 Welcome everyone for joining us today at Current 2023. I am Mons Nilsson, the Executive Director of SEI. SEI is a research institute based in Stockholm with the headquarters, but we have offices around the world. Our basic mission is to connect science and policy to develop solutions for a sustainable future. And our work spans various topics within sustainable development, climate, water, air, land use, and also topics of governance and gender and the economy, health. We are fulfilling this mandate through developing research, thinking about the future within these topics, but obviously part of fulfilling our mandate is really to think about the forces that affect our work. And the work of people around the world to limit climate change and promote sustainable development goals. So this goes beyond the remit of the normal sustainability topics. And our research is affected by a number of issues such as inflation and the energy crisis, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian war in Ukraine and many more topics. And they influence climate action and they influence how the world and different countries around the world approach sustainable development. And this brings us to currents. We're in our second year of doing this webinar. Why do we do it? Well, we live in a time of profound technological, political, social and economic change. And it's fundamentally uncertain what the world and future can be and how it should be. The essence of currents is to think about what lies ahead and how forces affect our global trajectory to sustainability. It is maybe not our everyday work. We are not forecasters. We don't predict the futures and it's not based on the modeling tools that we have, but we bring in a global perspective and a dispersed perspective from different parts of the world where we are present and the foundation of our 34 years of research and engagement experience. So the currents we're discussing today are based on insights from experts who work around the world. They've emerged from interviews and discussions with our colleagues from service of partners and with input and insights from our Science Advisory Council. So these are starting points for discussion and debate, not bets on the future. And, you know, if the pandemic has taught us anything, it is to expect the unexpected. So today we've brought together six panelists to help us think about how these currents push and pull, divert, accelerate and whether and how we should swim against the currents or go with the flow or prepare ourselves to face a rip tide or maybe an undercurrent that we do not see. So these panelists will bring diverse perspectives, I'm sure, on what these currents may bring and help us think differently about the issues we contend with in our daily lives and our work. And I will now, with these introductory words, hand over to Rob Watts, our Communications Director and Head of Policy Engagement, who will move forward with the program. Thank you very much for joining. Thank you very much, Mons. A very warm welcome to everybody. I'm going to give a short introduction, a summary of the four currents that we've identified in our crowd sourcing exercise across the institution, across all of the centres we have. As Mons said, we have four of these, and the first of them is the democracy deficit. It's quite extraordinary that over the last four years there have been 12 coup attempts and coups in the Sahel region of Western Africa, and that a number of different academic studies have shown that levels of democracy are shrinking and have shrunk to levels not seen since 1989. Indeed, about 70% of the world's population lives under some form of dictatorship. But it's not only the increase in dictatorship that these studies are noticing. It's also an autocratising of democracies. The introduction of restrictions in the freedom of speech and for civil societies. 35 countries had significant deteriorations in freedom of expression in just the last year. But on the other hand, while the events in Brasilia after the recent election are perhaps more example, another example of this deterioration in the democratic trends, there is also a sense that perhaps there's some resilience here because those protests, the storming of the presidential palace was not successful. So really that leaves us with some questions about what, where does the state of democracy go from here? Can we identify some causes of this rising authoritarianism? And what are the implications for sustainable development and climate change? We can go to the next of our currents and we've called this one the meaning crisis. Many of you will be familiar with the experience in social media of being exposed to bots and fake accounts. The fact that computational propaganda seems to be filling our newsfeeds is certainly creating a mistrust in facts and opinions. This is to be compounded by the rise of technologies that allow deep fakes to be creative. But there's an underlying current here which is the economic incentive in many cases to produce these fake news, this invented reality because click baits are economically valuable. We know that posts that talk about hate or lies actually generate more interest. But it's not only in the domain of media and social media that this is prevalent. The meaning crisis is also a crisis in politics and in business. And the rise of greenwashing and the highlights that has been placed on the need to counter greenwashing is another facet of this meaning crisis. How can we be sure that the claims that governments and companies are making in terms of their emission reductions or commitments to ESG actually translate into real world change? That leaves us with some questions for today. Have we reached peak propaganda? And how can we actually work on these collective challenges, climate change and sustainable development if we're all able to have our own facts? Go to our third current please, which is the rising cost of living. And I think I can just say that the cost of living crisis I think is probably has been cited at the top of the World Economic Forum's risk report today. So this is obviously one that is really critical. And it's critical because we see it as being something that obviously is coming to the fore because of inflation. And that has partly been a result of the coming out of the pandemic, coming out of the stimulus of that pandemic. But it's also the energy crisis and the energy inflation crisis that we've seen. In fact, we're now talking about different types of inflation. There's climate inflation, green inflation. There are a number of different ways in which this is being translated into the cost of living crisis that we see. One of the most important ways in which we need to consider this is the impact on food prices. And the FAO has said that food prices are now at the highest levels since they started keeping records. And there's quite clearly a link between that and the potential for a seismic hunger crisis to take place, which may then also be exacerbated in weather events. There's a link here also between the energy crisis and food price inflation. Since fertilizers are so crucial for food production, rely on energy. And as energy prices increase, so does fertilizer, which then has a knock on effect on food prices as well. These things are deeply interlinked. The current really does push and pull, but also accelerate these trends. Another dimension of the cost of living crisis is also around the resources for the new net zero technologies, where monopolization by some countries and some actors of these resources, particularly rare earths and other minerals, can also have an impact on the cost of the transition. So on the one hand, while energy crisis and the increase in gas prices, for example, might be an incentive to transition faster. On the other hand, we may be facing a headwind when it comes to the access and cost of the resources that are needed. So do we now see a sense in which supply chains are transmitting inflation and