 Hello, and welcome to this session on Beyond COP26, a new model for delivering on climate breakthroughs. My name is Antonia Gavel, head of Climate with the World Economic Forum. We're joining you today just hours before the scheduled end of COP26 in Glasgow as negotiators continue to work tirelessly to land an outcome that demonstrates real progress in tackling climate change. The mood, of course, remains tense, and we heard from Alec Sharma, COP26 president this morning, that he was under, and I quote, no illusion that any party is wholly satisfied with where texts currently stand. This gives us a sense of kind of what's at stake. Just as a brief recap for our viewers who are tuning in today, Glasgow was expected to deliver on a few critical outcomes, right? So first, the world is looking to governments to ratchet up their national commitments in order to maintain global temperatures to no more than 1.5 degree rise. Second, wealthy countries were expected to deliver on the $100 billion committed to help developing countries tackle climate change and adapt to the impacts that are already being felt. And third, progress is and was anticipated on key elements of the Paris Agreement. Things like Article 6 that look to provide the foundations for credible global carbon market again to help deliver on the commitments. Now I personally was in Glasgow, and this morning I woke up with mixed feelings about where things currently stand as I think many people around the world do as well. Analysis of progress and commitments to date have tell us that there has been some progress on some of the objectives that I just outlined, but also that significant gaps remain. Of course, this leaves us unsatisfied. On the other hand, I also left Glasgow feeling optimistic and hopeful, in particular by what I saw happening alongside the negotiations. We have never before seen such an incredible mobilization of business, citizens, academia, and others pushing for bolder outcomes, but also taking action themselves. A few examples, the Race to Zero campaign has now grown to over 5,000 businesses, 67 regions, over 440 financial institutions, 1,000 plus educational institutions, and more, all committing to have emissions between 2020 and 2030. These same actors have also launched incredible initiatives and commitments to really help deliver and drive to true progress against these objectives. We saw financial institutions commit over 130 trillion to help transform the economy to net zero. We saw companies commit to invest in emerging technology innovations that we know we need to decarbonize industry with the launch of the first mover coalition as well as other initiatives like this. We saw nature for the first time recognized as core to tackling climate change, with commitments to halt and reversed forest loss. We also saw hundreds of thousands of citizens around the world take to the streets. They're making clear their own commitment to tackling climate change, but also making clear their expectations of leaders. So these are just a few examples of a very long list of actions and commitments that we see alongside the negotiations that are happening at Glasgow at the moment. So in this discussion, what we would love to hear is where things stand, of course, where we hope things will land, but also how we see collective and collaborative action and new models for collaboration move us towards impact beyond COP26. So I hope that just sets the context for this conversation and maybe the mood in the room. We have some tense feelings, but we also have some hope for progress through these types of collaborations. So with that, I'd like to really welcome Nick Bridge, the UK special representative for climate change the discussion this morning. We know Nick that you're incredibly busy so appreciate you taking the time to join us. Let me just start with you and ask you to share a little bit with our global audience where things stand. And I think in particular, how you think COP26 has helped really shift the dial on public-private collaboration to really help achieve the objectives set out at Glasgow. Nick, over to you. Thank you so much, Antonia and Wes for everything that you're doing. And thank you to everybody on the line for engaging in this. I'm gonna say a quick word, as you say, just about being here in Glasgow still and how we're doing, but focus then a little bit more on what the collaboration needs to be in this conversation going forward and what our hopes are for that. I mean, the draft text that we put out again overnight actually tells a certain story for those not as close to it. We start in section one of that draft with the science and the urgency because that's where you have to start. And then we move on and we put adaptation up front and adaptation finance, the next section mitigation and then the next section financing, technology transfer and capacity building. So that tells the story exactly, Antonia, of the balance that you've been talking about and that we've had to bring forward much more emphasis on adapting because things are moving further and faster in terms of catastrophic impacts and that will only accelerate. So we put that science and that adaptation up front and we've certainly got to build on the progress made on finance and go further. And then on mitigation, we've had this huge push to try and ratchet up mitigation. The other sections of that text, I'll just quickly also mention though, is vital loss and damage is the next section. Then the two final sections are about implementation and collaboration. So as I say, I think that draft text and we'll see where it comes out in the end game in the hours to come. But that tells, I think the story that we are trying to represent as the presidency as to the party's views around balancing the reducing of emissions, the coping and adapting being more resilient to what we are already facing and will face over the years to come and then financing that transition with the poorest, most vulnerable countries in mind the most. Now, let me just quickly move