 Nej, den är inte in där, den är bara dom. Du tar rätt lång tid. Har du nåt ljud? Du går och ställer mig framför kameran. Jag ser vilken kameran som är ute. Jag har bara kameran mycket längre. Nu står jag mitt framför höje. Bap, bap, bap, bap, bap, bap. Nu ska jag gå fram. Du ser det, jag står hela sidan. Nu går jag fram, då. Ja, det funkar. Fan, vad bra. Färg får du hjälp? Ja, jag har det ju. Och där babblade jag på lite. Ja. Ja. Färg, fan, vad bra. Ja. Till sin stora glädje. Då vet jag att det rullar och det känns bra. Jag ville vara här i tid, liksom. Jag tänker att jag hoppar in där och ser vad som sker. Nej, nu får du rulla på. Och det är inte satt nån sådan här stopp. Ja. Tio minuter. Ja. Ja. Precis. Ja. Ja. Precis. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Nej. Ja. Ja, ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Ja. Måste när vill du att det här spelet ska. Jag vill att det ska börja med. Kommer komma igång. Någon måste starta precis. Du måste fram och starta 18. Kommer jag att stå här? Det är ju på vad du väljer att säga. Det vill säga att du ska platta borta, men sedan om du har ett bildspel och kanske någon presentation du pratar till, då är det bättre att du går hit och sätter städer med. För då om jag måste styr den här. Ja, jag menar det så det är mer än ska inte komma igång. Den jag behöver sätta igång den ett du tar. Annars fattar inget. Någon vad det handlar om. Men vi kan om du startar upp där ska vi prova att vi bara har. Ska vi ta fram sticka? Nu kan jag inte skriva. Vi ska inte skriva med en dator eller när jag tänkte att man skulle ha antäcklande tiden hon pratar. Här ska vi ha ett bildspel som ska komma igenom. Den ska bli. Så. Och då vill jag ha sådär. Sedan är det så här man ska se en video switch här. Lycka på två andra. Då är det så. Nu när du kommer fram här, då kommer antagligen den där ligger på elban och då trycker du bara på en helst hand. Så. Sen kan man ta upp någonting annars. Kommer jag spränga an där precis. Men då får den vara igång och sen för sen trycker du början av. Sen börjar bilderna rollarna precis. Ska vi peka så har du en. Det börjar inte. Då tänkte jag sådana fallet som du står här så håller vi oss till den här mikrofonen. Ska vi bara se här om. Det är här. Det ser ut som en silvete. Kan du ha det? När du tar det här. Och sen kan man se om. Och sen går ni andra upp. Vi går upp ännu än. Nej, var bra. Well, it's a pleasure for me on behalf of the Royal Swedish Academy, to wish you all welcome to the Gordon Goodman Memorial Lecture of 2015. And I welcome in particular the Gordon Goodman Lecture, professor Lawrence Tubiana, chief negotiator and French ambassador for the climate negotiations, and also the other participants at the seminar that will follow the lecture. It's also an honor to have Ambassador LaPouche here in the audience. Welcome. As most of you know, Gordon Goodman became in 1977, the founding director of the Bayer Institute of Ecological Economics here at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. That today is a leading institute of international reputation. Earlier than most, Goodman realized the political importance of the climate issue. And together with a late bat Berlin Academy member, he organized the series of meeting which led to the establishment of the IPCC in the mid 1980s. And in 1980, 1989, the Swedish government set up a new environment developmental agency, the Stockholm Environment Institute, and Goodman became its first leader. Therefore, it's quite natural that SEI and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences together host this event. Our academy has during the years, at least that I can oversee, been highly active on issues related to global sustainability and climate change. The academy is, for example, the host for the international use fair biosphere program, IGBP, the worker which has contributed to the success of IPCC. IGBP will now close at actually at the end of this year, but I'm happy that the academy has contributed to the establishment of a Swedish hub that is part of the Global Future Earth Secretariat. And that secretariat also includes a hub in Paris. Future Earth will replace IGBP and the other global programs. And I firmly believe that Future Earth will be providing scientific evidence is needed for future IPCC reports and also hopefully future helping future climate negotiations. The academy has several highlights when it comes to global sustainability. And for me personally, it was the third Nobel laureates symposium on global sustainability that was held here a couple of years ago and that brought together 20 Nobel laureates, all as well as leading experts on sustainable development. And at the end of the symposium, a memorandum was signed by all the key Nobel laureate and handed over to the high level panel on global sustainability appointed by the UN Secretary General. And the very important meeting between science and politicians and negotiators. And I think it was important. A month ago, the academy published an update on the scientific basis of climate change and an update of the IPCC report. And as late as last week and some of you are here today, the workshop was held here at the Academy on Global Sustainability, Relation and Values. So we are looking forward today to hear about the road to Paris and negotiations. And by this I leave the word to Ambassador Bo Cheleon, who for many years has been Sweden's leading climate negotiator. He has led Swedish delegations to UN climate change negotiations from the start until his retirement. And now Bo is currently an associate of the Swedish Environmental Institute, sobo. Thank you very much, Stefan, and welcome to all here. And a particular welcome to Ambassador Jacques Lepage, who has already had a seminar together with SCI today and the Engineering Academy of Sciences, which on adaptation. I would say that for me it's a great personal satisfaction to have this, have had this close cooperation with France and the French embassy here on these two events. And it is only natural then that we have Lawrence Tjubiana, with all ambassador for climate change and a special representative of the Prime Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France with regard to the Paris Conference this autumn. Actually I have known Lawrence Tjubiana before we have been negotiating together on sustainable development, and it's a great pleasure for me personally also to see her here. Since I mentioned sustainable development, I think that together with the climate meeting in Paris in December, the meeting in New York in September on sustainable development goals, also marks that this is an extremely important year in the international cooperation on environment and sustainable development. The program is before you, there will be a number of discussants. But first of all, I would like to ask Lawrence Tjubiana to take the floor for her Gordon Goodman Memorial Lecture. I am, and I think we all are very happy to see you here. I managed in Bonn last week to get into a room where you were speaking. I know that you have had so many different assignments over the last year and will continue until and after the Paris Conference. But we are very happy to see you here in Stockholm now. So welcome, you have the floor. Thank you. I'm very happy and honored to have been invited to give this lecture. Now a little less than six months before Paris and I thank you all in particular Bo Kjelen, who has asked an insistence that I could come and it's a pleasure just to stop from this very, very demanding process, not always rewarding process to be here with having a more peaceful and thoughtful interaction than one I normally do these days. I wanted to share with you some elements of how we see and based on what kind of expectation the Paris Agreement could look and why we are trying to develop a vision of a more global outcomes under the agreement itself. And that's why I wanted to explain you today. Just to come back to the idea that this process is, as we said this morning, is a complex process because he's trying to solve and to respond to an extraordinary challenging issue, which is a product of a billion of people activities, the second industrial revolutions outcomes and and in a way the core, the core itself of the development pathway for the past century. So it's not simple and most of the time of course people doesn't understand why we are so long to create a framework to address that, but just I think it's good to remind us that it is very difficult. I have sometimes comparison in time. When you look at the trade negotiation, it took more, it took since 1948 until 1994, that 50 years to agree on something which is far more simple than addressing the issue of climate change. Discussing about the trade liberalisation, meaning to lower the barriers to trade and even not all but some of them only and just to have just a reform of the border tax and is something normally much easier. But it still took 50 years to have a broader agreement. So when we started this in 1992 only, and of course we are already not totally of course going at full speed, I must say. But still we have to understand that it is a very complex and that's why this convention of 1992, this climate regime has been trying to respond to a number of difficulties and failures and has proven enormous dynamism. The lens of the process of difficulties is in a way hiding whatever the deep changes and the deep process of essays and errors that has characterized this regime and it is a profoundly evolving regime over time. And when we see all the sort of the main mind stones since Kyoto in 1997 where Kyoto was all about timetables and targets, sometimes described as a totally top-down exercise, which was not really the case but never the left, it was portrayed like that. And when you see the different difficulties of Kyoto to have everybody on board and the attempt in Copenhagen later and the different aspect that were finally finalized in Cancun, in particular this notion that the developing countries could put Namas nationally appropriate measures on the table, transform and in Cancun again, the prospect of having a legally binding agreement was absolutely out of the table and then came back even in Cancun as an attempt and finally took part in Durban platform with this idea, we need one. We need not only a commitment from countries on a voluntary basis, we need more than that, we need a framework, we need a more centralized framework to achieve that and that's what in a way has led to Paris. So anyway, we are constantly adjusting this process to try to respond to the challenges to encompass the complexity. And in a way where we are there is to try to go from a deep and narrow agreement which was supposedly again, it's a simplification to be the Kyoto style, to a shallow and large one, which is trying to of course, let's have less of a profound commitment in particular in the legally binding form of these commitments, but have everybody on board and so we had finally a very classical evolution of many treaties with the views that because it's climate change and because greenhouse gases are a global problem, a common pool resource problem, we have to have of course at least a base of a very large agreement even if we can go on certain aspect and certain sector, probably a sort of a more narrow and a more deep one. This figure is what has been in a QN and David Victor paper, I think in 2009, representing I think something which was very useful for me when we decided to design the strategy for the Paris Agreement. And in particular when you look at the, of course, what is if we think that finally addressing climate change is a product of many, many action and many, many elements, the notion that we have a regime complex, more than an agreement, which is only as a central mechanism that can really modify whole behaviors. I think this notion that finally the regime is complex and is constituted by different elements and you have to work on all these elements. Of course these figures of 2009 should be now different because we have many more element in there, but the interest was just to show that not only UNFCCC, which is in the upper right, but as well IPCC is embedded in the regime. There are of course the action of agencies, but the action of local authorities, mutual development banks, etc. And that even there you can find that is a club of countries who are doing and now more and more, it's a club of companies or club of cities. So this notion that the regime is complex again was very useful for me to design what could be the outcome of Paris. If we don't believe in miracles, which will not happen in climate change and of course I will make this available for everybody in the famous paper of Victor and QN, which is quite, at least the figure is very useful, the paper is good, but the figure is particularly useful. And if we don't believe in miracles and one text, one legal text can do everything, which is not the case. There is no evidence that the legal agreement and internal treaty will modify behaviors of billions of people. So we have to understand the result, the outcome of Paris as something if we want to be serious in really to produce a shift in the expectation for the future. So we have to work at these different levels and the concept of Paris outcome is exactly based on that. So the rationale behind the Paris agreement is clearly building on the theory of rational expectation, which is in this house would not be surprising. Swedish economists have been really active on this front. And the idea is to think about that, how we can modify the expectation so to modify behaviors. And these are different behaviors. Investors behaviors don't obey to the same incentive and don't respond the same than I don't know developers in urban planning or whatever. So the notion that we have to work on this and we have to work on all the elements of the climate regime, having a broad conception of this regime and to try in all of these elements to make the expectation of every of these opinion leaders or actors or principles. If we reduce this sort of this concept borrowed from economics, all these principles have to share the same expectation that the way we think the change can happen, not because a legal treaty will decide it because everybody would think that this will happen. So it is very much relying on the fact that the self fulfilling prophecy will make the job. So how you create this, of course, is another story, but that's behind the Paris outcome that has I proposed to the French government and apparently they just accept that. So what is at stake in 2015? It's simple in a way. It's about changing economic and political signals in favor of the low carbon economy. In it's about the alignment of expectation of government, local authorities, businesses, consumers and citizens. So on the 12th of December, the formula of the success of Paris could be this one expectation of change. Most of people, 50, I don't know what the threshold should be, believe that this, this will happen. So of course, this doesn't mean that it is simple to do. And sometimes I use a metaphor. It is like a sheepdog in a way. It's like to push people and countries and everybody from behind to say that's the direction you have to go to. Or at the same time, like as a magic float, how you attract people to go in that direction. But the notion, but basically because we lost, we don't have, we never had by the way, the notion of a centralized emission of the signal have disappeared together with the timetable and targets in particular, including a global carbon price. I put that in black because I feel that in many of my colleagues in universities believes that we should go back to this. This is so much cleaner, simpler and more and more nice in a way. If we could have one central signal and everything would align around this signal, that would be so good. It cannot happen once because many countries doesn't want that and many, many, many other reasons. I would not be like, but so as we don't have this, we have to produce the signals in different areas and with and attracting different actors, which don't respond again to the same incentives. So that's why we describe the Paris Alliance for Climate Action around based on this looking for converging expectation and making this signal appear in different areas of the complex climate regime. That we should have a legally binding agreement by the way that the mandate France has received from the Durban platform. So we have to deliver that. That's what we are in a way paid for or we pay for depending on the way you see that. It's quite expensive by the way. I should not recommend any country to do that again. We, of course, we have, and for me, it's separate because that the group of what the countries are decided to put forward for this first phase for 2015, which we call the Intender Nationally Determined Contributions. We have to have a financial signal, which is both respond to the commitment of 100 billion per year by 2020 