transmitting green inflation? How might that affect the pace of the transition that's needed to reach net zero? And I think we can take our fourth and final current now. And our fourth current is around technology and equity. A fourth industrial revolution has already begun and it's created by technological advances that have radically altered how we live, work and interact. And artificial intelligence and AI is a key driver of this disruption. It's really forging ahead and it's largely in the absence of regulation. There's a huge potential here for AI to contribute to the achievement of collective sustainable development and the welfare of societies. It can help to personalize learning. It can support medical advances. Can even help to solve the climate crisis and some of our own research has been looking at how artificial intelligence can help to sort of help to predict where permafrost is most likely to be melting. But at the same time, the evidence is that there's a huge digital divide. A digital divide about access to the technologies that enable us to use things like AI. There's also a huge divide in terms of the data that is needed often to fuel the AI revolution. And we also know that AI can be used to come back again to our meaning crisis as a way to create fakes. So the potential is certainly there, but the governance of AI is lacking. What are the implications of this for equality, for data protection, for privacy and for the transparency of decision making? How can we make sure that technological power is used as a force for good rather than as a tool that further divides people? Those are our four parents and I'm really looking forward to hearing the panel discuss these. As Mon said, they're not a set of predictions. This isn't a forecast. It's really a starting point for a dialogue. And I'd like to leave the panel perhaps with some ideas around these undercurrents and potential reptides that also feature here. And the undercurrents that I think run through and really are influencing all of the currents that we have identified are things such as inequality, such as the development imperative, whether that is in terms of growth and seeking growth or whether it is in terms of needing the energy and access to energy in order to ensure the provision of basic services and the growth of smaller medium size enterprises. It's an undercurrent perhaps also around debt, where the debt that has been taken on by many countries and now with rising interest rates and with inflation is becoming more difficult to service. And then there are reptites, things that we really do want to avoid. And these seem to be the reptites of conflict, of disaster, exacerbated by extreme weather events, but also by development choices that put people in the pathway of danger. So some of those are perhaps also worth reflecting on when we discuss our four currents. It's a real pleasure for me now to hand over to our moderator for our panel discussion and to briefly introduce our panel. So I would like to just quickly introduce them. And our moderator is Laurie, Laurie Göring. Laurie is the Climate Change Editor at Thompson Reuters Foundation. Laurie, thank you so much for joining us again. This is the second year we've done it and you are a wonderful moderator last year. And it's great pleasure to have you with us again this time. And then our panel, our six fantastic panelists, I'll start by introducing Aaron Abba Ghosh, who is the CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, and also a member of the UN Secretary General's high level expert group on the net zero emissions commitments of non state entities. Aaron Abba, a very warm welcome. And we also have Aram Tal, who is Senior Climate Change Specialist at the World Bank. Aram, thank you so much for joining us. It's great to see you again. We also have Lauri Militvera, who is Air Pollution and Climate Expert at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. Manuel Bulgar Vidal, a very warm welcome to you, who is the leader on climate and energy practice at WWF International. And then we also have CNAID, Sean Aid, Hislop Parsons, who is a partner at Portland Communications with a real specialist in corporate reputation. I know has also been working on net zero commitments for FTSE 100 companies. So has a real insight into questions perhaps around greenwashing, among other things. And lastly, Orsa Pashon, who is Research Director and Deputy Director at SEI. Welcome all of you. Thank you very much for taking the time. Really looking forward to hearing your reflections on these currents and also perhaps other things that you think will be breaking the surface and influencing the international sustainability agenda this year in 2023. Over to you, Lauri. Hi, thanks so much, Rob, and welcome to this panel discussion. I think we've got some fascinating people here and a lot of really interesting things to talk about. It struck me listening to what Monson and Rob said that what we're facing really is a lot of very complex and interrelated problems. That we need to solve basically at the same time while the space for solving them is getting smaller, which is really problematic. And it's a time of thinking ahead really. I know I was at the World Economic Forum event this morning and they were saying, you know, this is really a time where everybody has to think very seriously in a profound and realistic way. And yet also an optimistic way about the future and how we get prepared for what's coming, what's here and how we deal with this. So I'd just like to open up and ask initially just what you see as the ways into some of these problems that we've been talking about here. Which ones are really worrying you and having heard what we just did? What do you think is the way to begin addressing some of these jointly? I think if you don't mind, I'd like to come to Arun Abha first. Thank you, Laurie. And I hope you can hear me because from time to time I'm losing the sound at your end. We can hear you. Okay, perfect. First of all, happy new year. And thank you for having me as part of this conversation for outlining a very clear set of friends. As you said, these are not forecast. These are issues that we must be having a dialogue on. So Laurie, your question is actually very interesting one in terms of how do we approach this? If you take each of these as individual challenges, then they inhabit their own different worlds. There's an entire ecosystem of people dealing with technology and there's an ecosystem of people dealing with emissions and inflation and cost of living. And there's a whole different world dealing with the information age. And then there is, of course, the world of electoral democracies. If there is one common thing in all of this, to me it is both a lack of empathy or a lack of an idea of how do we... And what do I mean by this? If you take each of these issues, a cost of living crisis. I want to start with that because at the end of the day, the bulk of the world's people live in the global south. They are impacted by food shocks, energy shocks, fuel shocks, finance shocks, etc. 100 million people and more have fallen below the poverty line just as a result of the pandemic. They take to their lived reality before we think about what the macroeconomic central banker response ought to be. Because often we just feed these as statistics, but we don't think of it as what is their lived reality? What are the choices of the margin they are trying to make? Once we do that, then we get into this whole sense of what meaning is. The real meaning crisis is not alternative facts. The real meaning crisis, there is an entire wave of human society on televisions is not in our newspapers. And that lived reality can also be a good living. There could be innovation happening there. There could be sustainability happening on the ground, which we are not looking at, not supporting, even as we think of big infrastructure and big investment as the way to move towards sustainability. It is because of that lack of