 Rhaid i chi つ, Tony. E flasio gweithio gyda chi gael eu gorpl i chi. Rydyn ni'n ddorol, kwi'n meddwl o ddeithasol dechrau o dda i ddeithasol bod oes fifullyn am y dyfodol hon. Diolch ar ddoedd ei ddeithasol, fel Tony yn gallu mynd y ffordd yn ymgyrchol AAAE, i ymgyrch ddoedd am 80% yma y dyfodol gwahanol dda. felly mwy ffordd yn ddeithasol UKau, ond y rysg yn ddechrau i'r ffocws ar gyfer mae'r ffuniau a'r gwnswynt y ddechrau'r 92% yma. Yr hoffi ar hyn o'r adnod, maen nhw'n gwzir iawn yn gweithio'r 8% a wedyn gallu'n gwneud y 92% sy'n cynhyrch ar gweithio'r bwysig. Roedd yw'r mynd i'r gael ychydig, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r 5 chyffin yw'r dda, a'r dda i'r hyn yn gweithio'r llwysgau a'r ddau'r mewn oesodol. Very briefly the five challenges concern a perceived short-term long-term trade-off the issue of uncertainty which has already been addressed breaking climate change out of the environment box, how to leave a Private Action and actually mainstreaming within climate change. Okay briefly what do I mean by these five challenges. There's certainly a perception that action on climate change, Maeech Cymru yn gweithio diolch ar y lleidwyr, er mwyn roi'r lleidwyr er mwyn oedd y gweithwyr yn gweithio'r lleidwyr. A'r lleidwyr yn gweithio, ac yn ddefnyddio'r lleidwyr oedig, y lleidwyr â'r lleidwyr yn gweithwyr. Maebydd yn y gallu cyfreithio eich roi'r lleidwyr ac y gallu bobl fod yn y ddetlawer o ddweud y mewn cyfath dinghau. These aren't some sort of unthinking climate deniers approach that's often very practical. Take Bangladesh. Do you build 5 primary schools to a very basic standard, which may very well be washed away next season? Or do you build 1 or 2 schools to a far higher standard? Many of the issues we're trying to grapple with are very practical. Deep uncertainty has already been touched upon. Ond mae'n rhaid i'n mynd i'r gweld y ddechrau a'r dweud o gweld. Ond oherwydd mae'n rhaid i'r gweld y dweud yn olygu'r ddau'r dweud o gweld rhaid i'r dweud, gyda'n ddiweddol, mae'n dweud o'r ddweud. Felly mae'r dweud o gweld mae'n rhaid i'r dweud o gweld. Mae'r ddweud yn gyffredinol yma'r dweud. Mae'n rhaid i ddweud bod hynny'n hynny'n gweithio'r dysgu mewn gwirio'r ddweud ac mae'r cyfnod wedi bod y maen nhw. Ond y cyfnodd, yn gweithio'r cyd-gweithio'n i'r cyfnod, ac am y neud cyfnod i'r cyfnod y cyfnod ar gyfer IPCC, rydyn ni'n credu yn fforsig. A dyma'r cyfnod yma yw'r cyfnod yw ymddangos i gyd, mae'r cyfnod yn yma ym 4 o'n 4 o'n 3 o'n 3. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gwaith. Dwi'n nhw'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio ymddangos i Gwyl Cais, ac nid ydych chi'n gweld y bydd yma i'r ddiwedd iawn i'r sgol ni'n ddweud i'r rhaglen gwaith yn gweithio'r ysgol. Ond ydych chi'n gweithio y gallwn ei e Chinomix yn ymdegwyd yn modelau ysgrifennu, mae'n cael ei wneud, yn ymdegwyd, fe wneud i'r gwleidio. Mae'n gweithio'n gweld i'r gwleidio'r gwleidio'r gwleidio'r gwleidio'r gwleidio'r gwleidio. Mae'r amser yn ystafell wedi'i prifoedd y cyfnodd eich pethau o'r amgymryd yma i'r amser o unrhyw i'r maes oedd yn eu cyfnodd, a'r amser o'r terfodd yma o'n gwneud eu chyfnodd. Rydym eich cyfnodd, ac eich cyfnodd o'r amgymryd eich cyfnodd, eich cyfnodd eich cyfnodd a'r ysgrifennu, y cwmfert yma. Felly, mae'r pethau rhan o'n golygu fel gwahanol o'r cyfnodd, But the economics isn't telling us that we're facing imminent collapse of all our systems. So there is an issue, I think, in terms of how to mainstream, that the economics and the science maybe aren't as tied together as they might be. We need to break climate change out of the environmental box. Within DFID climate change sits within a department that still has environment in its name. In many of the countries with which we work, climate change is still seen as being the lead of what are often quite weak environment ministries. So we need to try to get the message across that climate change isn't an environment issue. It's a core development issue. My fourth point concerned the private sector. Governments clearly have a key role to play in addressing climate change, both in terms of trying to put in place the systems to provide the information to get more effective adaptation and also to drive the incentives for mitigation. But most of what needs to be done will actually need to be done by private companies and need to be done by individuals and households. So there's a challenge of how do we motivate that action? How do we what's the best role of government spend and donor spend in doing that? And my final point, my final challenge is that climate change itself often isn't mainstreamed within climate change. That might seem a rather strange thing to say, but a lot of what we do on the mitigation side, the models we use, the economic models, a lot of them are based around marginal abatement cost curves. Many of those marginal abatement cost curves in effect don't assume any climate change. So you're looking at the relative costs of different technologies. But if you're comparing coal with renewables, do your marginal abatement cost curves actually factor in what climate change might do for the availability of water for cooling? Do they factor in the increased unreliability, therefore, of certain high carbon technologies? So there's an issue even within climate change of whether climate change has mainstream climate change within climate change. OK, so what might some of these solutions be to this? On the issue of the long term, short term trade off, there's clearly a key role for more research. I mean, this is a point that both