on to what you were focused on around the extraordinary role that we all play in the public and private sector to make that happen. As a presidency, as you know, we put a huge weight on the race to zero. As you say, more than 5,000 companies now, 60 of the top at the FTSE 500 in our country, because the way that we've managed to move from less than a quarter of the world's governments signing up to net zero to more than 90% in the last 18 months, an extraordinary shift in that agreement to go net zero. And partly that is because businesses have also wanted that sense of an acceleration in that direction. Now, of course, the crunch comes as to whether that net zero target in the long term is reflected in what governments and businesses are doing in 2030 and in 2025 and basically every year, month and day from now on. So it has to be now locked in solid policies across governments and businesses. And we think that the bringing in the private sector and the public private partnership much more strongly has been absolutely critical part of the Glasgow concept because many businesses are ahead of some countries and are saying that this is what we want and this is the signal. And then that can be locked in in terms of the policy frameworks that governments can provide around the world. So in some ways, this is a starting point of the next phase where we have this extraordinary increase in the awareness across our citizens who are buying products and living lives. We have an awareness across businesses who have made these big commitments and now need to make them happen in solid terms. And we have these big changes in the government's views as well. Now alongside race to zero and race to resilience, we also have, of course, the financial alliance for net zero. And then your fantastic first movers coalition which we saw launched with President Biden, John Kerry and your team. So these things now are all part of the momentum, irreversible, but accelerating action that is good for citizens. This stuff is more affordable, it's more sustainable and it's a business model that we hope everybody's wanting to shift too much faster. So I hope that gives a sense, Antonia, sort of the interplay between the very technical negotiations that are still ongoing, but then the very real world commitments that will help that happen. And that we really do now need to press on, we as a presidency will be pressing on very hard in the year ahead and in the years ahead with partners to make sure that we can do this. We have to keep that 1.5 degree temperature goal within reach and with your help, I hope we can. Thank you. Thank you, Nick, and appreciate that the negotiations are still ongoing and appreciate that you do have to kind of drop off to get back to those. Maybe just one quick follow-up question before you drop off. What would be sort of your key messages and reflections for this mobilization beyond COP? Of course, we'll all look to the negotiation outcomes and at the text that is to come from Glasgow, but what would be your sort of key message on the step from here? Where do we need to focus our attention and energy to make sure that we move from Glasgow forward faster in terms of tackling climate change? Well, I think briefly I'll come back to the three areas. You know, the emissions reduction targets have really taken a quantum leap. The number of net zero targets now, but they have not yet been reflected either fully in 2030 targets, but they have not yet fully been reflected in policy framework. So we're saying the right thing, and now there's an intensely important phase where we actually do the difficult job of changing policies in the public and private sector to make these targets credible. On adaptation, it's a similar point that we've got to give much more attention to it. We wouldn't get adaptation and mitigation on the same level and spending as much on supporting correspondents from other countries on adaptation as we've been doing on mitigation. That's something the UK government has always had that board, this sort of 50-50 approach and to ramp up thirdly, to ramp up the financing in both areas. And that's public and it's private and it's public-private. And so it's really the action and the implementation of what has been an extraordinary period of uplift in awareness and commitment. It's now got a very rapidly turned into different approaches, different policies that convince people that it will happen fast enough. Thank you, Antonia. Great, thank you. Thank you, Nick, for that overview. And I think for those reflections, I certainly think we'll be picking up those themes as we go through this conversation this morning. And thank you again to the first movement's coalition. So the World Economic Forum has just, I think had this fantastic role in flagging the risks that we face. We talked a lot about the sort of the way the science was evolving, but you and many of the businesses on the line have been the ones flagging to us, actually, in terms of risk and what that means for the actions of people in communities in the real economy. That's, I think, a hugely important role. So thank you again for the support to the presidency and we'll be with you as we push this forward in the months ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. And indeed, thank you for driving that kind of race to zero and all of society action, I think, as we move things forward. So best of luck with the negotiations. We'll be watching how things come out there. So I think with that, I think, let's take sort of those words and reflections into a conversation now. I'll ask my colleagues just to quickly put up a slide with a QR code where we do invite our viewers to ask questions of the panel that we're about to engage here. So if you just scan this QR code, you can go to Slido and just drop some questions in the chat if you like. I'll try to kind of pick them up and weave them into the conversation as we go. So with that, let me just briefly introduce the great panel that we now have to really take this conversation to