that was promised in Cancun. But, moreover, to look for post 2020 vision, which is how the financial system respond to the financial necessity of the transition to this low-carbon economy. And we added another area, which we call now the Lima Paris Action Agenda, or Solution Agenda, which is a capacity to capture the commitments, meaning the plans and the expectation of a number of non-state actors, non-parties, to the agreement, but will make a big difference for the agreement itself. And these four elements, of course, it's a simplification from the complex climate regime I presented to you, will be in a way the outcome of Paris. So four elements to simplify again what we are looking for. And there are, of course, these four elements, and there are, of course, a huge linkage. Depending on the rule we decide on the legally binding agreement, the contribution would be rather different. You may know that we have had in Lima a long discussion about the inclusion of adaptation of what we call in our drug on the mean of implementation, meaning finance, in particular, and technology, in the contribution of the countries, whereas some countries were insisting on the mitigation aspect of these INDCs. So there are, of course, linkages between finance and INDCs, between the rules in the legally binding agreement and this contribution, and, of course, on the capacity of government to be more optimistic about their capacity to deliver. And this is very much related to the Lima Paris Action Agenda itself, meaning the capacity of businesses and local authorities to engage and to demonstrate. They believe that this will happen and not, and relatively with reasonable cost. So if we just think that all this we have to think broadly, but then we have to find something in common between all these elements. And in a way like for every type of institutional arrangement, and in particular international institutional arrangement, we are in a way looking to these six points which are classical in environment governance. We should find that in each of these elements you have a consistency, coherence, and that we don't have trade-offs and contradiction between all the elements, or at least diminish these trade-offs. Accountability, if we, again, work on the global climate regime concept, government are not the only ones who should be accountable, so we have to find some way, a way to create this accountability for, in particular, for non-governmental organisation and publics. We have to look for effectiveness. It's not worth working to a very complex agreement if it doesn't deliver, so it has to really be useful and limited to what is useful and not just for the sake of having an agreement. It has, of course, a huge element of reduced uncertainty, which is basically the reason why many actors are doubting on their capacity to deliver climate action. Sustainability, which is, I think, something that is coming on, and it's good that you cannot think the transformation of societies through climate lens. You have to think more broadly to what sustainability is about, which is the way of development. In a way, an epistemic quality, meaning that you cannot just ignore science. That's a very important element, because many times in this process we have had, of course, a strong contribution of IPCC, that will be the case in every step, and every step forward from this process is linked to, in a way, on another IPCC report. But then we have to look for, in this particular important, on this long-term goal, which I will come back immediately in a minute, what is consistent with scientific knowledge. We just cannot ignore this, and many times, of course, in the process, we have the scientific knowledge on the side and just proceed without referring to it. So that, in a way, is the elements we are looking for in each of the components of the climate regime we are trying to put forward. I just want to characterize what we think should be, and somebody, I think, the journalist asked me earlier on what is really important for you in the Paris Agreement. And I could describe that this is four elements, of five elements. In the legal binding agreement, we are looking for rules or commitments, but we are really, it is a process to build rules that are here to stay. So the idea that this agreement is not for ten years, but it has to define the rules for, on a longer term, and that rules are to be, the binding element are to be the rules. The commitments themselves, the numbers that countries are putting forward, should not probably be embedded in the agreement, but yes, the rules and the commitment to implement. So I think that is a very important element of the bindingness, in a way. This agreement has to refer to a long term goal, and to move from a timetable and targets we had in the Kyoto thinking, to something that it is more decarbonisation pathways. And you saw that progressively we tried to adapt this language in the discussion, since Konkun, by the way, we tried to adapt this language of the low carbon economy pathways. Now we are just trying to look at it in a different way, to try to characterise what it is about decarbonisation, in particular the energy system. And we got in the G7 some kind of recognition that we, we have this long term goal, is not about an abstract figure of temperature, is about doing something effectively about energy in particular. So the long term goal in the pathways notion, more than the timetable and targets, is of course a very important element. Then in this agreement we have to have some kind of revision mechanisms. Because we know that the contribution is the initial contribution, we don't make it. And we have to upgrade, update this contribution over time. We have to have somehow the relation between science and the delivery of the contributions, and to have a review of adequacy, at least an adequacy of commitment for the next phase, if we cannot, for political reason, produce a review on adequacy of achieved performance. And then we have to have as well a transparency system that creates confidence that nobody is cheating or not cheating too much in my messes. So that, that are really the, I don't see the minimum because I don't, I don't know what it will be the minimum hopefully. But I think that the central of the core, that makes sense for the agreement in Paris. And I'm certainly forgetting very important element. I haven't just pointed on mitigation, adaptation, on finance or technology to try in a way the concrete expression. But this should be the core of the system to last. Of course on the contribution side, we would like to have them as many as possible. And I didn't copy the good formula that didn't got the right example of my PVP, but I could come back to that later. So the idea on the contribution is really to shift from a logic of targets to a logic of pathways. And in this aspect we try to accommodate the notion that under logic of pathways, countries have to think to their long term pathways. And they have to be of course combined with multi timeframe, target packages as well with operational multi sector. But these ideas that you have to think about the long term and not only on the first period, which is what is now on the table for 2025 or 2030. That is the way I think we should in a way change the narrative. And it is coming I think to come. I now see countries like US or China happy to go with this pathway discussion. And surprisingly enough the Chinese leaders of the negotiation can say this agreement is there to support and develop the low carbon pathway for all the economies at world level. So this notion of pathways of transition is now coming in in the process. I wanted just to revise with you where we are in geopolitical terms. And this is borrowed from presentation from EU commission on the way they stated the state of the play, if I can say so, of the different countries and the different group of negotiation. The first element on the legal form means the firewall for those who are not fortunately for them in this discussion since many, many years. Meaning there is a different structural difference between the commitments of developing countries and developing countries. That's why we, that we call the firewall. And of course it's normally take its major expression in the legal form. And so you see that on the legal form the one who want the lesser legally binding elements in the agreement, you see that US and China and some are on this side, NMDCs I think yes. Yes and Arab countries in particular would like really to have a very soft agreement with mainly voluntary commitments and no more than that. Whereas EU less developed countries houses I like that is Latin some a group of Latin American countries Alba which is another group of Latin American countries want a strong legally binding rules. On this differentiation between developing countries and developed countries of course the weak, the weak differentiation with not so much surprise comes on the US and EU sign. And I like and China are really in the middle in between whereas NMDCs which regroup a number of developing countries, middle income developing countries mostly there are some less developing countries in the group. But more sort of, that is their key points that difference between developing and develop and they want to keep the firewall intact. But Africa houses in less developing countries are still very keen to this differentiation. As a mitigation element you see that of course a strong participation to reduce emission comes from the developed countries side mainly EU, US, I think Singapore are on this element. China and NMDCs of course would like to take less possible even if China is somewhere in the middle and our this and less developing countries are the middle. Meaning not because anybody asked to less developing countries to take any strong commitments but because they insist probably sometime more on adaptations and on mitigation for in a way something somehow surprising as a result. On the ambition cycle China is certainly more hostile to have a revision of mechanism whereas the other ones are much more in favor of having a very strong, regular every five years ratcheting up mechanism. And on transparency and rules finally of course you see that there is a big group in the middle and quite different of NMDCs, US, NDCs and OZ small island whereas the one who are for stronger rules South Africa, Brazil, EU and OZs are really on that side whereas China and others are really wanting to have the lesser, the more, the weaker rules in terms of transparency because of the issues about sovereignty and adaptation. You see that finally there is a majority of countries now that are in favor of having a strong dimension of adaptation in the agreement. Africa, OZs, NDCs, China are all in favor whether US and EU are more careful because they would like nevertheless to have the agreement focusing on mitigation first where loss and damages which is not liability but the problem of solidarity with victims of impact of climate change, US and EU are more, doesn't want to have this strong in the agreement they would like to have a separate point for the core whereas LDCs and OZs of course is a strong point. So that are the main elements and on climate finance the group of developing countries is in majority is insisting on public finance on the level of finance whereas US and EU being in the middle whereas markets finance through markets EU and China being the more advanced I think US doesn't have a strong position on that for evident reasons because they are not prepared to buy anything outside whereas EU is prepared and China wants markets to be there OZs, NDCs and LDCs are not very, very, they are in the middle they are not particularly against, not particularly for whereas a group of countries, Alba, is definitely against having market, anything about markets in the agreement. So we add to all this a pillar we call the solution action agenda which require of course a little bit of thinking because it's a type of one together with some other institution of the climate regime that doesn't will not be part of the agreement per se they will not be part of the MRV cycle they will not make commitments officially within the agreement but still we would like to have this non-stake, non-party actors accountable, effective and developing in a way a big support for the agreement itself, its long term goal and the shift this agreement is representing so we first try to establish for to convince parties that there was a value of having an action agenda as a common outcome one because it facilitates the implementation of the existing INDC why this, it's quite evident that many countries were concerned about that this action agenda was a way for developing countries in particular to escape their obligation so there is of course a lot of tension there if we count or if we consider action from local authorities, from financial institution, from businesses this is not the way to escape from formal obligation of governments so that's why we insisted on showing that this is a way to facilitate the implementation potentially to increase over time the ambition of future INDCs because it will lower the cost of technologies just because take the very simple example of the green procurement policies of many cities at world level now that are putting in place this create markets this of course increase the technology supply, demand and supply of course lowers the cost of technology that will lowers the cost of capital and will of course generate higher political pressure meaning it's more facilitative from the government action at domestic level the second element was to send strong signals as a transition to a low carbon economy is feasible, profitable inevitable in a way that the self-fulfilling prophecy argument is in the under way and in a nutshell shaping expectation of all these actors and that will of course contribute in a very high way to this element who are the actors we are trying to mobilize and to try to make a template of all to record and to register all this action the subnational authorities which have been very very active the more active certainly since well before Copenhagen the businesses which are now coming in much more forcefully but not for example avoiding totally greenwashing far from it investors and in particular that they really is a new one the banks, the institutional investors the credit rating agencies the insurance companies are coming now and now I would say the multilateral development banks largely because we ask them to come forward and they are coming forward in particular by October they will come with their plan to increase climate finance there was launch in September as you know in New York based on a long term action of many actors on some companies and some local authorities to develop multi-stakeholder initiatives international public private partnership and NGO which really has been quite active in pushing or supporting some of this in particular to try to make accountable this engagement of non-state actors and to review and you see now these days they for some moments they lack a lot of quality of scientific quality but a number of reports you see to try to evaluate what is a real contribution of these actors so the NGOs are already playing third-party roles that I think is a good thing for the future with of course a condition that there is really a rigor in the analysis and the evaluation so there is a political rationale to encourage national state to do more that's what sort of modifying the political economy that of course behind this is the main rationale to do that and the substantive rationale is to catalyze concrete action on the ground which I think will give many there is a learning process out there and of course this has to be developed so and I can take example I don't have so much time but we then develop a template for business to really to explain that and that of course are the key messages we wanted to have out of this action agenda that it is not a sideshow which still was a case probably in New York we want to create a virtual circle of increased ambition with these that the financial without the financial piece have a strong role to play to support leaders of different initiative and the road to Paris is not so much important but the road from Paris of course is even more important and we need to be well prepared now of course the question will be how we inscribe this commitment in the when I go back to the climate regime figure I had in the beginning and I will end there how we inscribe this in the agreement do we make a formal relation between all these elements and the agreement and it is very important how we for example capture what the MDBs thank you what the MDBs would do can we have a registry where the local authority or the region of the businesses will put their commitments should we have a body that revise these commitments can we ask them to sign up the agreement to the objective objective of these agreements can we