empathy where we also then don't understand the role of technology. So the role of technology is not just about whether we are going to lose jobs or retain jobs because of our shift towards the fourth industrial revolution and artificial intelligence and so forth. The question is, who has agency? Does technology have agency or the technology innovators have agency or society has agency? It is our choice to determine who has agency, according to which we can then decide how technology responds to the needs of the vast majority of the world's population or not. And that is then where the legitimacy or lack thereof for democracy comes in. My worry about whatever happened in Brazil or what happened in the United States is not about individual countries. It's about this normalization of the attack on a smooth transfer of power. And that to me is worrying because then it could happen anywhere where things we have taken for granted, the smooth transfer of power in electoral democracies comes into question. But at the base of it is this narrative that we are not being heard or that the processes through which we have to be heard are being questioned. So I would argue that the approach, the entry point here, the question, the mirror we have to be holding up in front of ourselves is, are we being empathetic enough to really understand these four mega trends you've identified? And does the increase or decrease of empathy give us a little bit more handle control agency over trying to find the intersections across these trends and then focus on the technocratic or otherwise interventions and policy changes and solutions that we might come up with? Thanks very much. Just before we move on, I wanted to remind everyone who's listening to this, please use the question and answer function. And if you've got any questions for any of our panelists, we'd love to have them. If you can start putting them in there now, we'll have time to get to them later on in the event. Arama, I wanted to ask you, if you just heard this, I mean, is empathy really the problem? Not being able to put ourselves in the shoes of people and see these all as real people just like us everywhere around the world that are facing these issues, especially as you're dealing with climate change and this huge risk from that efforts to drive dramatic change needed. Thank you very much, Laurie, and thanks to all for having me on the panel. Happy New Year's Day again, following over Napa's example. Listen, so for me, I think we need to shift the perspective a little bit. I think empathy is something maybe that we hear a lot as we're in the northern capitals. I'm usually in DC and that's a word we often use. But if we shift the gaze and we're in the shoes of the farmer that's afflicted by climate change, the coastal person, I'm currently in Senegal, looking at the coastline here, because those are in their home and their livelihoods from climate change. I don't think empathy is the first thing that comes to mind. I think looking at each of the four really relevant trends that were introduced at the beginning of the panel, if you look at the democracy trend, indeed the Sahel coups and instability were mentioned, but I'd like to emphasize more the rise in fragility and the rise in vulnerability. Those are really the determining factors within which climate vulnerability and the likelihood loss that vulnerable communities are feeling are playing against. And against that background, what I find is that it's not just gloom and doom, so to say, but I see the trend being more of one where people are more aware of the impacts of climate in their daily lives. In 2012, my PhD thesis focused on that. What will make people care about climate change in developing nations, including in African countries? And the answer of the thesis at the time was that we would just have to be hit more and more by sea level rise, by rising climate-related disasters. And I think today, 2022, as we start 2023, we are now approaching the Eye of Decision, more and more climate impacts are making landfall. And as communities are increasingly hit across most of the developing country contexts that we operate in, what I find is that there's more awareness of the people impacted, that this is caused by global climate change. So there's more advocacy. We hear more voices coming from the global South, asking for increased climate justice. So the democracy deficit is a general trend and a background against which we see more vulnerability and more fragility. But I also want to raise here the opportunity we see in having more climate advocates from the developing country context, saying this is global climate change. This is what it's doing to us. And this is what needs to happen. And I guess, looping back to empathy, indeed, that can create more empathy because I think the more we have victims sharing their stories, letting the world know what they're going through as a result of climate change, then we can indeed achieve global solidarity links, which are really essential for ensuring that we put an end to this global climate crisis. I do want to share a few more thoughts, but Laurie, should I hold on on them for the next questions? Happy to pass on to other panelists. Thank you. Sure, let's move on, but please do bring them up. We'd love to hear. Laurie, I'm curious how you see these fitting together. These are not all things that we normally think of as hugely interrelated, but as we've just been hearing, they really do matter to each other and solving one in isolation is probably not going to happen. How do you see this going ahead? Thank you so much. One of the most obvious links is that I think we didn't mention or explore why we're having a cost of living crisis right now. And the obvious cause of that is Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and already before that, Russia's weaponization of fossil fuel supplies to Europe. Of course, the war and Russia's aggression has also disrupted supply of grain, supply of fertilizers and so on, but really at its core, this is a fossil fuel crisis and a fossil fuel crisis precipitated by an authoritarian state. So that's right at the core. The positive thing is that the response that we've seen to the rise in energy prices has been very much one that has further mainstreamed clean energy. It's become clear that there are enough decision makers who've internalized that reducing economic reliance on fossil fuels, especially imported fossil fuels, is a key part of economic success and economic resilience. We've seen a very long list of policy programs, increased targets. In Europe, in China, the ambition on clean energy has increased along with the ambition on coal, but still it's a part of the response. And that is a form of technological disruption. I think you could say that global climate policies may be under-delivering, but the clean energy technologies, the engineered solutions to the climate crisis and to emission reductions are delivering much more and much faster than I think anyone would have expected a few years ago. So that kind of mainstreaming of clean energy is a key part of this. And also the mindset shift where clean energy is a core part of economic policy, industrial policy, rather than relegated to climate policy. So realising that those countries that are able to develop vast amounts of clean energy will attract the manufacturing, the investments, the economic activity and the same way that the industrial economy of 100 years ago was formed around coal deposits and oil. I'll say one more thing, which is that the flip side of that is, of course, that there's a lot of resort nationalism. China has looked at what happened to Europe and also what happened to Russia with the sanctions and this very, very reliance on the international trade. The US obviously is working hard to reduce its reliance on China for supply chains. Europe is moving slower, but that's very much an issue. So this kind of resourced nationalism both for better and for worse is a much bigger