the next level. I'd like to welcome Chad, holiday co-chair of the Mission Possible Partnership. We have Sven Tor, Paul Sether, the CEO of Yara International, Clover Hogan, climate activist and a founder of Force of Nature and Ann Metler, Vice President of Europe, Breakthrough Energy. So I think it's great to have you all here today. And really, I think really what we'd like to do now is to have a conversation, just building on the framing that we've heard both from Nick and in the introduction there as well. So maybe if I could start with you, Chad. I mean, you've worked in business leadership for many years now, but also of course now play an important role as co-chair of the Mission Possible Partnership focused on industry decarbonization. Could you maybe just share your initial reflections on what you saw coming out of CAUTH in the context of public-private partnership and really delivering on action? And I think let's keep kind of that theme of focus on yes commitments, but also delivery. So Chad, over to you. You know, great, great question. And starting with your framing and what Nick had to say, I think if you went back 10 years ago and said, could we possibly have this kind of progress that we're talking about today without a global carbon tax or our global cap and trade, I would have said no. Yet the answer is a business moving forward very rapidly based on what we have today. I think there are three factors that cause that. First, the technology developments of the last couple of decades, nanotechnology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence are being applied quickly now. They're getting funding. They're getting resources. We're not having to wait on proving everything before it takes place. I think that's making a big difference is giving businesses the courage to step out because they see the technology developing. I think the second one is we're getting a not so gentle nudge in the business community. First to make sure our reporting is right through things like TCFD, but also the large investor base is insisting that we have that reporting and we have real actions and commitments. And they're all not just decades away looking for real results now and what we're accomplished. That was something that I didn't anticipate could happen without those other things in place. And third, every person I talk to under 30 has a totally different standard for what business has to do to be even acceptable. And every year they get older, when they're 31 they don't lose that. So it's a force that I've just never experienced before and I think it's making a big difference. So I believe those three things are shaping this change. I'll leave you with one thought around that though. If you go back and look at every energy transition that we can track, there's four or five depending on where do you want to start counting, everyone has created a better energy system. So keep in mind what we're doing here is a better energy system for people and they'll adopt it. Thank you. Great, thanks. Thank you for that overview chat. I think really great points. Maybe just to kind of in the spirit of discussion and Metler, if I could turn to you. Of course you and the Breakthrough Energy really does have quite a focus on innovation. Chad mentioned technology, technology innovation, but innovation in the next 10 years. Could you maybe share your thoughts on kind of what needs to happen to really supercharge innovation and climate delivery over the next decade? Absolutely and good morning. So first of all, I think what is important now is that we went from the how and from the what to now the how. How do we operationalize all these goals? It was just said that over 90% of governments have committed countless businesses and where we come into this is really calling for a new generation of public-private partnerships where each side must sort of bring their respective strength to the table. We know from the IEA that half of the global reductions in CO2 emissions through 2050 will have to come from technologies that are currently at demonstration or prototype phase. And given that we know that innovation cycles in clean tech tend to be anywhere between 20 and 40 years. So essentially, if we talk about 2050, we're talking about today, what we do today will determine whether we're gonna be successful in reaching our goals. So more specifically, I mean, what do governments and businesses need to do? So we quickly now need to de-risk investments in the next generation of clean technology. So it's very important that at this point, we do not only focus on the mature technologies such as wind and solar, but really the next generation, green hydrogen, long duration energy storage, direct air capture. And it's precisely those technologies that are now in the demonstration and prototype phase. We need to de-risk these technologies. Secondly, governments and businesses need to work together to quickly now build new markets for these clean technologies so that with the higher volumes, the price can decrease. This is what Bill Gates likes to call the green premium, that we still need to pay if we wanna use clean technologies. And as long as clean tech is significantly more expensive, it won't scale and certainly not in the lower and middle income countries where it's most needed. So this is what I would encourage at this point is really to de-risk these investments. It's really to lower the green premium and then we will build these new markets and it will really kick-start the innovation that is needed now. Absolutely, and I mean, I think indeed that sort of investment in innovation and solutions. I think in parallel as you and others have said with scaling actually the solutions that we have available today, these two things we need to kind of drive in parallel. Maybe Sven, if I can turn it over to you, of course you are engaged in this area of investing in emerging technology solutions of course for mitigation, but also maybe you can kind of draw us into some of the thinking and work around nature and land