T-O-N. That's very much something you can find out more about that. So, Bram or Evert, if you want to come in on this set of questions. Yeah, I don't have that much to say about it. I can only say that I agree with it that we very much have to be careful with, that we should really take into account if we change trade mechanisms or trade patterns, the impacts it has on global south countries. I think it's a very important issue. So yeah, I agree to the statement. So, to Greenhouse, just to sort of finally wrap up this session, particularly reflecting on the finance and the localisation and how we get the local resources and how we get resources at places around the world that need them. Well, let me jump in first and let Peter wrap up for me. In terms of the folks that look well on flowers, firstly, I'd like to say, I don't think trade is currently fair. It's unequal trade and generally we exploit other countries to extract resources for them to make us richer and then poorer. So that's the basic status quo. So the idea that trade somehow benefits poor countries, generally poor people in poorer countries are exploited through a system that makes us rich and then poor in resources and finance terms. And I think that's important to recognise both the colonial history of that and the current reality. In terms of shifting, say, Africa on an export-driven model of developments, which is what the flower export is to something different, then I think we need to stop selling them an export-driven model of development through how we do diplomacy, through international development and through the sorts of trade deals we foister upon Africa, as well as we seek from places like the US. And, you know, if we want to move away from an export-driven model for trade in, say, Ethiopia, then in the UK we shouldn't be looking to expand things like Heathrow Airport. I think that's a great example. I will be very brief in what I add to that, as I think most of those points have been addressed. But I think what struck me from all these questions is how they all link back to the toolkit. You've got so many of those, you know, the points about what we need to be stopped doing there, but we need to find the funding for this, so perhaps we need to stop putting good money after bad and, you know, in terms of feeding the monster in terms of the pension funds, money feeding fossil fuels via pension funds. So, I think it's highlighted how there are lots of different interrelated things, and hopefully that toolkit provides an interesting framing for grappling with some of those. OK, well, thank you very much, Peter, and thank you, everyone. I think we've packed an enormous amount into that session. And actually, I'm glad that we did sort of mention the sort of colonial history of all of this because one of the few highlights from the House of Lords second reading debate on the trade bill was one of our hereditary, is the Earl of Devon, who can be quite surprising come some time. He pointed out the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower coming up and how destructive those subsequent 400 years had been for much of the Americas, the indigenous people of the Americas, and indeed, West Africa. So, that seems a good point to finish this session on. We're only running three minutes late, which I think is not too bad, considering how much we've packed into that. Thank you very much to all of our speakers. We've ranged very widely. I'm going to hand over to Anne now to explain the arrangements for our break. Everyone gets a chance to get that cup of tea, and then we'll be back at 3.30.