part of the picture and maybe even moving away from the kind of globalization that dominated the past couple of decades. OK, thanks. So Manuel, if the technology for the energy transition is coming and there as we've heard, why is it emissions are still rising and we're still so worried? And we see the fragility and the vulnerability that Aram was talking about everywhere, I mean, not least in Pakistan this last year, but in many places around the globe, what's happening in Somalia and so on. How do we push forward through all these things to begin to achieve this? Thank you, Lori. Look, by keeping the long transition, the description of the current reality, the four topics that we are currently discussing, are fully true, a bit sad, but that is a reality of the world. But in some way there is an exception when we think about climate, because something that we haven't yet appreciate well, it is that we've been able to define clearly a collective objective for the planet. The idea of the 1.5, the net zero and the resilient world, it is in my point of view for the first time ever that we have agreed in something in which nobody is doubting. And that is fantastic for the world, because that means that all of our actions with all the difficulties that we are facing with all the obstacles, with all the limits that the lack of democracy or the inequities could bring to the process, will continue to be derived by the idea of the long transition. So what we do need it is to recognize that this climate debate, it's still, despite of that we are not yet on track, a good model on how to address the current difficulties of the world. By keeping the long transition, by being clear that we shouldn't raise temperature in more than 1.5, that we have to have emissions in this decisive decade, are good ways to address the current difficulties of the world. But let me add something else. When we think in the climate debate, probably it is, and I am referring to the climate debate and not to the current status of the climate. I am referring to the full climate debate and to the objective of the Paris Agreement and to the objective of the Glasgow Pact. So when we think about that climate debate, it is clear that it is an inclusive one. The level of participation of different actors within the world, including the youth, including the activists, it is fantastic. And how multidisciplinary the climate debate it is. It is part of those issues that we have to continue exploiting in a proactive way, as a positive way also to address the current reality of the world. Also what it is important in relation to technology, Lori, it is in the climate debate, there is a key principle that sometimes we are used to forgetting, that it is don't leave anyone behind. And that is a key one, because when we think about how much technology is evolving to address emissions or to address the systemic transformation in the four economic sectors that science are suggesting, we do know that that technology, it should promote equity within the world, within the planet. And that is something in which we have to work on. Yesterday somebody asked me, what do you think Manuel about the nuclear energy as a source of energy to address emissions reduction? And one of my point, it was currently there are just 31 countries around the world with nuclear facilities, 31, that means 31 of 200 countries of the world. The point it is how affordable and how feasible for a developing world it is to deploy energy facilities without the resources, without probably the skills to do that. The point it is that the proposed technology must fit with that, don't leave anyone behind principle of the climate debate, because that is also one of the objectives of the debate. And also some visual or in relation to what it is happening in the climate debate, it is the role of science. Probably in the climate debate, it is the first time ever in which in some way, probably I am too optimistic and I could sound a bit naive, but yeah, I am optimistic by nature. But it is probably the first time ever in which we are following what science is suggesting when we think about the energy transition, the industry, the citizen infrastructure and the land use, deforestation and agriculture. That is something that it was proposed by the IPCC. So proposed by science. The 1.5 it was defined not by the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement referred to well below two degrees, but we are following the 1.5 as a threshold for the climate debate. So by following science, also we can sort the difficulties that misinformation, it is creating in relation to democracy, in relation to social and political processes. So there are many elements in the climate debate that can help us to continue following and achieving our objectives. Let me finish this intervention by reminding what former President Hollande mentioned just a year after the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement, it is an irreversible and unstoppable process. Just remember what happened in the US some a year after the Paris Agreement when former President Trump decided to decline. I forget the name. But to go out from the Paris Agreement and a group of non-state actors through what it was called we are still in, decided to keep the process alive. And now the US, it is back in the process. Sorry, let me finish with this. Also, we have to appreciate that even in time of inflation, what happened in the US in August of 2022 with the Inflation Reduction Act, it is a good example on how well a political signal could descend. Because if you haven't read the Inflation Reduction Act, do it. Because it is not an economic law, it is a climate law. It is a law that it is promoting energy efficiency, that it is promoting renewable, that it is promoting even equity and inclusion in the poorest areas of the US territory. So there are good examples on how much and how would the climate debate could help us to address the current difficulties of the planet and also to continue improving our actions towards a strong emission reduction time. Yeah, I think that this issue of the political signals is absolutely crucial, right? In all of this, we see that when you set out where we're headed, it's a lot easier for everyone to get there. I know I live in the UK and the fact that we've been investing in offshore wind for a while, and it's now actually providing quite a bit of the power here. It's been a fantastic thing through this Russia crisis and the energy crisis. I think the sort of clear signal ahead helps. Now, whether that signal is still quite so clear, I'm not sure. There's a lot of issues in many countries around the world because of the conflict. I also thought it's interesting what you say about the long-term vision is so, so important. But we also have short time frames and that if we're going to try to hold to 1.5, we have seven years. It's not very long. And so that's where I think things like nuclear are quite an interesting discussion, right? Because it is low carbon, but it takes often a very long time to get it in place and up and running. If we get clean energy in place after we've already passed irreversible tipping points in the climate system, it may not work quite so well. So it seems that solar and wind and things like that are probably faster at any rate. Also, I wanted to turn to you because I think democracy, and we haven't really talked enough about this issue of threats to democracy and the closing democratic space to try to address some of this. And I'm really curious what you think about that. I think these figures about how much democracy is contracting are phenomenal and not something that everyone's aware of. How is that affecting all of this and this effort to deal with these problems? Thank you so much, Laurie. And happy new year to everyone. Really wonderful to listen to all the experts joining us on this call. So going back to your original question, Laurie, what keeps you up at night? I will say that was reading about