have, I take the example for example the aviation issue we try to regulate it to try to put a carbon price on the emission we fail on the EU level but they take then a voluntary commitment of halving by 50% the emission by 2050 meaning what, where do we put these commitments who is controlling it and do we ask the aviation company to sign up to the agreement should we ask the companies to display a long term pathway of emission reduction to have their low carbon economy pathways should we create club of countries that can for example try to discuss between them of a carbon price or to develop technologies together or to develop deep decarbonisation pathways that's something that based on the minimum which will be the agreement will try to produce or to foster this club of front runners just to try to see that over time we can do much more than we believe nowadays and technology of course the key element of this but not only that just projecting every type of actor has to project itself in its own capacity to what is the future and what a low carbon future represent for him in terms of the change in the activity in the business model in the way to behave etc etc that's the type of thinking of course I know we cannot develop all this by Paris but we could at least create the framework where this behaviour thinking scenario backcasting activities could take place in the future and use and that will be my final word and sorry to have been so long that these 15, these five years between the 2015 and 2020 between the entry and the force of the agreement should be taken as a fantastic opportunity to accelerate action and to put all this in place so ideally we will have this big picture in Paris ideally we will have the main rules ideally we will have this framework to have this new actors and this global vision to be inscribed in Paris and of course develop all the concrete elements afterwards thank you Well thank you very very much I think that when we started thinking about this Gordon Goodman memorial lecture and we thought that it would be ideal to have some cooperation with France on this presentation and in particular to have you as the main speaker I think we had an idea, at least I had an idea that it would be exactly the kind of presentation that we have had now and also it gives me a feeling of hope I mean we don't know exactly how Paris will really develop in the rest of the preparations and so on but at least I must say I haven't heard any host country for any of the meetings that we have had have such a coherent and logical view of what could be achieved and in what way one could best put together all the various elements of a very complex reality So it is not surprising obviously you know there are special links between Sweden and Descartes and the Cartesian spirit of France is there No, I wouldn't say because this presentation has captured so much of the reality and of the background for the negotiations and I think it's the ideal background for the panel discussion that will follow now So thank you very, very much and now I'd like to invite Johan Kylund Schärna who is the director of SCI International to have a brief talk with Laurence Tibiana before the panel discussion starts So would you please join Johan here and you are very welcome to the Rostum as well but here please I forgot the same scene over here and there will be a microphone coming up here Is it okay if we just take it? Okay, so thank you Thank you very much Boo and we will just have a short chat and I will explain what will happen now is that after this short chat we will have a panel for really competent people who will come and give their perspectives also on the road to Paris from different perspectives after your excellent presentation then we will have a panel discussion and we actually have more or less an hour or even more than an hour for open discussions with you here today but also people following us on the live stream and you can also ask questions and I will ask one of my colleagues to try to follow if you use the hashtag the only hashtag that is really relevant now COP21 hashtag COP21 we will try to monitor that if there are questions coming up also to you and also to the panel but I mean just to follow up briefly a little bit one thing and this is a technical issue Ambassador to Vienna you are ambassador for the climate negotiations can you just very briefly explain what that role is actually I mean you know France is the host as the government and of course you have your ministers there who will be active and the president is very active as well in his personal capacity what is the role of you as an ambassador can you are you really working together with nations now before negotiations and what exactly will be your role at negotiations in Paris the ambassador for climate change and the special representative as a particular role compared to sort of ambassador at lunch is that I had the delegation of France that's my first job when the minister of foreign affairs is not there I am the head of the delegation or the minister of environment when it is a French position within EU then Segel and Royale the minister of environment should be the head of delegation when it is about the presidency then it is Laurent Fabius who should be the head of delegation and so I am here when he is not there meaning so that's the official role that I have to work with a team which is of course a team within the administration the French administration coming from different ministries working together we are about now a little less than around 40 people working from treasury to agriculture and environment and foreign affairs people and we of course are actively working until Paris what are we doing I propose when I arrived last May to the French government that we should work hand in hand with the Peruvian presidency Peru took the presidency of COP 20 COP 20 on the first day meaning I think it was the first of December I don't remember exactly and we'll be president officially until the 30 of November 2015 because we knew that there was a lot to do to be done we proposed to the Peruvian that we start early as a presidency so not waiting until May or June which is a classical moment where presidency shift but to work with them from the very beginning of 2015 but having them until the end of the year it was in reality more than a practical arrangement it was a political arrangement as well because I think and there is such a lot of mistrust between developing countries and developing countries that to have developing countries on the side side or side or shoulder with us was the best way to convince that we were looking for a balanced outcome and the third element was that it's so important to have a different perspective and we see that every time every time we have to draft a paper a background paper for an informal meeting conclusions decide how many countries will invite and how their perspective is different very different finally and it's very interesting to balance that so what are we doing from this January 2015 we invited several informal meetings to try to have that head of delegation level start the ministerial level in July to try to see what are the landing zone of this where can be the compromise the character of this negotiation is probably everyone knows more or less where is the landing zone more or less that's not one point and it's the landing zone it can be still large but for the moment all countries are keeping holding their cards so we don't negotiate really for the moment we are waiting I don't know what for to negotiate hopefully really in August so the job of the presidency is to accelerate this process this mindset that we have to compromise and we have to compromise early the final element is we would like to avoid the Copenhagen scenario the Copenhagen scenario arrive for many reasons one was the text itself was very difficult to produce all the parties and we arrived with more than 150 pages in the beginning of those two weeks in Copenhagen so I understand the anxiety now I understand it very well the anxiety of the presidency saying how we deal with that what is the possibility and we want to avoid that because we want to avoid to table of French text we want to have a text that is largely in totality if possible coming from the process of course presidency has always to work at the final moment to finalize the agreement but was a base that is known by everybody and everybody understand where the lending zone is that's the type of work we are trying to do in parallel to the process in very good intelligence with the co-chair so I've been long but that's explanation of what I'm doing I could get that understanding of the different players and actors I really appreciate also that you how you have been working together with Perules as well as you say this north south divide is still very obvious how long is the text now you said you know in for Paris is 160 pages is it now a crisp 10 page document yeah no we don't have it so the hope is that now the co-chair of the group of negotiation which now it's a north and south combination a pair has had received a mandate in bond to write one a paper I hope it will be much more concise this one is really awful the one we have and to have a clear and concise and more with a number a reduced number of option and then we can try to really start negotiating the substance in August but as you say I mean already in 2009 and you stress it very much also that the climate negotiations and when we talk about climate issues in general they are very complex they relate to so much in our society energy, agriculture, cities, etc this complexity will it not be how will we overcome the complexity and thus also get a quite clear agreement in Paris how do we deal with the complexity versus actually reaching a clear agreement this of course depends on the degree of preparation of countries it's improving since Copenhagen it has improved immensely it's not done nevertheless because when you look at I had the conversation with a friend of mine the secretary general or executive of a commission the economic commission from Latin America and when she talked with government that have been preparing the INDCs she realized that for them it was many times a shock it's something to say we will do something for climate change but when it's different when you translate to transport policies to the energy prices to the energy to the scenario and when you begin to think about 2025 or 2030 which is the horizon that most developing countries have chosen well that's a projection you don't know every day so there is really a technical, intellectual, political, economical difficulty so I think that's why we have to be very clear on the rules without creating enormous concern that it's really impossible to fulfill that we have an evolving system that can go from relatively low demand for a number of countries to higher demand over time and that's a complexity, a clear system which is at the same time evolving it's tricky but we can include revision clause not to be able to if we can't resolve everything we can include revision clause we can try to indicate the main direction in the agreement and then to go more with more precision over time in the rules so we can do a number of things to create more certainty which is finally what many countries are looking for Just also to understand in terms of complexity one issue that has been very challenging in negotiations before is how to deal with specific sectors for instance the agriculture sector, the water sector etc both in terms of mitigation but also adaptation and to a certain degree we have sort of kept sector discussions a little bit outside of the negotiations I mean in water which is my own background I know sometimes you try to keep international waters out of discussion because they are also politically very yes they are not helping many times nor not so easy with the major rivers how will you deal with that in Paris because there are also quite a lot of push to really get sectors in there because adaptation and mitigation is very much linked to the yeah absolutely one issue is that these sort of this separation between we discuss about commitments which was very Q2 focused and we don't discuss on policies so there is a big divide into we discuss on numbers and the countries do whatever they want but it's not the business of anybody else it's now fading and now the idea that you put forward your policies and there are sectoral policies at the end of the day I think it's improving the picture so it's not international policies you are discussing you are discussing your own policy it could be your own carbon price policy or your own transport policy you are not discussing it with others but you are just displaying the way you would implement your commitment meaning you create which is happening already a series of communication of information between policies and if I take other sectors I know from my past studies or past academic activities when you look at the extra rate policies for example or a number of policies that were sometimes were conditional to funding but somewhere only the every country looking at everyone saying what is the best and what I can borrow and you know in the literature in the academic literature most of the convergence of policies didn't come through imposing because countries are connected by geopolitical reasons for trade reasons and that is I think what will happen we can have a convergence of policies on many issues particularly the share renewable it's clear that that's I was commenting that I think at lunch or previously you see that most countries would have a sort of a target on renewable energy which is relatively comparable it's not because they have made a very serious studies that if China do 23 or 25% or 20 by 2030 I should do the same it's just because it begins to be a reasonable number and it appears to be reasonable wisdom that you can do so much in your country and this is I think focusing minds so that's why the sectors are back to the discussion but back in a way through domestic policies and that I think is a very big benefit of this process I mean it was like Ambassador Lindstedt said this morning it's a bottom-up approach coming in to what was previously more of a top-down approach maybe that was actually one of the benefits of the Copenhagen conference we needed also the bottom-up the final question before I let you rest a little bit and we have the panel and then we have the discussion also with the broader audience after the panel we have the Paris meeting is actually the third meeting this autumn following not just link to climate change but also we have the finance for development now in July where governments will come together to broadly discuss financial issues for broader development perspectives we have the SDG, the Sustainable Development Goals being hopefully accepted in September in New York the 17 goals on the table here and of course a lot of us are saying there are linkages between these three clearly how important is it what would you like to see in July and in September in a way that could actually provide positive input also to the process of parents are there any specific sort of hopes or desires apart from just falling apart of course yes, first not falling apart it's a good condition the second is to really because it's so important we have had this discussion about sustainable development and it begin to crystallize and I think even if some would say it's too many 17 objective it's too many but these goals are very important because they just integrate very deeply all environment in the economic development and social development so I think the September meeting is really very helpful because it provides a framework for the climate discussion and sometimes of course we can be negotiators climate negotiator can be or tend to be a little narrow minded if it's not in the agreement in the negotiation they would not care so much that's why it's difficult for them to address water issues or we are talking about ocean these days why ocean are or not in the agreement for negotiators it's just a question out it's not because climate change is not important for ocean and ocean not important for climate change but it's very difficult for them that they are really looking for this agreement to consider all the elements that's why to have a framework of sustainable development as a not only a shampoo but something that really should determine what do we do for climate change in the context of sustainable development I think it will not be a phrase now it would be something much more precise so is that the big win which I think is hopefully out there under financial for development we are of course on a more tricky discussion because it's still about what is responsible for what can we have climate finance additional to ODA which in many case doesn't represent the reality because when you are financing clean energy you are financing development financing