use. We have seen nature, land use transformation really enter into the core of the climate conversations as let's say a challenge if not managed an opportunity if leveraged. Could you maybe also reflect on some of that kind of the importance of engaging in the land use transition in the right way and investing in nature. So Sven over to you. Sure, thanks Antoni and I was in Glasgow last week and I very much share your reflections on the progress and things that could be done more often but at the end of the day, I'm truly thinking to be an optimist and see this as the half glass half full but also recognizing in order to reach the one and a half degree target we need much more action. Still we have some very good examples of private public sector pledges like reduction of global methane emissions what we see on tackling deforestation and something that I'm really encouraged about that has already been mentioned is the first movers coalition. I believe that the cooperation between the World Economic Forum and the US State Department is exactly what is needed. We cannot see this in isolation anymore. We need to see full value chain and to create a marketplace for new technologies to drive that to create scale and through that further innovation and driving down the cost to do this. This is doable but we need to think big and we need to think value chains and for us to be a founding partner of this is something that we're really encouraged and we want to put a lot of resources to drive that. Still I also want to address something that still keeps me up at night and that's that we don't value nature as we should and we're not going to be able to resolve the climate crisis until we do that. We're a company that is part of the global food value chain and I think we need to rethink and also reinvent our food system from production to consumption. Because so far I think we've been victims of our own success of feeding a growing population but not factoring in the cost of nature and climate and now with the risk of further food insecurity we need to step up our game here and I believe that with the nature day here in Glasgow now to elevate this concern I would like to call for strong action agenda on nature as we prepare and now join forces towards Egypt for COP 27. Great thank you, thank you Sven. Now Clover I can see you sort of sitting on the edge of your seat you've been sort of listening I think patiently to the discussions and also you've been in Glasgow kind of addressing world leaders as well over the past two weeks but of course also driving for progress on climate action would love to kind of give you the floor and share with us your reflections and what you also expect to see from those on the line here but also those who are watching. Sure thank you for the question. I attended my first COP when I was 16 years old it was COP 21 in Paris and I remember going in with this really kind of star-eyed optimism that world leaders the people we've elected into positions of power to safeguard our future. We're really going to come together and act with the urgency this emergency requires and I remember very distinctly stepping into a sustainable innovation forum that was sponsored by Coca-Cola, BMW, Shell, iconic polluters and contributors to the climate crisis and I remember thinking that it felt like I was at a conference on lung cancer sponsored by Philip Morris, the cigarette company. It was my first true experience of rampant greenwashing of tokenism but also meeting leaders who were so well-versed at making commitments far enough into the future that they required no immediate action and I left the conference feeling incredibly disillusioned and despairing of the world that I had inherited and of the leadership of the people in existing corridors of power and I think that's still the way that a lot of young people feel today. This time around on my way up to Glasgow I was reading a piece from the Guardian that said that based on current commitments made by world leaders including the UK, the US, my home country of Australia, we are on track for a 16% increase in emissions over the next 10 years and that is when the science tells us that we need a 45% reduction. I've since looked again at the current pledges and as of two days ago, based on the commitments that are being made in Glasgow, we are on track for 2.5 degrees of warming by the end of the century. What that actually means for people and for life on this planet is mass extinction. It's a billion people around the world experiencing extreme heat distress. It's 99% of coral reefs being destroyed. So it's a pretty bleak future and it's I think kind of indicative of how a lot of young people, when we do look to a future that we're inheriting, see these kind of dystopian apocalyptic landscapes. Now there are days where I wake up and I feel really sad and despairing and resentful that this is the work that we have to do and at the same time, there's no other period in history that I would wanna be alive for because I feel that this is such a tipping point. It's such an opportunity for us to rethink so much of how we live, breathe and exist in the 21st century. But what this crisis demands is systems transformation. We're still having so many conversations that kind of skirt around the issues and to this point that was made by the previous panelists, we're not gonna solve this problem if we don't address the fact that the climate crisis is a symptom of an economic system built on the commodification of nature and built on the exploitation and systematic sacrifice of frontline communities. So until we're willing to have that conversation and truly rethink the systems that we've inherited from the economic system through to the food system, through to fashion, through to global governance, I'm afraid that we're going to continue to treat the issue with tokenism and I fear that there is no hope in another 10 years of tokenism. Thank you, Clover, I think some really, really good kind of drawing us to the reality that we're really facing in these