the democracy that really was a... We have of course heard this many times, but seeing the numbers was quite eye-opening. How we are kind of reversing back now at the level of democracy worldwide that we saw 30 years ago, basically. So I think looking at the cards together, we know that economic moves in cycles, business cycles, hopefully we can see a greener recovery if and how we enter this recession that we're now fearing. Technology, we have seen multiple technology revolutions in the past. There are ways of managing technology, even though it often very unfortunately end up in furthering divides or gaps. But coming back to democracy, it is indeed concerning. What is the historical precedent there in terms of how do we deal with backlash on democracy? But I think trying to relate this trend to the sustainability agenda that we all work for, I see three important issues or things that I would look out for now in the year ahead. One is as we now formulate and implement climate policy, how do we build strong institutions? How do we make sure to have a good division of power between institutions? So we don't fall into that trap of climate policy being weaponized for autocratic leaders, for example. A second really key thing I think is education and training. And this is of course also addressing that meaning crisis, misinformation. And the third, I think the question on everyone's mind is the speed of the climate transition. Now that we have the long term target in place, compared to 10 years ago, I think we have a much bigger agreement globally and across sectors, finance, business, government that we need to make this huge climate transition. But how do we implement it and how do we really translate this interaction on the ground? We already know that the legislative process takes time and for good democratic reasons, but are there any innovations that can speed up that process? I think we heard a lot about innovations, for example, e-governments. How can we use the digital revolution to enhance the process of governing? It's been a bit quiet. Is there any innovation to do in that regard? So legislation takes time, permitting takes time, bureaucracy takes time. But I was, I have to say a bit concerned when I heard recently that the global methane pledge, I was indeed one of the successes coming out of Glasgow with very broad support from countries and seemingly quite low hanging fruits, very cost effective actions you could take. That is also stalling. And it's actually not yet for these bureaucratic reasons, but just dispersing money. Donors have already decided to fund this, but it takes time to get the money on the ground. So I think that sort of insight of, how can we really speed up decision making in a way that does not threaten democracy in a fundamental way? I think there will be trade-offs, but that is really the key questions. I really hope we can see some concrete innovations and actions to take inspiration from. Thanks. I think that is really a crucial question, how you speed up what needs to happen really fast within a democratic system that genuinely consults the people that need to be consulted so you'll end up with the right answers. I wanted to turn to Sean. We've been talking about, I think we have something like 90% of the world's emissions right now that are under net zero pledges. So we should be well on our way to solving this climate crisis, but at the same time we see emissions going up every year. So part of it is how do you achieve these things? How do you hold corporates to account on what are normally voluntary pledges? How do you see that working? What's the role of corporates, not only on climate change, but on some of these other issues around information, disinformation and so on? Yeah, I think that's a really valid point. You're completely right. There's a huge amount of our emissions that are conceivably under targets and they're under plans. I think it's pretty much most of the fruits that have some sort of net zero target in place now. So in theory, we should be in a really good spot. But at the same time, you've seen a lot of questioning, whatever you want to call it, of whether this is just a little bit of chat and not a lot of action. And I think that's probably why you've seen greater focus on financial disclosures and trying to put rigor around what is conceivably quite an unwieldy system. I think the thing that we are seeing from corporates is we've seen a huge acceleration in the last 10 years in terms of moving from just putting windmills on the tops of brochures and trying to kind of make things look a little bit green to actually putting action into place. And those that are leading are the ones that are really delivering and provably delivering on those net zero or other targets that they have for 2030 or 2050, depending where they are in this space. I think there is a role for those guys to continue to strive forwards and show that they are leading the way in delivering it, not least because a lot of what we've seen in terms of where public trust is, is often actually in the brands that they find in their store cupboard, rather than skepticism that they often see in terms of government delivery, et cetera. So I think there's a huge role there. That said, to rely on business alone is for the birds. They can control their scope one and scope two, and I think we're seeing good progress on there and certainly amongst those that are leading will continue to see it. But if we're really going to make a tangible move to really reducing emissions or creating greater resilience in our, frankly, wider planetary system, there is going to have to be a lot more kind of public-private partnerships. We've got to bring a long society with us and there's got to be much more collaboration. I think if there's one thing that we saw from the pandemic and I know that's been raised is we can do absolutely incredible things when those institutions, those businesses and governments come together in terms of rapid delivery. It wasn't seamless and it wasn't flawless, but there was an amazing, amazing shift that took place there. If you can apply that kind of effort, focus and transition into something like we're talking about now in terms of climate, you will not only see, I think we will see some incredible changes in terms of technology, we'll see some hopefully things in terms of both mitigation but also adaption, which I think will come under and I'm sure we'll talk about in a little bit. But we will also see some of the other challenges that we've kind of raised in these currents addressed across the kind of democratic principles, across how we're kind of managing our supply chains, across how we are, ensuring that the information out there is factual and we're still placing an emphasis on science and truth. So I think huge, huge role to play, but it certainly can't be done in isolation. Right, thank you. I think that this issue of bringing society along, that's really crucial, isn't it? And almost all of what we're talking about here. And Arama, I wanted to just go back to you because I know you still had some things to say on that and that was essentially what you were talking about too, right? That we actually have to help people understand that these are problems, that there are ways to deal with them and we need to really figure out answers that are going to work for everybody, not something that's imposed from somewhere that doesn't recognize the local reality. No, I fully agree on that, Marie. And the good news is that whether you are with or in other gas cap, people know what kind of change. We're not in the scenario we were in 20 years ago when it was this still new phenomenon. So I think in terms of misinformation on the ground, I do not find any misinformation. I think people are actually overly informed about climate and what it does and why these changes that they experience on a daily basis, whether it's change in weather patterns or these extraordinary climate disasters that are hitting with