climate action as well but that means only we have to have more public finance in the system and how much developed countries in particular are prepared to how much this movement of developed countries would finally incentivize all the major economies to go on and to follow this path still to be determined and I'm not sure I hope we will get a rational and good result a good framework in this but of course that's a more complicated part you're a bit more worried about the finance for development and more optimistic about the SDGs to provide that framework thank you very much it will be much more tricky question coming from the audience when we are in the panel this was just a warm up so thank you very much now you can rest a little bit and I will actually invite we have four speakers now who will provide different perspectives also on our route on our way to Paris and I'm very pleased to first of all introduce Michel Colombier Michel please join us who is scientific director at the Institute of Development Durable Relation International Idry in Paris I'm also very pleased that Idry and SEI together with a number of other European think tanks are talking more how we can actually work together not just on issues related to climate change in Paris but also in broader terms so Michel I'm very pleased to have you here the floor is yours thank you very much thank you for inviting me and participating in this very interesting discussion well it has been seven minutes so I think I will focus on one point precisely which is the following I think that for the people that are not on a daily manner involved in this negotiation but also sometimes for the people within the negotiation there is an apparent paradox or even contradiction in the way the discussion the international discussion has evolved the recent years on the one hand since Copenhagen we have managed to operationalize some of the global objectives that we have defined in real we have adopted this two degree pathway this two degree objective long term objective we are also trying to define global adaptation objective and at the same time we are speaking more and more of a bottom up approach we have based this Paris agreement on the presentation by countries of so called INDCs intended nationally determined contributions and there is a question out there to what extent this bottom up approach this countries presenting their contributions this is what I can do etc can really deliver and we are defining as global common goals and I think one of the quality of maybe of Copenhagen Copenhagen was a failure but maybe it was a creative failure is that we have I think profoundly changed the paradigm of the negotiation and that maybe for the first time since Rio I think we are defining the challenge as a common challenge for all the countries that are present in this negotiation and we are trying to explain this in six minutes now I think the first point that has really changed is the fact that the problem and the solution has long been defined as an issue of cost it would be a cost to change the way we relate to energy to change the agriculture model etc etc yet a number of reports since the Stern report the new climate academy etc har made us understand that it's not so much an issue of cost it's an issue of investment investment in a new economic model but that this economic model this different economic model can be profitable to all profitable to our countries profitable to developing countries and so the big issue is about the transition how we can manage this second it's not just a matter of experts in the last decade a large number of countries and not only countries but municipalities, regions etc private sector have undertaken action it's clearly not enough I mean if we look at the trends we are far from what we need obviously but it is very important in the experience that all these people have gained some driven just by political opposition because in the US nothing was happening they wanted to do something at regional level, state level etc others because they understand that it's a challenge because they think they are accountable to their citizens because they think that they have maybe a competitive edge for their company in doing so etc the motivation is not very important the fact is that an important number of people, constituencies institutions countries have learned a lot through this tentative action during the last decade and we see this already in preparing the INDCs I can tell you no country certainly would have been able to present an INDC in such a small period in time ten years ago because it really necessitates some understanding of what is possible at each sector etc discussion you just had I think this is very valuable for the discussion even if you have to recognize that well it's not sufficient we cannot go as this and the third point and the very important point is that time have passed and science also has evolved and what we know today is that eventually but soon after the middle of the century we need to be almost we say carbon neutral whatever it means it means that for our energy systems we need to be almost zero emission by the second half of the century not just us here in Europe but every country around the world and so every country around the world today coming to this negotiation seriously taking seriously into account the two degree objective and I think that almost all countries are coming seriously all country has to face the fact that being developed countries, developing countries emerging countries or whatever by the second half of the century it needs to have adopted a low carbon economic model and this is a very important shift to the previous way we were discussing because we've been discussing for years in trying to have this burden sharing approach we need to reduce starting from now looking ahead we need some reductions, who would reduce I can reduce a bit if you reduce a bit more I can reduce a bit more I'm not reducing because it's too early I have other priorities I don't have the capacity so you can reduce etc this discussion was leading nowhere clearly we are now I think in a very different position where every country should go to this negotiation table by saying if I'm serious I need to undertake that transition and so my question in the negotiation is no more should I act or not how much etc I am driven by my own necessity to drive a transition and drive it as smoothly as possible but as efficiently as possible and my question to the negotiation is what can I take out of this negotiation to help me in a transition to support my transition so what is the collective value of this negotiation so the transition in my country will be possible, will be profitable for all my citizens and will eventually be made in 30 years time which is very short period in time and obviously we have very different challenges in our countries where we have all these assets locked in the carbon economy physical assets but not just physical assets intellectual assets capital assets etc etc in very rapidly growing countries where the issue is about this rapidly exploding cities and you need to produce electricity more and more etc Are you able to put all this capacity at a speed that is a tremendous speed and developing countries where the challenge is still different the question is to what extent this new approach can support the development objective of the countries and also help them not to stay I would say on the side of this new profitable economy which is very important and I think this would be my last point I think the negotiation now is really about if all countries are coming to the negotiation with this challenge in mind the first question is really how we shape expectations for every agent, every citizen, every mayor every private sector etc etc that this is the new normal and we have the responsibility our countries but also emerging countries because we are defining the technology we are defining investment trends etc to shape this new normal for countries also and then we have the big responsibility also to make it possible for the poorest countries of the world not just out of solidarity or whatever but because it is the only way for us also to make our action valuable because we need their action if you want our action to eventually reach the 2W objective we have I can just ask you one question so you warm up a little bit we warned the other panelists as you are saying and I really like what you said you call it logic of logic of pathways I mean this is what you are describing in a way don't focus so much on targets we have to really have the pathways to a low carbon economy but still also from your own experience and from Idris experience isn't there a risk still if we are not managing this this is seen again by many developing countries as a way for us to get out of really committing to serious cuts I think that the issue about committing to pathways is not about France for instance saying I will emit 80% less in 2050 so the big issue is what is the consistency between short term action and this long term objective and we see this in Europe for instance the way NGOs the way stakeholders etc are discussing the proposal by the council etc is not well we are proposing minus 40 but compared with the Americans etc no the way we are having a discussion in Europe is well we said we want to decarbonize Europe by 2050 but this 40% is not sufficient the speed we are developing renewables etc is not consistent with our long term goal so I think it's not about committing to pathways not committing to short term action that is as far as we know with information we have on science of technologies etc etc which is making it possible for this transformation eventually to happen which is completely different so it's really about the short term ok thank you very much let me invite the next speaker Anna Lindstedt ambassador and chief negotiator of Sweden for climate change you have the same title but for Sweden climate ambassador I don't know if there is a difference to be an ambassador for climate change in Sweden or in France but I know that you are quite often also leading the Swedish delegations to the climate negotiations and you were just coming back from Bonn also after two weeks and again also for this audience I have to quote I was sort of in contact with Anna over the weekend and asking her can you tell me something about negotiations that you want to share so let's see if you're going to share a bit more now so please Anna the first words thank you very much I think there's a slight difference between being an ambassador for climate change for Sweden and for France at this moment although we are doing our best not just Sweden but all countries in the world to support ambassador to be an eye in her very important role I was ambassador to Mexico before taking up this position in 2011 I was holding the local presidency for the EU in Mexico in the run up to Copenhagen where we had this this idea of this is now or never this sort of there is no plan B and our then minister for the environment is with us today and I think what happened in the run up to Copenhagen and in Copenhagen we had these huge expectations that we would solve everything in one go and what we came out with was actually not that bad but it was this complete disconnect between expectations and what was really achievable at the moment that made us so disappointed and I was following closely ambassador to be an ass colleague in Mexico at the time Luis Alfonso de Alba who was picking up the pieces after Copenhagen and started to build trust between all different countries in the world and I think Lawrence you are doing that in a similar way so we are very confident in having you with us on this road to Paris and it's very good also to have Jacques Lapour as ambassador to Sweden we were colleagues in the negotiations beforehand so I think we are doubly blessed by having you here as well and I Dr Colombia was very interesting what you said about this is actually we should be optimistic because these are opportunities we have the stern report we have the new climate economy actually an initiative taken by Sweden to commission this report so to put costs on the table but also show benefits of action because this is not just necessary for the world to move towards this new economy low carbon but also climate resilient it's not just necessary but it's also an opportunity it's an opportunity for our businesses it's an opportunity not just for people but for our businesses so to change the narrative in the EU we've been looking at this burden sharing how do we share costs but we need to change that and see also opportunities I really admire your explanations Laurence in framing this as very complex and also something that is not just what is happening under UNFCCC but all the multilateral institutions and bilateral multilateral cooperation clubs I think we need the clubs but it's not enough we also need to have this this new global framework it will be the first truly multilateral agreement that is applicable to all but we shouldn't be I mean we shouldn't be disappointed about what we have achieved because we have achieved a lot and we always tend to see the glasses half empty rather than half full I mean considering it was very relieving to get this analogy with trade negotiations because we are not there yet but we are on our way and I think that's important to remind ourselves about that the legal agreement that we need of course it's really important to give a signal signal to countries but also to all kinds of stakeholders and I see the legally binding agreement that we will reach in Paris as sort of a platform and as a communicating body with other processes so that we can inspire each other so to say and it's important that we build a multilateral system that it's not just about reducing emissions of course that's the core but to do that we also need to have all these other components adaptation, means of implementation, not just finance but of course finance is vital but also capacity building, technology transfer technology transfer is a key and to move towards this finger pointing you should do this, you should do it catch 22 to a system whereby we cooperate, we facilitate things for each other and it's a win-win not just for developed countries and for developing countries but for all of us and to find a system where we can not just punish and point fingers but also facilitate and support support each other and I think I mean we've moved towards a bottom-up system but we also need to keep some top-down elements obviously to have legally binding rules and to be able to follow up and to to be transparent to see and follow up actions that have been committed so that we can see that we are actually on this right on the right path and to find this very delicate balance between what is needed and ambitious enough and what is actually feasible to be a little bit pragmatic we know the limitations we know the limitations of some countries when it comes to legally binding to find the right kind of balance and find a solution whereby commitments and targets might not be legally binding per se but to find the linkage between the legally binding core and the accompanying decisions that actually make them in practice legally binding also at an international level I would like to finish by saying that we need to leave Paris with an agreement that is not just applicable to all but also something that everyone can take to their heart and take home to their governments and say this is something that we can really implement implement this is something that is doable this is something that we can use for our domestic work because we know that all countries including Sweden and France and the developed countries we have a delicate internal discussion also with different interests between our environment ministries and finance ministries and heads of government and state it's not it's not that straightforward for any of us and there are countries that have an even more difficult balance let's take the oil producing countries all the economy on fossil fuel dependence and I think it was quite important when the Saudi Arabian minister said in Paris recently that we know that we cannot depend on fossil fuel forever I mean that was way ahead in the future but I think it was an important signal and probably the first time that the country like Saudi Arabia had said that in public and I mean in the bilaterals we have that is the idea and they were building diversification but to say it in public and I'm quite optimistic because I know that from bilateral talks with virtually all countries in the world that all parties to the convention now want this agreement we might not want exactly the same thing but we want the agreement and we are all working those who haven't presented their indices are all working on them they might be a bit skeleton like in the beginning they might be quite rudimentary but at least they will be or the majority of countries