Mikko and Henning have mentioned. So we need to better understand the extent to which a trade off does or doesn't exist in particular points in time. So we can do this using, in terms of project appraisal, we're exploring the use of real option analysis to say, well, at what point should you build more resilient primary schools or should you build more schools that might very well be destroyed in a relatively short space of time? So the economics can inform this. But I think my perception of adaptation is it's grown out of a livelihoods discipline. So adaptation is often seen as a very bottom up discipline. I think economics can bring a more top down perspective, which will complement the bottom up. So I think the role of economics and the role of many of you in the room here is to ask what patterns of economic development will actually help build an economies resilience to the impacts of climate change? And the answer to that don't necessarily lie in climate change economics. They lie in actually what we do is development economists on a, you know, maybe not a day to day basis, but certainly the sort of issues we've been grappling with for several years. So we know that, for example, that more diversified economies are likely to be more resilient. But how do we get more diversified economies? You know, what is the role of industrial policy? What is the how exactly do we encourage diversification? We know flexibility is important, but flexibility where in the economy? What are the parts of the economy where flexibility is most important? The challenge of mitigation has also been touched upon. DFID tends to work and is increasingly focusing its portfolio on poorer and poorer countries. So again, these countries don't have any obligation, legal obligation to spend their own money on mitigation. And therefore there is perceived as a very strong trade-off between promoting lower carbon and often more expensive technologies and conventional economic growth. But there may be, is both Henig and Mico mentioned, there may be synergies, there may be co-benefits of going low carbon and it would be good to know to what extent going low carbon is actually in an economy's own interests. On uncertainty approaches are emerging on how to deal with this. The catch here is that many of these approaches and many of the modelling approaches which your own work has been doing over the last year or so, they're actually quite complicated. And I think the challenge in terms of mainstreaming is not, the challenge for me is trying to present to the policy makers that I need to convince that really, really complicated economic modelling is made even more complicated and trying to simplify that. So we have difficulty often explaining to ministers what the output from CGE modelling is. So if what your work is doing is painting the black box of CGE modelling, yet black is still, we're going to have more difficulty encouraging our ministers that the results from that modelling is credible and should be taken on board. So I'm not saying don't do complicated work. Where you have complexity you will need new approaches. But where you have the choice between simple solutions and complicated solutions, simple may be better. Breaking climate change out of the environment box, I mean in many ways that's what these sort of events are about. It's about bringing economics, in climate change economics, to address the sort of challenges that ministers of finance, ministers of planning are concerned with. So that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. But it does mean that we need to ask the right questions. We need to be, the research needs to be addressed. It's sort of practical questions that ministers of finance are engaged with. In terms of encouraging private action, we know a certain amount about this, but we also know not only as Nick Stearn has put it that climate change is a consequence of one of the world's biggest market failures, but we also know that many of the solutions to tackling climate change are themselves impeded by a range of market failures. Energy efficiency, if you take your marginal abatement cost curve, it would appear that there are huge energy efficiencies available. The catch is that many of these are not materialising. Owing to a range of market failures. So I think that in terms of encouraging private action, we need better to understand what the sort of market failures are, to understand which ones are the most binding in order that we can help to prioritise policy, gradually removing these barriers. My final point was about mainstreaming climate change within climate change. Again, this isn't rocket science. Both Henig and Meeker have mentioned the importance of ensuring that we don't just do mitigation or adaptation. We need to find ways of doing climate resilient and low-carbon development. So, yeah, I don't think it's an indispensable problem. In many of the papers that I think will be discussed over the next couple of days are trying to bring this agenda together. One final point is that in terms of what we need from the research community is we need evidence. Evidence is hard in this area because we're actually looking at things that haven't yet happened. I do feel a lot of what we are actually presented with, a lot of the so-called evidence is in fact advocacy. What we need is evidence. We don't need advocacy at this stage. So, please, even where your results are maybe not the result you would want if you're committed to climate change, give the result anyway. We need to inform and foster a debate. Thank you.