more frequency and with more severity. I think people are very informed on the ground. And I think also that's an opportunity going forward because you don't have to introduce a climate change as you go into these communities and into countries to try to effect change and ensure that policy changes are in place to deal with these disasters. I also find in my work in the bank that it's a safe topic. It's difficult to convince a prime minister or president to discuss political strife and civil. But it's easy to talk about climate change because it's externally caused with local impact. So I always find it's an easy programming topic in our political dialogue. And as we discuss with clients, with client countries, what to do with going next. What I do find an opportunity in is both. I think it's both sides. I think it's important to think about climate change because climate change is a very important aspect of the tech revolution. I want to spend a minute on that if you allow me, Lori, because I think indeed the, you know, the green hydrogen discussions that we had not over a month ago in Angola. So those are exciting for both the private investors, the private sector and the public sectors, the people folks. So they're good, but I also don't want us to think that it'll be the silver bullet. I think it's important to think about behavioral changes which are essential for us to stop the climate crisis. Our friends in Florida will have to put off those lights that are on 24-7. We will need to drive smaller cars. We will have to bike. We will need to leapfrog back to those technologies that are, I guess, also important that everyone can use across the globe, whether in the Netherlands or in southern Europe, you know, people just have to go back to biking and that's more of a path to sustainability. But I do realise that the behavioral changes we're asking for in our climate community, in our side of the debate are still anathema and still unthought of for many people on the other side of the discussion. So that's more what I see as the trend and the tensions we will still have to struggle with as we look at 2023 beyond through 2030. How do we ensure that we don't just focus on technological breakthroughs but we really do the groundwork. The needed essential day-to-day work of convincing humanity that there's no planet B and we've got to put in the work to make sure that we keep the planet that we have today. Back to you, Lauren. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. So how do we persuade people that we need to do this? I mean, because it's really, you're right. It's really happening at all levels. We need politicians setting where we're going and international groups and business knowing where we're going. We need people recognising that the lifestyle that they still see on TV is not necessarily the one that we all ought to be adopting and in fact, all of us ought to be taking some responsibility and shifting towards something that is more sustainable. But we're trying to do that at a time where fundamental questions about what's reality and what's the truth and all of that is up in the air. I'm just curious to anybody. What do you think is the way to attack this on all these levels? Yes, Anurama. I want to just pick up where Aram left off on this behavioural change issue because you're right. If you just leave it to individuals, even though it is about individual behaviour, leave it to individuals, you don't get the consistency of action at scale that then makes the behavioural change a story, something that becomes one more wedge in your wedges of climate action. So just a few months ago in India, we launched formally something called Mission Life, Lifestyle for Environment, something that the Prime Minister talked about first in Glasgow, but then another 11 months later we had the formal mission in place. We had CW who had some role to play in that and the US Secretary General was also present when this mission was launched. Now if you think about how we try to attack this, there is of course the nudging of individual behaviour, but there is also the second pillar of what we call the enabling of markets to respond to that change in individual behavioural kind of the demand for more sustainable products. And there is a third part which is both the shift in policy, but also the shift in aspirations that goes back to what is a good life. But before we get into that philosophical world of what is the good life and what is an aspirational life that is considered to be progress and yet not consuming more and more of planetary resources, the nudging of behaviour and the enabling of markets can actually give you very concrete things to do. So one of the things we're doing is again just how we count GDP. And we've come GDP, I mean if you're an economist you've been taught how much is consumption expenditure, how much is investment expenditure, how much is government procurement and expenditure and how much is net exports. That's how you get a calculation GDP. Now what if we did the same equation but we're looking at how much of that consumption expenditure is actually the sustainable consumption expenditure. How much of investment, capital investment is going into the circular economy. How much of government procurement is going towards procuring lesser resource-intensive products and services. How much of net exports is actually about exporting less resource-intensive. When you start doing that that individual nudging of behaviour suddenly spans into something that becomes a market of hundreds of billions of dollars as we are calculating. So I think it's very important to take what Aram is saying about, you know, this is not going to be done by a hubristic technological fix alone. But then truly supporting that behavioural story with a larger narrative about a shift towards the way the macroeconomy is considered. Yeah, Manuel, I think you had something to say about this as well. Yes, Laurie, this is a really fantastic discussion because you are asking what to do. When I read the concept for today's event a phrase popped up in my mind people lose trust on leaders and that is an important phrase, but I would like to do the opposite. What does it mean to be a leader today? Because probably we are suffering of lack of a new kind of leadership for the work. Let me use this example. Who has just been defined the person of the year by time? Zelenski? I hope that I am not wrong. Why? No, we are talking about somebody in charge of leading a war. Because he has a clear vision. He knows what to do, that it is to recover territory. Unfortunately, we are in the middle of the war and sorry for using this example, but it is an important one. He has measurable actions that for me it is key so he can show progress to his people. It could work. I have recovered this side of the territory of this other side of the territory of XYZ. So clarity in the vision, measurable actions. He has defined organized systems and tools so the people can follow him. And that is for me it is not that I am suggesting to put all the words into a word, but sometimes we have to think based in this idea of the urgency during times of war. In some way when we think about climate and nature loss, we are fighting a war, but probably we are not fully conscious of that. So what is happening that the case of Zelensky is clear and you can put all those elements and you can confirm that he is a good leader based on that situation. But probably the current leaders are not including those elements and let me mention something about something that Shonaid you mentioned a spit. So what I am trying to say is that what we used to have as a spit of leaders is not operating more now. That is the point. And that is why we are suffering all these difficulties with democracy. Because probably by now the people are expecting to have a leader that can communicate as a tweet, something pragmatic, something quick, something that it is measurable. And that is something that we have to explore. What