will have presented their indices well before Paris and they will then be filled with content but once again an agreement that everyone can realistically implement with support with different forms of cooperation and all of us incentivizing each other to do more over time thank you just one more question for you as well you have led quite a lot of discussions around loss and damages and I know these are particularly difficult parts of the negotiations as well but they show some success in the recent meetings what has been really the triggers to try to get countries in an area where there obviously are very strong conflicts to sort of get together and eventually agree on a way forward you are pointing at a very difficult issue that has been difficult for many many years we did manage with facilitation by Sweden to agree on an international mechanism in Warsaw in 2013 I think that was a landmark decision not an easy one to reach and not enough for some countries but at least a very important milestone and then we know that there are countries that are eager to have this as a pillar of its own in the agreement and then there are some other countries who couldn't accept this at all I think there is a landing ground in sight it's about being pragmatic build again, build on what we have and also one important part of it I mean we have this whole issue of compensation and liability which is not really realistic to include in the Paris Agreement but it's also about recognition it's about responsibility but solidarity so it's really it's building trust that is a very important aspect ok thank you very much let's move to the third speaker Kenneth Kimmel president of the union of concerned scientists it was interesting when I had a chance to ask you because you know quite a lot of companies they are always saying standing up and saying well I'm here representing my company we are 150,000 people working and you should get impressed of course you know you get impressed and then I asked Kenneth so union of concerned scientists how big is that well we have about 500,000 members in the US mostly so you are bigger than the biggest corporations in the world so 500,000 very concerned scientists standing behind your back ahead on the road to Paris so please the floor is yours good afternoon I'm very pleased to be here since those 500,000 members will allow us to punch above our weight thank you to the Stockholm environmental institute and the Royal Swedish Academy for having me it's very meaningful actually for me to be in this city our founder Dr Henry Kendall was here 25 years ago to receive a Nobel Prize in physics and he founded UCS because he was very concerned about the fact that so many American scientists were working for the defense department on military matters and this vision was to put the best scientists in the country at work on the most pressing problems of our time of course including climate change from our perspective as an NGO we look at Paris as the best and perhaps the last chance to make a substantial down payment on our obligation to future generations we feel that if we do that historians will look at this year as the pivotal turning point when we finally got serious about climate change if the Paris agreement fails I think history will not judge us kindly here's what's the most important thing to us about this agreement we look at it as a down payment we agree with the other speakers that the aggregate totals of reductions that will be pledged will not be enough to get us to where we need to be so recognizing that it is a down payment we need a long term goal embedded in the agreement that's based on science and that galvanizes the attention of the world and sends an unmistakable signal that we're not talking about whether to decarbonize we're just talking about how and when we also think it's critical that this agreement take into account the rapid almost blinding pace of change in the field of energy imagine for example if we had set targets in Copenhagen in 2009 based upon what we thought the price of solar and wind and natural gas would have been in 2009 boy would we be off in 2015 and boy would we have underestimated our ability to make change so I think this agreement somehow has to have a combination of long term goals but a flexible means that we can keep into take into account what's changing in the world and so we are very partial to the idea of the ratchet and review the continuous cycle of improvement that minister to be honor talked about and we think that's going to be an essential part of the goal of the success of the agreement. As the only panelist from the US let me comment on the US's pledge a little bit and what we see as some of the issues we support but strongly president Obama's pledge of 26 to 28% we think that is a credible pledge we think that does increase the united states pace of decarbonisation and probably the most important thing about it is that that pledge is actually based on regulations that are either in place right now or will be in place by the time the president leaves office so it is not a hope it's not a dream it doesn't require the new law to get passed it's a reduction target that we think we can make based on existing law but that being said like other countries we're going to need over time to increase our level of ambition and this is where it gets hard because we are an incredibly divided country politically perhaps the best way to example I can give you there was a resolution in the US senate a few months ago about the keystone pipeline and the resolution was the senate agreed that climate change was real and humans were a significant cause of it that resolution passed by a vote of 50 to 49 with only 5 members of the majority party voting in favor of it so 5 out of 54 republican senators said no to that resolution and that tells you in a sentence just how difficult this is going to be so we know that our role is to build the political coalition for a larger majority so that we can get beyond the 26 to 28 percent and I'll be happy if people are interested at some point to talk about some of our theories on that but let me just finish by saying this I think the success of Paris and the success of the United States are very very linked we need to in order for Paris to be successful the United States as such a large emitter needs to be part of that but I would say in order for the United States to grow beyond the 26 to 28 percent reduction Paris needs to be a success because there are many people in the United States who would like an excuse not to do more and the very best excuse we could hand them is other countries are not on board they're not doing their fair shares so why should we so I think the United States needs to be there for Paris and Paris needs to be there for the United States as well thank you Thank you very much Kenneth and also thank you for sort of bringing up the perspective of the US and the challenges you have there as well I mean in terms of what others speakers have said there is a sense of optimism and if I can interpret you correctly there is also a sense of optimism from your side President Obama has stepped up quite a lot how can we ensure that this is actually a longer term stepping up I mean Obama is in his second term that tends to be a more ambitious president in the second term what you are signaling in terms of the majority in congress is a bit worrying two years from now is it very much depending on who the next president will be or can we see sort of the US stepping up more more generally I feel pretty confident that the things that the administration will put in place will stay in place regardless of who the next president is but I want to be honest to get beyond that will require national climate change legislation which we don't have and that will depend in part upon who the next president is but it's also one thing that's important to point out a very good chance that the senate will flip from republican to two years just because of the interesting math we have about our politics so I think what really is happening in the United States beyond the national level though are two very positive things one is while there is paralysis at the national level at the level of state and regional governments there is not paralysis and there are some tremendous leaders like Jerry Brown in California who is actually in some ways taking his state beyond what any nation has even pledged to do at this point there is also a very large and committed business sector wind developers, solar developers, battery storage, there is a clean tech economy emerging in the United States which is becoming a powerful voice for these reforms so I don't think it would be easy for an incoming president to derail what's already been done but there's a danger that we won't continue to lead in this area so it's incumbent upon groups like us to really change the conversation in the United States and build a political majority for change I think we'll come back to that in the panel as well because as you say the US is not just any other country there are a number of countries like US, China, Brazil, India, Russia together with the European Union of course and others who will be really important if Paris will succeed or not so I'm sure we'll come back to it to understand more of the politics there thank you very much let's take the fourth and final speaker before we really get into the hard core discussions with the audience I'm pleased to introduce Johanna Sandahl chair of the Swedish society for nature conservation you also have a fairly good membership don't you in Sweden how many are you? 221,000 you are only scientists you are a smaller group 1,000 in the country of 9 million it's not too bad 2.3% of the city population you see? Johanna the fourth I don't think I will use this in a while there will come another just a second yeah but I won't use it now this could be on or off or whatever I'll show my pictures in a second thank you for inviting me I'm really happy to be here and from I'm supposed to speak from the CSO or NGO perspective and of course I can't speak for all NGOs all environmental NGOs I can speak for S&C and of course we are pushing for a deal in Paris that is bringing very very quick changes that is bringing a shift from a global economy based on fossil fuels 221 that is based on renewable energy and helps vulnerable people and communities with the climate impacts but in the same way we are of course aware that the deal will not be that ambitious and we too want to avoid the Copenhagen scenario because of course it's very frustrating that still very many issues are unresolved and that the core in many of the discussions still is about a fair deal who is going who will be the forerunner who will take responsibility, mitigation finance that what is a 10 million US dollars every minute spent on dirty energy while the 100 billion US dollars per year is really really hard to find to help poor countries with adaptation and mitigation and of course it's very frustrating that what the pledges will have will lead to at least 3 to 4 degrees above prehistory times anyway as I said we want to avoid a Copenhagen scenario because as Anna mentioned it was horrible for the LGO community as well not only the result that we were disappointed but the expectations were as you know enormous and we noticed at SSNC we noticed in the world that the NGO community just shrunk the mobilization was massive and then it was just this total disappointment and you can see on all graphs we have that engagement really dropped after Copenhagen and we want to avoid that because that's not gaining anyone and no process in the future so what we've been discussing now is how do we communicate before Paris and after Paris as I said we know that the deal will not be as ambitious as we want to and as many people in this room want to but we still need to communicate in a way that we say this we need radical agreement but still don't make people very disappointed afterwards so should we communicate disappointment relating to what is really needed or should we communicate success relating to what is possible and some of you others have mentioned this and it's a question very relevant for us so in Sweden we have decided to do initiative message before Paris we want to say that many people really see that this is possible and that someone said this is the new normal I think it was you and our campaign from essence and sea let me see if this does it work yeah it's climate maxa it involves a lot of people and it involves ordinary people we've asked people to do to support us and to tell politicians that everything is possible or this is possible we can achieve enormously a lot of of things just by knowing that it is possible and these are pictures we've just started this campaign there are lots of people around doing this access and that's the support they do it on instagram and send it to us and we've been touring around to take pictures as well because I think I do get the feeling that still in the climate negotiations on a global level there is still this notion that even though it's changing that the last country that is stuck still in the can recognize some people anyway that the notion that the last country that is still in the climate the fossil economy is the winner but of course that is not the case of course it's the case that many as you mentioned municipalities companies have realized that maybe it's not very cheap just this today for a renewable economy but of course it's the most profitable thing to do in the long run there are many examples California was mentioned Freiburg, Bogotá, Seattle, Copenhagen, Malmö, London and also businesses here in Sweden you have the Haga initiative that is gathering a lot of big companies pushing for close to zero emissions by 2030 in Sweden that's the same as we are saying we are trying to convey a positive message to convey that municipalities businesses and loads of people want to see this happening it's just it's really really possible and try to push politicians in Paris to make radical decisions with this in there as a hope thank you very much you want to maybe thank you very much I haven't seen myself actually I know I did this last summer oh my so thank you very much Johanna one thing that is really interesting as you said expectations were extremely high not just among the CSOs but among public in general at least in Europe and then it sort of felled through a little bit in Copenhagen isn't there risk somewhere that expectations are too high because we have heard so many times both this morning but also in the afternoon that we should have high but realistic expectations high but realistic expectations don't you sometimes raise expectations too much I think that was what happened in Copenhagen so how do you try to how do you tell people now exactly I think what we want to say is that Paris is sort of the floor and then it's loads of examples in the world municipalities, businesses people just pulling the floor upwards and that the cycles we are now talking about that we get a global deal Paris is okay includes all countries and then we can do the reviews every whatever fifth year to push it forward but not to talk about Paris as now or never because that's still sometimes heard so it's interesting that you say that let's get a good agreement in place that provides the basic floor and then we can actually increase the ambition I think that's at least how we think that it's best for us to communicate but maybe we want to scream it's now or never okay thank you very much can you join us now everyone at the table here and we turn off yes thank you I think it's off now people won't see any more exels here please take a seat any tweets not so much so in a second I will let the audience come in and we can start to ask questions just to give you the style I hope what I will do is to allow a number of comments and questions and then I'll let you reflect on them you can select a little bit but if you try to avoid the question I will detect it if I can still start with a short question to you because you gave your presentation you then we heard input and Anna of course also represents government then we also heard a little bit from the scientific community from the CSO community how the expectations and how we like to engage with the Paris negotiations from your perspective how important is it to actually have other actors like the scientific community CSO businesses supporting or trying to influence negotiations what is the best role they can play in order to support you could say the Paris meeting I think for what I heard it was very clear that if we share the vision that Paris is at the floor and then we build on that then I think we can really use all the energy coming from the mobilisation of so many different actors in the projection to the future and not just like to crash because we cannot get what we dream of and I don't know where we will land but anyway wherever we land in the agreement