negotiations but also kind of all citizens around the world are facing. And I would actually almost add another element to your points, which we haven't focused on significantly here is also kind of the need for justice and equality in this transition. Right, as you say, is that many of those who are suffering most from the impacts of climate change are those least able to adapt and to tackle those impacts as well. So maybe let me kind of also welcome those on the line here to kind of reflect on what Clover's shared as well in terms of how we move beyond kind of the current status quo but also how we in that context also really kind of look at the economic systems to equally help us tackle some of the inequalities that are at the core of that system today as well. Maybe Ann, if I could ask you to kind of kick us off in a follow-up and yeah, we'll kind of also draw some questions that I'm picking up from the audience in the discussion here as well. Of course, with great pleasure. And I think that the issue of global equity is absolutely critical, as you say. So first of all, I mean, it goes without saying that the climate finance commitments which were already mentioned need to be met. It goes without saying that climate change adaptation is key. I thought Nick was very eloquent about both of these issues. But I wanted to say a word about climate change mitigation here in this context. So it's absolutely correct to link this issue with global equity because it also means that we do need to keep a firm eye on what lower and middle income countries need in terms of their economic development. And here I just wanted to throw in a couple of thoughts. So firstly, on big global infrastructure programs, we know that the bulk of new infrastructure will be built in the future outside of the advanced economy. So it will really matter what energy is being used, what cement is being used, what steel is being used. I said it before, right now the clean versions are much more expensive. So likely that they won't be used. So it's important to think about global infrastructure programs because this infrastructure will be built. And I think that China was actually, with the Belt and Road, had an insight into what countries wanted. And it will be very important now that other programs are coming to the fore, such as the Build Back Better World Initiative that was announced at the G7 earlier this year, that this really needs to have clean and sustainable infrastructure development at its core. So if we call it Build Back Better, it needs to deliver that. I mean, the previous speaker was absolutely right. There is an element here that we need to rethink how the economy is structured. So you may have also seen that at the COP, the United States launched the Net Zero World Initiative, which will use the US National Labs to bring a lot of the expertise on global energy system decarbonization into the world. That is a good start. Other geographies will have to follow suit. So the Europeans will roll out a new global gateway strategy that is all about global connectivity. Sustainable and clean infrastructure should be at the core of this because Europe itself accounts for less than 8% of global CO2 emissions. So whatever we do in Europe will not really alter the course of climate change. But what we can do is leverage our expertise in R&D, deep tech, engineering to really unleash a new generation of clean technologies that need to be scaled, they need to be made affordable, and they need to be brought into the world. So this is a contribution that Europe and other advanced economies can make. But I will also say that we need to think a little bit differently. I think sometimes it looks a little bit patronizing when we talk about tech and knowledge transfer. So we should really think about innovation partnerships with lower and middle income countries because they have an important contribution to make here. So for example, and I will close with that, the sheer size of the Indian economy could make green hydrogen really cost competitive with gray hydrogen in this decade, one of the fastest timelines globally. So an innovation partnership with India to really accelerate scale and get green hydrogen off the ground would make a lot of sense and that ties to the global equity. It would bring solutions to climate change, but it would also bring economic development. And this is, I think, how we need to see this in general because a lot of the approaches we've taken to date haven't really worked. But maybe thinking of novel ways of doing this would yield better dividends in the future. Absolutely. Thank you, Anne. And I mean, I think as you say this notion of new forms of partnership and new, let's say, objectives to the partnerships, it is about partnering to really drive action and impact, as you say, in this decade. Maybe I think let's pick up on Clover's challenge here. There's been a lot, and for a long time, commitments from various parts of the ecosystem, business, governments, and others to drive change. But what we see and what the science tells us is that that change is not manifesting quickly enough. And so we need to wrestle with that reality and how do we really drive things forward. So maybe Chad, not to put you on the spot to give you the space to reflect in and respond. Of course, having spent your life in industry, how are things different today? What is happening today that is different from five years ago in terms of really translating commitments into real world action for decarbonization of industry? 