are the new elements of leadership for the world? Also, some reflections probably not clear answers, but Zelensky is a good example of why the people is following him, why it is in the front page of the time magazine. No, I mean that's absolutely fascinating honestly. If you have a leader who's got a clear vision, he steps up in a time of need who can behave in a selfless way and can tell a coherent story that moves people. That's really something. I would point out that Donald Trump is one of the people who has moved people through a tweet and things like that. It's not all a clear trajectory here, but I think you are absolutely right. The leadership needs to be different for this new era of different kinds of threads. Also, you were keen to jump in here and I'll get to you, Shani. I just wanted to compliment a little bit what Arunabha raised about the sustainable lifestyles, but first I think also the leadership is so important, I fully agree with that and I think agency is really a keyword I hope to see in here in 2023. From urgency to agency we've been talking about this turbulent world changing geopolitics for quite some time, but how do we translate that into agency. I think how to get people with you one sort of thing I would think would be exciting to maybe see in this year is green jobs and I believe there are now more people working in the clean energy industry than in the fossil industry. The IEA reports on this, but we haven't really I think the clean energy narrative is still very driven by the finance sector, you know, making investments, rolling it out, but actually the people working and being, you know, dependents on this industry and also of course, you know, want to develop it further and take pride in their jobs. I think that could be a really compelling reason for people to support the climate transition when they see that it translates directly into jobs. But when it comes to sustainable lifestyles, I fully agree that, you know, it's very much actually not about individuals taking action, but society making it's possible to have a sustainable lifestyles. But there is some really interesting research I think in people's motivation. So going back to that individual level in Finland, I know maybe Lauren knows more about it. There has been research on, you know, what motivates people to adopt sustainable lifestyles and actually sustainability is a very small part of it, you know, like concern for the environment or, you know, some maybe even connecting it to climate targets. What's really important also is thriftiness. So, I mean, saving money maybe more common with our grandparents generation, but, you know, maybe cost of living is kind of bumping that motivation up a little bit. Some people are motivated by being in the technology forefront, using new smart gadgets here in Sweden now people are using these energy efficiency innovations in their houses to really monitor, you know, down to hours and minutes when they how they should optimize their energy use. So I think if we could government research business could really tap into these motivation profiles and if we're lucky some of the crisis we're talking about today could really kind of boost motivation not just from the sustainability angle but also these other angles which I think are very compelling and important in our daily lives. Yeah, motivation is really important because you know, we know that none of us are very good at doing things we're not at all excited about or don't feel interesting and if you can really find ways to drive this behavior around what people are excited about to make the things that we want to have happen exciting and aspirational and being part of a group of people doing it then it changes everything I think. Seanid It's actually a very short point related to that. I think we talk a lot and often within the same circles about the same problems and how those are progressing but when you start to put them in the outside world our research has shown that and I'm sure there's lots of other research has shown the same is there's two things amongst most people in terms of one, they don't understand what most of these terms mean, net zero means something to us great but actually like tangibly what does that mean to most people in most countries but equally there is a kind of desire to see some form of change and so the appetite is there they just don't want to hear it alongside cost of living, energy like the world is pretty rubbish right has been for some people for many many years but right now particularly there's lots of challenges so how we communicate right now is incredibly important and I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on doing it in terms that change by culture and by market but are clear and simple and actionable and I think that's where the Zelensky comparison is and the Trump comparisons actually are quite very useful these people know how to communicate fundamentally and they know how to communicate on really complex topics in incredibly simple ways that are motivating and I think the other thing that we have seen recently that's we're thinking about is people aren't against any of this stuff but they just want to see practical solutions and policies got underway and so to the society point like I think exactly what I said like people are a sort of moving in that direction anyway the majority of there's always a section that will not but they also just need people to like business government institutions to get on with it and then we will start to kind of see some positive dividend I think in terms of behavior as well. Great, Lauri I didn't I don't want to leave you out here did what do you think about all this motivation is this the way forward or is it something else? Thank you sir I think I also have a pretty basic distinction to make which is it's if what you're trying to do is you're trying to tell people here's why you should care about my issue that's really hard. People aren't looking for new issues to worry about and care about so if you're able to say not that but say this is what I can do about the issues that you care about you're much more likely to make headway and I think Manuel's example of the inflation reduction act is a very good one I don't think it's a climate bill it's an economic bill but it's an economic bill that takes a lot of steps in terms of reducing emissions because those as I said the inflation crisis is your large extent of fossil fuel crisis and the thing that we need to do to address it is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels similarly the reason why China's gone for a massive increasing ambition with clean energy a part of that is about climate leadership but a big part of that is about industrial policy about energy security and so on so it's conditioning those climate solutions to address things that are happening in the world and that are the burning issues right now another example of my organization Central Research on Energy and Clean Energy we started to shed light on the health impacts of fossil fuels a lot of what we've been doing is assessments of the air quality impacts, the health impacts of fossil fuel projects of clean energy policies and so on to show how clean energy solutions can address that problem that a lot of people very visually and personally care about in different parts of the world so there's just a lot of this work to be done around different issues okay fantastic I can see you know we're getting short on time here and there's so much to talk about we could be here a long time longer but I really did want to get to some of the questions that are in the Q&A because I think people have got I'm not the only one who's got questions on this let me just see if I can see here here's one do you think it's possible to create a truly sustainable world and our current capitalist system if so how or do you think large systemic changes are needed and if so where do we start I'd love to have at least one person see if I can take that on