if we can crystallise and capture all this energy and transform it for the future at least and really fight for that every element to this transformation is in there I think then the message of Paris will be the message of change and that in different with different terms different words from Michel from all you too so that's what is so important is like not a lobby that wants to get something is like organising a force to go further and this force is independent a local authorities action and NGO action is independent from the government they will not stop because the government fail or succeed they will go on but then you create the synergy which was maybe not there or maybe has to be increased so I think you know there is a two ideas of demonstration in Paris one would be on the 29th of November and there is a plan to have one on the following morning on the 12th of December and if this goes well this demonstration of the 12th of December is to look for the future celebration celebration but not celebration we are happy what do we do now because that's important thing whatever we can celebrate in Paris and I would be happy if of course we would have a success and etc and as Laurent Fabius says many times if everything goes well it will be Holland because of Holland capacity if it fails because of Laurent's failure so I know that so of course I have a vested interest in success but really that's not that important the importance is just to crystallize the energy and we say yes we win something it's our first step and we are not under with the depression of Copenhagen as a country we have with a lot of energy to go forward and that can be very different because we expected to Copenhagen to solve things if we expect Paris to start things and not because only of government but because the local authority will be there business will be serious and not again green washing and insist on that so that's why then the pressure is absolutely fantastically positive whatever form it takes that's excellent because it is of course in a way as you say key that we balance between again the expectation and what is realistic in terms of the negotiations and that shouldn't prevent us from doing much more than whatever the results in terms of the interaction between politics and science if I can just ask a quick follow up to you Kenneth as well because we actually here and we are in the house of the Academy of Sciences but in Sweden we have not least we've had quite some discussions about how much should science scientists be engaged in politics and trying to influence politics I'm sure that it might be similar in France and elsewhere in the US we have at least a perception and looking at the organization that scientists are becoming at least more and more involved in politics in many ways and is that perception true and can you see any risks there in terms of for instance looking at the climate change negotiations and the role of scientists I think that's a great question I think scientists are getting mobilized in the United States they are speaking up but one thing that is frustrating to some of us but it's a reality is we in the United States are a very tribalistic country and most people read a certain newspapers that confirm to what they believe and they don't really listen to other people so what we have found is the best way to use scientists is to use them on a local level and so we have a whole network of scientists across the country and if we go in to meet with a senator or a congressman we have someone from the district who's teaching at a college that that person respects in other words sometimes the messenger who that person is and whether they relate to that audience is much more important than the scientific information they have to the other question you ask there is a risk and at least at the union of concerned scientists we have scientists who talk about the science of climate change and we have economists and policy people who talk about what's the best route to decarbonize and we try to keep those separate because we want to protect the integrity of the science and separate it from the policy okay that's interesting thank you very much let me get some feedback and questions from the audience please wait for the microphone it comes here when you get it you introduce yourself and you can give a comment statement or a question but it's still still rather short please okay thank you in Osveden Stockholm resilience center I first of all it's really interesting afternoon and if it's true the vibration of some optimism necessity of course after the Copenhagen frame the question is then what is it that is the basis for this see me optimism or whatever is it correct assessment and what are the elements so three aspects and you could find some other also is it that the public at large has gotten prepared of sort of counterforces and so there is more what you could call transformation preparedness in the general another one which has been talked about other price curves of the new technology and that it was quicker and the prices were better on the solar and wind and whatever so there would be a transformation of the technology transition in cost terms or is it this actor groupings the mayors and partially groupings of new couplings between business types of actors or the california case or whatever so those were only three suggestive type of you could say checkpoints maybe there are other checkpoints or these are these true or not true or just hoping or other others thank you it's a very good question and of course there are certain linkages if you can demonstrate thanks to technology whatever it is that it becomes cheaper and not so difficult we tend to become more open to change maybe is there another one over here yes please I'm an ambassador of climate change leadership at Uppsala University and I guess my question is directed to ambassador to Vienna so we're being led to understand that the deal won't be very ambitious and when I think about that phrase I think princip about mitigation is the deal going to be ambitious on finance what's it going to look like on finance and the mitigation not having ambition and mitigation I think is maybe easier for developing countries to sit with than a deal that's not ambitious on finance and I wonder if you could talk not just about what the finance outcome might look like but also what the politics of finance are within the negotiations and how that may or may not sweeten or allow for a deal at the end of of our two weeks in Paris thank you very much and links a little bit to the early discussion about finance for development and the relationships between these as well any additional input at this point yes we have one here and then I take you as the first in the next round so Mons Lönnrup please thanks my name is Mons Lönnrup I have a question for the Rans as I understand it you want to shift from targets to pathways and the the linch linch pin in the sense in pathways is expectations and expectations not of the outcome of the Paris meeting but expectations of all the diverse actors around local authorities, companies whoever whatever I'd like you to expand somewhat on how you see these expectations are changing and how you expect them to change of the coming years thank you, excellent, very good question Lans, I'll let you think a little bit because there are two questions directed to you and maybe take the first more open question about the positive drive that we can see and first of all, just with the raise of hands, the panel would you say that there is a positive feeling now moving to Paris how many would agree with that okay, they all agree on that so now the question is coming back to you why is that so so Michel please maybe just a couple of elements just don't want to monopolise the floor but I think technology evolution is obviously very important but at the same time I think it's not an important psychological driver for a number of people what has happened on the solar etc convince a number of people that certainly something is possible but at the same time I remember a discussion with the minister of environment of Germany very recently who was saying well the problem we have in Germany is not that we have failed the development of renewables is that we have failed the closure of the coal power plants it's not because we have technologies we are solving that problem technologies is an opportunity but it's far from sufficient to solving the problem and we know that without other drivers the technology will solve nothing we have improved efficiency etc and the economy works in such a way that we just take technologies to develop so they are other drivers and I would just mention two I think one of them I think that we have a much clearer view today of the connection between the climate agenda and the agenda of development the agenda of socio-economic satisfaction of our needs etc this is becoming very concrete remember for instance last year when there was the football thing in Brazil World Cup in Brazil everybody was on strikes etc what were these people asking for they were asking for cities with public services they were asking for the basic social services in these countries and saying we don't need football we need transportation etc this is precisely the same agenda we are addressing with climate I think these things are becoming real and certainly it's very important because it's no more about is development first or it's first the development agenda development environment etc I'm not making things easy somebody say well it's very difficult in the countries we need to deal all these there are budgetary constraints there are assets etc but we know how to integrate and so we are no more discussing climate policies but we are I think discussing how we can proceed with development etc integrating this in a very concrete manner and I think this is important and the last part I would mention I think we are we are understanding better what it is about also between the top and the bottom to some extent we have all these local authorities, private sectors and GOs, citizens taking action etc what's the role of governments in today's and to some extent I think the role of government is not to define everything and define the rules and make all the deals etc but it's really to change the issue of risk and for the time being the risk is still on the innovators it's still more risky to be an innovator than to proceed with the classical way of investing, dealing with money making decisions etc and I think the optimistic way of looking at things is that an agreement in Paris would be able to shift progressively the risk from the previous normal to this new normal and supporting these innovators etc in their way of looking forward and shifting the risk to the others to the traditional way of thinking to the traditional way of investing etc and we see this happening already in the financial sector who is starting to have a different appraisal of the value of investments not just because of the risk of climate but also of the policy risk that some assets may incorporate etc and I think this is a very important aspect that a lot of people out there are looking at all this issue from a point of your risk people in the finance sector do not bother if it's about climate or not climate if it's about renewable if it's coal industry etc etc they are agnostic to some extent but they are starting to have a very close look I think at the way we develop so partly the optimism can be derived from the fact that there is a better understanding among a lot of different actors today about you know the possibilities for investment the fact that this is not sort of a separate issue from development it's actually something which is fully integrated into development so solutions are there it's also something that makes things complicated it's clear that when countries for instance are doing their first and this is they are discovering the whole complexity of this transition while in Kyoto for instance it looks very simple because I mean it was about reducing gases reducing gases is something very virtual and we can agree on reducing gases so I think we are at a very interesting moment where things are becoming very concrete real so actors are confronting we have controversies we have discussions it's not making things easier but I think it's making things hmm Johanna just before I let you come in Anna you also raised your hand so despite the fact that you had some kind of depression after Paris from the CSO society you are optimistic again what is the reason for that optimism among sort of your constituency and the fact I mean your 230 000 members here but also in CSO community in a wider sense is it a realistic optimism or are you just gearing up again and the risk is very high that you will crash I think it's actually both to be honest but we really want to tell our members and I mean they engage citizens that it's an important meeting and that we really need this deal and for it to happen we need to say that there is a chance that it will be a good deal so that's part of the truth I think but I also think that there is a big chance that there is I mean just the fact that China and US are onboard both of them there will be a deal but then of course how good will it be and I think there is now an acceptance that the floor or the starting point or what have you that the now never approach it's sort of it's not discussed in that way as I can feel it just to one follow I mean what we've heard many times in the recent couple of years we saw this morning in the seminar it's this drive from the private sector we say it's very important corporations are onboard you said that many US companies are onboard we know that not just in the US by the way there are other companies who are not still onboard depending a little bit on the sector from the CSO perspective is this just positive as you see it the fact that the corporate sector is more and more engaged you can say or do you see risks Well I think mostly it's positive of course everything that is done is positive I think but of course there is a risk that if you put too much possibility in the lap of businesses and countries step back and think that well it's been taken care of by someone else that is not in the negotiating room so of course that's the risk and you put too much believe in that someone else will solve it That's risk with other actors stepping in if government step back and you wanted to comment on this the question as well Yes I think it's very interesting because I think it's a responsibility of all of us and I think it's very encouraging that faith communities are coming forward it might be not be so important for Swedes that the pope is issuing an en cyclical because we are not very religious we are a very secular society but I think it's hugely important for the rest of the world and it's an important signal I think we need we need to move towards more of also philosophical discussion I mean what makes us happy it doesn't make us happy to go to Thailand twice a year it doesn't make us happy to consume it doesn't necessarily make us happy to eat meat I mean things like that so we can actually have a better life but while we reduce our emissions I think we need that's the kind of discussion we need to have and I think it's very encouraging that you have so many members but we still have I think we've been moving towards a very individualistic society in Sweden over the last few years and that is something that we could work on without finger pointing too much and I think it's a tricky balance Can I but also on the finance issue because you are also a party I mean you are representing Sweden Do you have any comments on that particular aspect as well It will be one of the crucial outcomes I think from the Swedish government and Sweden as a whole we believe in setting an example both on climate action domestically and abroad and not least on finance and I think it's very important that we have made the biggest parkapita pledge to the Green Climate Fund this is symbolically very important although it isn't the biggest overall pledge but it's the biggest parkapita pledge and we saw that during the autumn that when we came up with our pledge we actually pushed other countries because for many we get this ball rolling and we recognize what's going on in the south-south cooperation and it's not just about developed countries providing finance I think that's very important because it's part of our commitment part of our previous commitment and part of our moral responsibility and solidarity with those who suffer and are more vulnerable but also for our self-interest I mean we have an interest in other countries taking climate action because it benefits all of us but also the south-south cooperation because there's a lot going on take the new south-south cooperation funds being set up in China that will be hugely important they're probably much more important than what's going on under the Green