30% of global emissions are represented there. So Chad, over to you. Thanks very much. Let me just give you one example that we're working on in the Mission Possible Partnership. We're looking at the seven sectors that are considered the hardest to debate, steel, aviation are just two examples of that. And if I go back to Clover's comment about systems transformation, these are the seven sectors that we think need the greatest systems transformation. So World Economic Forum is one of our four founding members, but we have a broad collection, including Breakthrough Energy is the key member of the organization now, that we think we can help these sectors make these changes. But we know we have to do it around the whole value chain. The steel companies know what they need to do, but without changes that the iron ore suppliers and changes that the auto companies are buying the steel, it's a management more recycle than we have today. Totally different concept designs, a true system transformation to really make this happen, to pull it all off. Building on Ann's comments about technology, we may find in looking at these seven sectors that there's a commonality like green hydrogen that plays into many of them. And if we can understand that and then really get the emphasis around how to take green hydrogen much faster, I think is one of the things that can come of this work. If I could come back to Clover's comments because I could not agree more. If all the companies doing is talking about things they're going to do in 2050, that's interesting but not very. We have to have concrete actions we're taking now to make a difference and they need to be in the next couple of years. And so in Mission Possible Partnership, all the work we're focused on now what can we accomplish in the next two years to really move this mission along? Great, thanks Chad. And actually I'm just going to kind of, let's say draw in some of the comments that I'm seeing coming in through the chat here, which sort of relate to this point. So one is that indeed, as we've heard that there are a lot of net zero targets building up, of course intentions, as well as then the risk that this doesn't necessarily translate into real impact in the near term. I think coupled with that kind of a question related to okay, therefore what would be the kind of top one or two key actions that could be taken today to actually deliver on some of these objectives that are being stated, right? Even if it's to 2030, what can we do today? So maybe Sven, if I can kind of ask you to kind of reflect on the conversation here but maybe also pick up on some of those questions that have come in and then I'll invite others to jump in as well. Yes, and indeed there is a lot that can be done today and for me, COP 21 in Paris was actually my first COP as well as three months into my job and it was a huge eye opener and we used that to change our mission, our vision, our strategy and built in the sustainable development goals because what we were doing was it wasn't enough and we needed to think bigger and we reduced our emissions but when I see how are we really going to make a bigger impact, we need to think much broader than that and green hydrogen was touched on and we're ready to move along with producing fertilizers with green hydrogen to create the fuel as a result of green hydrogen but then we need to create the markets. We cannot move that burden over to the farmers. We're already putting too much burden on the farmers but if you look at full value chains, this is not very costly but then we need to shift our focus and move more towards partnerships, holistic thinking, getting also the governments to support that, to bridge the gap to make the food system decarbonized. It's at a cost of 4% we could decarbonize it but if you think in silo, it's almost impossible to do it but if you think full, we can do this. Now I fully agree with what Chad said as well on the hard to obey industries. It's not hard in the sense that it's difficult. It's costly but the technology is there. I mean, we're bringing technology to scale, we drive down the cost. So it's costly but let's also think about the cost of inaction and that's growing exponentially. So I think the sooner we get this done, the cheaper it's going to be. Great, thanks, Sven. I mean, I can say that looking at sort of the comments coming in from the chat, there's probably less questions than expressions of maybe frustration at kind of words that have been said before, kind of concepts that have been shared before but let us be clear that actually the expectations are really around again these near term actions and investments and I think that really represents sort of the sentiments and the vibe that we did see kind of on the streets of COP, really this kind of action investment is what we all kind of need to be driving towards and I think there are some really good examples that have been shared here of really where some of this is starting to manifest but also kind of again this push to do more and to move faster. Maybe as we just looking at the time, I mean, I think this discussion is one that we could of course continue to drive for quite a while. I just want to kind of invite a quick kind of, if there's any last reflections from some of the panelists before I ask Clover also to kind of close us off with a final word as well. I don't know, Ann or Chad if you have any other further reflections on some of these points. How do we as a community of leaders trying to drive this transformation from kind of what we say to what we do, how do we do that faster in response to kind of the expectations that are being put on the leadership community? I just add that we can't wait five years to measure progress again. I think to work to measure progress in one year but really be measuring progress every three months would be really much more it's needed. And if we had the same enthusiasm of getting those positive steps out on every three month basis, it can make a big difference. Thanks Chad Ann. And can I just say, I mean, there's so many net zero commitments now, both from governments and businesses. I think we need some standards to measure and analyze what exactly does that mean? Because businesses, one business means this, another one means that. So we really need to understand, measure, and I agree with what Chad just said, we can't wait another five years. We need to measure, we need to assess every few months whether we're really on the right track or not. Great. Sort of accountability standards, near-term action, investment, I