Climate Fund and to bring that together somehow and recognize it and work together it comes back to the question of coherence that you also brought up in your presentation in the end there's a mechanism and so on coming up Laurence, over to you On the first question of that what makes the optimism where does it come from I will take all your points in a way preparedness of transformation but it's not only public as Michel Colombier said it's government preparedness which is really unprecedented now it's sort of I was describing the Chinese context where in December 2009 the low carbon strategies that EU was putting forward was considered as a really a threat by China and then two or three months after they began to work very seriously at that and now it's a totally embedded concept for them and this is coming in we had an informal consultation in Paris was head of delegation in May and we had a long discussion on decarbonisation pathways it was the first time it was the first time we could engage in a discussion where we had a kind of discussion some countries saying I don't want to hear about decarbonisation as I am a country like Venezuela living from fossil fuel I can consider low carbon deep decarbonisation we had a discussion on pathways but really a real discussion it was not again minus 5% or minus 10 or minus whatever it was a concrete thing and so I think the preparedness is helping a lot and I would say that as well this of course I would not phrase only technology but this opportunity we know part of the solution not all not all for two degrees clearly it's quite far away but we know most of what is needed and we know how to do that and that I think is changing the picture coming back to the outcome I would not agree with you with a low ambition on mitigation really not but just say I think it's very ambitious to have a mechanism that where all countries commits to present mitigation plan when all means all when alls means including developing countries including even if they are not obliged to but they will do less developing countries it's not so much for the quantity of the emission reduction which is that important but it is a concept that everybody would look at it everybody would look at it and not like before saying we need to increase emission which was the actual mode of the negotiation but we have to consider seriously if we can reduce and when meaning again not think about reducing but mean about what do we do in sectors, specific sectors how much we can do more public transport how much we can have efficiency in buildings how much we can do urban planning I think that's really on the substantive part this is absolutely unprecedented this is very ambitious so I would not say it is not ambitious on the mitigation side it is very ambitious but it cannot be done overnight it cannot be one step and the solution is here I cannot even anticipate how China is a central piece of all this isn't it, as US how you can ask China to know precisely and commits to which is what we need we would like to be ambitious in the classical meaning how we can ask China to be sure what the Chinese economy would look like in 2050 compatible with the 2°C and know what it is about they can have a sense they can have an idea they can see what is needed what does it take to do immediately to have a chance to get there but they cannot describe as we can commit to it for 2050 and if they want to consider putting this before 2020 which they are prepared to do I think it's very ambitious but of course that's why and I'm sorry if I send a message it will not be a very ambitious agreement it is a very ambitious but it doesn't look like what we are accustomed to look for in the agreement that's something like really it's totally a misunderstanding what does it mean legally binding and we have famous professors of environment covenants here in the room is it about so what does it mean really to say it's not ambitious because the numbers are not in the legally binding agreement what is a compliance mechanism beyond measuring, reporting and verification we had in international treaties Aside from WTO and WTO is about trade dispute it's not about sanction do you agree together if something is going wrong between you and you settle the dispute that's something, it is not sanction on the rest we don't have any guns to force anybody to comply with this commitment I would say for the ones who are there the immense majority of international treaties even nuclear proliferation doesn't do that you can use sanction it doesn't work very well by the way anyway so what I think is this agreement is very ambitious but you have to consider in a different way but I mean it cannot solve everything in one step so that's why it's a starting point doesn't mean that it's not ambitious but you cannot ask an international treaty between government to change the whole economy, that's not realistic that's not real, fortunately if you can have an agreement that change the whole economy would be all of us out on the street crying because that would not be even close to anything democratic so I feel it is ambitious agreement because he encompass everybody make a first step where we have to be serious it's about the clarity of the rules and the implementation of these rules on finance what we can do on finance we can do first what I think Anna has said we have to mobilize more public funding and we have to have a more intelligent discussion about finance finance has to be in line with sustainable development objective I think we cannot have this intelligent discussion if we don't add more public funding because we will not even open the door of the conversation in Addis adiba for example but then we have to see how this public money which is small compared to whatever is needed to really have access to capital markets at really very reasonable cost or very very low cost for some of the countries we need it and I think that is possible again it will not be delivered totally by Paris but we will have a very important element in particular engagement of the banks who are really taking large share of the risk for the private capital to come in and even for the national capital as well as the international capital I think that will be if we can get this ecosystem right we will have done a huge job in Paris and I'm thinking I think we can do a lot before Paris to do that so that's the way I respond to the finance ambition it's not in terms of numbers because the numbers are really very big we have to mobilize after 2020 but it's a sense of how we create mechanism where not only China can get access to a capital market but Mali or Burkina Faso or Ethiopia, that's the one and they are asking for a lot Ethiopia is asking for 200 billion to do its carbon neutrality because they want to export electricity to the whole region and that's good so that's the money we have to fucking buy it ok thank you very much and I think it's an interesting point that what you're saying it's an ambitious agenda and we're looking for very ambitious commitments in a way but they look a bit different from what we have said in the past and I think coming back also to you Johanna in terms of communication this can be very very critical to actually make people understand that even if we don't have clear numbers 40% 50% it can still be an ambitious agenda and there we have a challenge no doubt, I mean to have a global agenda where all countries commit vis-à-vis having an agenda where a few countries would put very clear targets that would maybe appear as more ambitious but it's interesting also Johanna when you talk about finance and mobilizing public finance because one aspect is of course also making sure that the investments we will see and that's the whole new climate economy story in energy infrastructure in city development in agriculture et cetera investments that will take place regardless of climate or not and how we can impact and how we can influence that investment and of course in the new climate economy they point out that 90 trillion dollar up to 2030 so the 100 billion dollars in the climate green climate fund it becomes nothing I read an interesting article in an Indian newspaper I think it was New Delhi Daily or something like that just pointing out that with current trends the urban population of India is around 2050 so in 35 years it's like building all existing US cities and more even because it's more than the US population so we have to think building Chicago, New York, Miami Los Angeles, San Francisco, whatever up to 2050 in 35 years hopefully not the same and that's the thing hopefully not in the same way and that's what we are trying to say I'm gonna bring in a couple of others but it becomes like a dialogue so please Thank you, Anders Thirusson coming from the Ministry of Environment and Energy I have passed in the climate change negotiations and in particular perhaps Copenhagen where I participated and I think it's true what you have been talking about and analysing right now the sense of optimism that we have right now and I agree with your explanations it's clear that at the bottom of it all is an increasing sense of that it's possible that it's doable and it's changing the whole pattern changing the instructions of the negotiators it's changing the definitions of the national interests et cetera et cetera so this is extremely and profoundly important I think at this time around before Copenhagen we were becoming worried I remember and the response to this urgency, the sense of urgency was basically to enhance the expectations and I think this was the dynamics that we had the more worried we got the higher the expectations raised et cetera but there is another perhaps a question in regard to this what we had what was typical for the climate change negotiations was the need for a kind of burden sharing very much of the discussions was about burden sharing I haven't heard you talk about burden sharing today I think not much at least so my question is really is this because the concept of burden sharing is actually fading away so that was one issue the other one of my favorite topics is the enemy of the climate change negotiations the complexity they are complex because they are digging down into the toolbox really it's not a formative process basically it's a process about tools how to do it actually so therefore it has to be complex but the negotiating rounds have been characterized by walking from a very general stage like and the climate change convention in 92 down to a very complex detailed treaty like the Marrakesch so you can see one round of negotiations encompassing 10 encompassing a decade going from generality to something very detailed and now we are there again something very general came out of Copenhagen the accords and of course my question is now where are we in Paris down the road are we reaching the end result or are we on the way somewhere and in this context of course perhaps my most important question where do we have the 2 degree target I mean everybody is talking about acknowledging today that Paris will not deliver the result that is necessary to reach the 2 degree target so then of course we need some kind of process and hopefully Paris will deliver that process that will make it possible for the parties to go further off to Paris and how will this mechanism look like in your view ok thank you on the final one it is important we have heard about this pass we are entering we need some kind of monitoring mechanism we need to be able to every 5 years describe that a little bit from the terms of the negotiations is this really on the agenda would be nice and interesting to hear yes please the recent IPCC report introduce yourself David Silverstein talk about a carbon budget how much we can consume before we exceed 2 degrees C however there is some recent scientific facts that have been coming out on what is happening in the cryosphere particularly in Antarctica there is some ice sheets they are starting to break down they think irreversibly and also in the north there is emissions that are possible both CO2 and methane emissions from the permafrost which supposedly holds more than about twice the content of what is currently in the atmosphere so it seems that this notion of a carbon budget may in fact be optimistic or could potentially be a moving target and shrinking and I wonder about these INDCs we had something similar with Copenhagen and Cancun with the pledges and the pledges resulted in a large emissions gap and it seems that maybe the question isn't to see or not to see but can we avoid runaway climate change or not and that's a different level of urgency than what we're currently pursuing and it seems negotiations they will they achieved a somewhat level we got somewhere but we didn't maybe get far enough and it seems maybe the INDCs aren't a strong enough mechanism to prevent reaching a point where it might be runaway because at that point when positive feedback kicks in we may not have any control anymore so I'm wondering carbon pricing can be a powerful instrument for example you could have a carbon price that increases until the cost of removal of the atmosphere and in that case let's say by 2050 you have a carbon price that increments until the removal until that cost, we don't know what that cost is but we could estimate it and have a trajectory towards that wouldn't that be a bit firmer mechanism than just basing it on kind of INDCs and using the economics from the bottom up as well ok, thank you very much for two specific questions anyone who wants to start on this Michel you want, yes I mean those questions are very much related one to the other I think there's a figure we didn't discuss much that was mentioned by Laurent is the idea of having cycles in this discussion it's clear that the outcome of Paris will not be ambitious enough in terms of figures and we know this already when we sum up the INDCs we are far from what is needed we have a gap to whatever budget we have for the moment and agree with you this budget may change in the future there is a gap and the idea is to say that if we look at these INDCs at the same time they are not at all business as usual the US INDC which is not business as usual it's not what the US used to do it's something different it's new legislation if we look at what the China is preparing it's not business as usual so there is movement and the question is how we can accelerate that movement because what will matter for the climate at the end of the day is not the figures that are inscribed in the Paris decision is the actual emission to 2030 and so there should be two agendas the day after Paris one is the agenda of implementation people need to implement what they have put in the INDCs and at the same time we need to have a parallel agenda of revising what's in the INDCs and trying to be more ambitious because INDCs have been prepared before Paris INDCs have been prepared before we had these rules etc etc so we need to just out of Paris to start a new cycle of discussion not to discuss 2050 objectives but even to discuss the 2030 the evolution of that pathway so it's a complete change compared with what we had in the negotiation until now until now we had an agreement in Kyoto for instance for 2012 and then we wait a couple of years before 2012 to negotiate 2020 is this possible? well it's precisely what happened with Copenhagen if you look at the US agreement the US commitment and the Chinese commitment to Copenhagen both countries are over you will not overachieve by 2020 in the US it will be difficult but what is announced by the US and seriously for 2025 is a change of pace compared with what was announced in Copenhagen and China in the forthcoming five years plan will overachieve what was promised in Copenhagen so it means that these five years from Copenhagen to now have been used by these two countries also to learn and be more ambitious this is what we need to build at the global level and so the idea of burden sharing I mentioned this in the presentation I think it's too late to discuss burden sharing burden sharing was something that we could discuss in the 80s when we had time so the issue was we need to reduce a bit who should reduce the issue today is the issue of radical transformation of all economies so the question is we need to drive our own economy on the basis of what's needed for our country to achieve this objective at mid-century so it's no more about burden sharing and if you want to achieve whatever close to two degrees it's not the issue anymore and in the INDCs we say fair and ambitious I think we need maybe not yet exactly like this in Paris but one day we need to consider that an INDC that is fair and ambitious is an INDC that proves that what the country is undertaking is completely compatible with the fact that this country will be the carbon value by 2050 and this should be fair and ambitious at least not sufficient because then fair and ambitious means also I'm able to help other countries that don't have the