mean, these are certainly sort of themes that are coming through the discussion here on the chat but also in this discussion as well. I think recognizing the time as well, I'd like to kind of hand the floor again to Clover sort of just to share with us also some of your further reflections both on this conversation. But again, as we think to COP, right? Of course, COP is not over yet. We are waiting for the final outcomes of the negotiations hopefully within the next few hours. And of course the world will look to where that lands. What we know though of course is that the delivery and Nick said this at the top of the hour, the focus then will be on delivery of those commitments, translating them into real policies, translating them into real investments, not by 2030 but today and I think really that quarterly assessment of progress not on necessarily earnings but actually on progress towards the implementation of climate objectives will be critical and this accountability will be so much the center I think of the discussion over the next year as we move forward. But Clover, any sort of further reflections from you? Sure, well, building on that point, I wish that COP was somehow a magic silver bullet that would solve all of our problems but of course the biggest challenge is when leaders, decision-makers are not in the public eye and don't have that spotlight on them are we going to see follow-through on the commitments? Are we gonna see action at the pace and scale required particularly when that action is a direct cost to short-term profits? I think we continue to treat it in quite an incremental way because we think oh, we can do the sustainable thing while still entertaining exponential growth within our companies and still making lots of money for a really small group of people and again, this whole challenge demands that we rethink that system in and of itself and in my conversations with business leaders at the boardroom level but also with policymakers and even with young people in the street there's a lot of finger pointing that happens, right? I think none of us truly want to own responsibility for the challenge and so that would be my invitation whichever place or space that you come from is what does it look like to take true responsibility? We've seen a proliferation to take a really simple example of zero plastic commitments from companies over the past couple of years and yet what's the point of creating something that is fully recyclable, for example? If you don't have an infrastructure that actually supports that, right? The UK is still shipping most of its waste to places like the Philippines and Indonesia offloading it to countries that don't have the facilities to deal with it either but where the cost of lives has been judged to be lower than those living in a place like London, right? When I recently returned back home to Indonesia I had to go through mandatory quarantine and I went through about 10 plastic water bottles in the first day. Water bottles that I use for about five minutes only to end up in the environment for five centuries. Now I wasn't drinking from plastic water bottles out of choice but because when you turn on the tap you can't drink the water. The reality for many people around the world is they don't have access to clean drinking water. They don't have access to sanitation and so again, when you're making these commitments how are you ensuring that fair equitable communities are at the heart of every single decision and for companies this means not just stopping the responsibility when your product gets on the shelf or not just thinking about responsibility for when that product is in your factory but every part of the supply chain, every person who touches that product or that service in some way and with that is an invitation for us to shift the goalposts of business as well from the end goal being to create products through a product or service to how can that product or service actually be a vehicle for solving a larger societal problem. And when it comes to politics we need to rethink the engine that puts people into seats of power. Short-term politics and short-term gains are not gonna solve an immediate yet existential threat. So I invite everyone to rethink the system as it currently stands and critically think about what it looks like for you to take responsibility not just of your immediate circle but responsibility from a place of privilege and from a place of opportunity to step up and do the right thing. Great, thank you Clover and I think those are really excellent and positively challenging words I think for us to close this conversation on. I mean I reflect on obviously the challenges and some of the lack of progress that we've seen but also as I said at the beginning some positive hope and optimism I think for the new forms of collaboration investment that we are seeing. But your point Clover about really this need for the foundational transformation of the entire system is so critical and I think this is where these types of new forms of partnership and collaboration but also that are holding those who are involved to account to play the role that they can play are so important and is really the way that we can move impact forward. But I think let's kind of be let's say optimistic and hopeful but also realistic about what needs to change and what needs to happen as we move forward in tackling this global challenge as well. So with that I think I would really like to thank all of you, all of the panelists but also the viewers and those who are sharing your reflections and comments in the chat for joining us this morning. Of course we are looking to the hours as the COP26 closes to see where the conversations land, where the negotiations land but I think also already looking of course beyond COP COP is a moment in time at how we actually really move forward quickly to the delivery of some of these objectives and targets as well. So thank you all for joining and we hope to be on this journey with you as well as we move forward.