same capacity now carbon pricing well we have a big discussion in France currently on carbon pricing because a number of economists say well this is far too complicated and it would be much easier if you had a carbon price yeah but getting an agreement on a carbon price may take 50 years it's almost impossible and I think that eventually what this negotiation aimed at is also building progressively carbon prices in the world in the different economies now certainly we don't need the same carbon price in India and in Europe today or not in all the sectors if you want people in India the people that are still using coal or charcoal or whatever to pay a carbon price at 120 euro as you have here in this country I think it's clear why it cannot work in the negotiation for some international sectors maybe it makes sense and maybe this is something that we can build progressively out of Paris but we cannot negotiate a common carbon price in a discussion like this this is I think this is the best way to completely never achieve 2 degree or 3 degree or whatever because we cannot make this agreement at a global level what you're saying really is we have to be very pragmatic in a way we have to adapt to national capacities we need to be pragmatic and we need to consider that the carbon price is a way to drive a transition in an economy and it's not necessarily the same everywhere in the economy we know this for instance there is a sequence also of action that is needed and if you want to we've taken 30 years in France to develop the fast train network or to develop a metro or something like that it takes decades and if you look at the price of carbon that would make this just on an economic basis that would drive such a decision it's a high carbon price if you look at all the social interests etc doing this it's a different thing but if you just compare the cost of infrastructure etc you would need a high carbon price if you wait 2040 that your carbon price is riding to make that decision it's too late so we need another agenda also for a lot of different decisions the day to day decision equipment etc and infrastructure and city design etc carbon price is one tool I thought that was a great question and I share your answer I would just on the issue of carbon pricing I would say that if in the United States if we are to reach an agreement it probably will include a significant component of carbon pricing because in the United States and polling shows this those views about the science of climate change depend upon what they think the solution is and so a lot of people don't accept the science of climate change because they think it means inevitably a lot of government regulation that they are predisposed to be against and what we are finding in private behind the scenes discussions is there is actually a lot of support in congress for carbon tax especially if it were tied in to an overall tax reform and certain refunds reductions of corporate tax there would be a way to get there in the United States so I do think that is going to be important the one thing that gives me some pause about a carbon tax is I think to get it done in the United States we have to give up a lot of other things that are actually working and it always worries me to give up something that is working in exchange for an economic model that sort of tells me if a tax is at a certain rate we are going to get reductions but it doesn't actually guarantee it it is a valuable tool it probably is going to be part of the United States solution but I don't see it as a panacea either Anna, you had a comment Can I add it, I mean we have been having carbon tax in Sweden since 1991 and it was one of the first in the world and it is one of the highest in the world and there was an outcry in the beginning but people and of course when we raise prices on petrol it is not a popular measure but it has been working quite well and it is an efficient way of transforming your economy but of course you cannot implement the carbon tax in Saudi Arabia today, it is just impossible and you can be part of the social contract so I think you have to implement different solutions in different places but I think you can build islands of carbon tax and you already have a lot of pilots you have more or less functioning carbon trade emissions schemes and then you have a lot of pilots and I think I mean over the years you will probably to an increasing extent connect these schemes and I think if we get an ambitious outcome in Paris that will also give a signal towards a development of carbon pricing I mean even oil companies ask for a carbon price so we know that it is something that is wanted but not in the same way in different parts of the world for me if I am just a normal citizen then which I am listening to say well if ambitions agreement in Paris will give us a signal that carbon that sounds it sounds a bit vague so what do you mean by that I mean is it completely impossible and not even counterproductive to have an agreement being a bit tougher on that saying that by 2020 at least all former annex one whatever countries should have a carbon tax in place is that counterproductive today is it really about saying these are the ambitions these are a lot of tools that you can use please go ahead I don't think it's counterproductive I think it's not really realistic we are working on we are part of this grouping called friends of fossil fuels to do reform and we are working on to communicate there is a draft and we are trying to incentivize countries to support that communication so it's initiatives like that we might have declarations we might have initiative but I don't think it's realistic to commit to a carbon tax that all developed countries not saying this would be counterproductive but I don't think it's realistic Johanna would civil society be happy with an agreement saying that we are sending a signal to countries that they should consider carbon taxing taxes or carbon pricing is that ambitious from your perspective well it's really good if that is a signal from the negotiations definitely I mean it's been successful but now we have problems with the EU stadsregler whatever that is in English so it's becoming quite ineffective anyway I wanted to say something else if it's okay I was curious about the burden sharing is it really true that it is not an issue isn't it that it shouldn't be an issue you said that it isn't an issue anymore it's about now how to the transformation should happen is that really in the heart of all country negotiators I mean I still get the feeling that there is a belief that you're you're still a loser if you I mean it's better to stay in the carbon economy a little while longer than to leave it first see what I mean I mean I agree with you that it should be the case but is it really the case that it's no discussion about what is it burden sharing do you see what I'm asking yeah yeah totally and you feel it of course in the discussion some are and it's depending on the groups you take this group of island countries and the other side that finally the low carbon economy perspective what the way to go and they want to go there so they want ambitious mitigation they want strong rules they want to go there and so they are for them the burden sharing is not aware they don't see that others are not confident or because they are exporting typically the case for many fossil fuel based economies others don't know exactly what does it mean for them or countries like India who said we need more to emit more because we emit not enough but they are kept in this discussion on one side they say that and on the other side they would like to be the new technology countries that develop renewable energy being the first investors you totally right we are still under the sentiment from developing countries that it's good to say others would lead is still there and because we want to know what is low carbon economy show us but it's second because some are not so sure that to quit this posture will make them win something but I feel we are exactly at that stage and maybe by Paris we will have somehow a mixed result on that or some countries would seek think into winners and losers on that aspect but many of them again the case of Ethiopia is very interesting less developed countries less than 20% having access to electricity certainly is sort of a central planning tradition of a very strong government maybe too strong sometimes and they feel that they can be the exporter of geothermal and solar electricity and hydro for the whole region so they see them and they are very poor as a new power in 15 year times and then they change totally the perspective because in a way they have a project and Kenya is a little bit in this situation but some countries doesn't have a project so they don't see how to do that and the more we can bring or that's a domestic discussion mainly have a vision of the project they can have of their country that will change so again if they have no project it's better to stay where we are so the past dependency is there on the position but as I think this burden sharing but it is fading it's more like ideological in reality countries are super pragmatic that we will not find a solution in burden sharing that's not possible there is no formula everyone wants to keep the two degrees even 1.5 Alba countries 1.5 so what does it mean in terms of even if the emission of the developed countries would go negative I think this burden sharing is like more an ideological a political element more than the pragmatic solution that we have at the end game Nevertheless on the carbon pricing I think what we will see is many countries using elements of carbon pricing in their ion disease I agree with you that will not be enough but that will be one step I think if we can do that we will try to push one institution or the other to try to evaluate what is the implicit or explicit carbon price that this contribution are in a way creating and I think it will be no now, it's not been now these levels the second element is what Anna was referring to it's good to try to get coalitions and maybe to open there is many countries and companies that are signed up for the carbon price that's fair, that's good on the company side maybe that the message I send them very very regularly it's good to condition it's good to say you want a carbon price I don't think you can condition every action to the carbon price to wait for very very long to have an international carbon price with a clear trajectory for this you can wait some 20 years more to get it or maybe 10 years I'm too pessimistic but that should not be a sort of catch 22 thing I think we have to push more but again if it's a tax a tax is related to a particular political economy in a country and a domestic discussion that's why you can have a carbon tax in US but just don't never imagine to have an international carbon tax imposed on US just imagine that or Japan or whoever even you we cannot agree on a tax system that is of course tax is about citizenship and constituencies and voting so that's why I think a carbon price has to be related with a domestic context anyway for international trade I think we can open the discussion after Paris I think it will be open anyway because we need that and but that a very specific arena where we have to discuss that and we will have we'll see for good or for bad depending on the quality of it some kind of linking between the different carbon market because of this trading elements Thank you very much I'm having a reception waiting for us and I think that a few of you start to feel that it's time for reception now It's been a very interesting panel discussion the sort of method we have in the Gordon Goodman is to actually have a panel having a chance to actually speak a little bit more openly and not just short interventions and I think you have really managed to do so and provide a lot of different thoughts it's clear for Paris that there are reasons for optimism we have said that many times there are very a lot of interesting progress being made how the agreement will look like is something that is quite open we should possibly expect something looking a bit different from what we've seen in the past not less ambitious but maybe a bit different maybe a bit more open more inclusive and really trying to get all countries on board if this is going to be enough or not that is another question but of course what you have also stated is to be important it's not just to see an agreement in Paris in December but also what Paris actually sets in motion in terms of taking us forward we are not at the end of the story that's for sure but we are hopefully making a very very good midpoint or whatever up to 2030 when we hopefully are really on track for a decarbonized society even hopefully bringing in today producing all producing countries and others so thank you very much for providing all these deep insights from different perspectives I'm going to hand over to Bouchelien to close today's seminar with a few remarks in the end as well before the panel before the reception but I would like to give you a warm applaud from us and make it loud now even though we're not that many so you know yeah that's the way thank you thank you very much and I think you made a beautiful summary of this very interesting panel discussion and I won't try to in any way to repeat that let me just say that having gone gone through all these phases of the climate negotiations since the first negotiation of the convention I'm struck by this sense of optimism and I feel that it is an optimism which derives not just because ambassador to Vienna set the atmosphere and set the stage by saying that there are many positive elements I think that it is on the whole a different type of preparation for conference of parties than we have ever had and it is due to a certain extent of course to the good work of the French presidency here I'm these these points that have been made are all highly relevant and I think we can be grateful that we have had this kind of preparation which is on its way which is not sure I realized in Bonn that many things are still open but there is another thing to me and that is I don't think we have ever had a preparation for a conference of parties like we have had now and that preparation started with Copenhagen it started with an understanding of the situation that came through after the sense of being at an absolute hopeless situation but when you have reached the bottom you are all the time going up then and therefore I feel that what has happened is that climate change has come into a broader framework than the normal dabbling in the negotiations I know that that will continue that the negotiations show that it is difficult to make more than 100 countries almost 200 agree on something which is so important but there has been two things I think one is that we have had a much longer presentation than for Copenhagen and it has been accelerating if I use that expression what has happened in Copenhagen then in in Cancun, Durban Doa and so on and our most recently in Lima is something that everybody is prepared for Copenhagen in a different way but at the same time things have happened in the real world we have seen how the energy revolution is getting into speed we have seen that it has been mentioned here about the reality of energy prices what is happening there and it seems to me that all the process here is really getting impression from this real world and at the same time we get indications like the mention here of the people in Ciclica other furnishers of values and ideas are coming in than before and I feel extremely strongly that we are in a different situation than before in the negotiations and that this will appear here I believe that there is an acceleration of change and not just a suite on avant as we are here we have a sense of direction and that the feeling is that it is the old style action and for instance and also the old style sources of energy that are beginning to lose out and that the future lies with the new and once that shift starts to accelerate lots of things will happen and I believe that what we have heard here today has been an indication of all this and giving us a sense of that direction which is very helpful for all of us it seems to me and I must say that the feeling is really that you should not just sit like this but you should do it like this and the world is on its way and the climate change negotiations I think are contributing to that largely and I thank the French coming chairmanship for what they have achieved I thank you Laurent, you are one of the center pieces here and I know that Ambassador Lapouge har också varit och den är i den här rörelsen för resultat och det är så att jag tror att vi är väldigt fortfarande här i Sverige att ha Gordon Goodman memorier läggaren av den här kvaliteten och den här rörelsen och på samma gång som vi har börjat en riktigt bra kooperation med den French Embassy och med Frons Merci beaucoup