any any takers otherwise you can think about it and I'll go on to the next one I'll go ahead let me say something in relation to that I think it is possible if we are able to connect our vision with the economic processes look we are entering the current times means that we are entering into a new in my point of view climate economy probably we are yes in the first steps but clearly the world it is coming into including more climate consideration for the economic process and for development objective and that is fantastic it is not happening the same with nature it is interesting that the difference between the climate debate and the biodiversity or nature debate it is the lack of understanding on how much nature loss it must be connected to the economy so I think that if we are able to continue connecting the economy processes with the climate objective that means on the other hand to include all the actors to work that transitions and to define a clear and systemic understanding on for example what does it mean net zero we haven't finished yet in defining what does it mean net zero what is that balance between emission reduction and removal we do need to clarify that and let me finish by saying we do need to align our language fully agree with you Laurie the point it is that each one of the actors it is speaking with your own language and it is not understanding the other but yeah I think it is possible okay anybody else quickly want to jump in on that or should we move to the next one just stick up your hand if you're interested okay well let me go to the next we have one here saying that it's really helpful that many people worldwide now know about climate change and the link to fossil fuels but there's a risk as with any issue that it's seen too simplistically for example in sustainable food production and consumption practices contribute hugely to climate change and biodiversity loss pollution and other things but I don't think nearly as many people are aware of their impact on climate through their food consumption is through their heating lighting transport you know what what's the need for real public education on what are the important things we should be thinking about as we try to do behavior change anybody like to answer that I'll just say one thing as a long time vegan myself I feel like probably a part of it is that that the food debate has been monopolized by people with a very principled stance of being vegan not eating meat rather than a much easier transition to eating more sustainable mixed food and one thing that I've certainly seen in many parts of Europe at least changing this is the new meat substitution products or vegetable protein products which are just good food suitable for a lot of the cooking that people do healthier than the meat that you would use otherwise and so on so it's another solution that just by making making it easier can shift things and the other thing is we do have to think about a lot of different shifts and solutions at the same time Laurie said in the beginning that pointed out that we have a lot to do before by 2030 and on that time scale it makes sense to focus on some of those big things reducing coal electricity but getting your actual zero emissions just means tackling a lot of harder problems including agriculture including steel production and everything in between and simply because of the fact that I don't think people are going to change how they eat and what they eat solely because of climate it's just a different track of finding the reasons and the motivations and communicating the reasons for people to eat more sustainably and healthier thank you okay here's an interesting one what are the prospects for agreement on fossil fuel phase out at COP 28 is there a rule for the G20 I mean this is an interesting meeting you know to try to have fossil fuel phase out while you're meeting in the sky is a big ask right we haven't seen a lot of that driving huge ambition in the past what do you think anybody want to tackle that one if not I have one more for you too probably the last one we can get to in the time we've got how does the challenge of tackling biodiversity loss fit and interact with these four currents anybody wants to take on other those stick up your hand yeah Manuel okay let me go to the first the phase out of fossil fuels yeah we hope that we can get an agreement that in some way it has been postponed from COP 27 we know how weak COP 27 was so we are pushing to have a good decision in relation to in COP 28 also remind that this idea of being clear on facing out fossil fuels started in Glasgow when the agreement it was to phase out coal but unfortunately in the last minutes because of India among some other countries the phrase was changed to phase down but the point it is that now cops still are the most important political piece of the climate debate but not the single one and that is interesting so there are some processes that are unstoppable the phase out of coal it is unstoppable despite how much willingness parties could have in defining a clear agreement in cops so the point it is that we do need to work to have that agreement to have that political signal but also to use some alternative mechanism as the financial mechanism to avoid to continue supporting or investing in those fossil fuels because this will be a gradual process so my point it is I am pretty sure that we can get back to the same probably not as much as we are expecting but we have to continue working outside cops world to continue pushing to produce that fossil fuel and yeah I will leave the biodiversity loss to give the opportunity some other. Arun Ava were you looking to talk about biodiversity loss or fossil fuels? Well I want to talk about all three a little bit of the food question and biodiversity with just one word voice you know when Albert Hirshman wrote exit voice loyalty more than 50 years ago the argument was simple you stick with a process you consider legitimate if you have voice in it and if you don't see the outcomes that are responding to your needs you exit it now if you take all of these questions they are from a planetary perspective they are certainly important questions the role of fossil fuels and energy systems the kind of food we grow and eat and of course where does biodiversity fit in especially in the context of a species that is dominating the planet but also in a parasitic way the report that Osha and I lead authored for Stockholm plus 50 the first recommendations changing humans relation to the nature because it is not and I might be a little heretical here but it is not actually about the food we eat it is actually about the role of nutrition in human development if you don't focus on human development then we only have this one or zero approach towards meat or no meat or some you know veggies or vegan etc and this goes back to the point about empathy and apathy so there will be communities where for nutritional reasons you might be consuming meat but that is not the community that is consuming meat for a night out and a date so there is a difference between what you consume and who consumes and for what purpose the same applies to the use of fossil fuels and our energy systems yes there was a resistance towards the phase out of coal even though India has already demonstrated it is the world's fourth largest renewable energy market already much earlier at a stage of development than other economies and the third most attractive renewable investment destination and just last week has announced the world's largest programme on green hydrogen but India's proposal for phasing out all fossil fuels was rejected in COP22 so again the question is not about fossil fuels or not fossil fuels it is about who needs it for a particular purpose and who is using it for lifestyle purposes and the last voice that is not there is about all the non-human species on the planet and this lack of convergence for 30 years of the Rio Conventions is a challenge because we are back to what Aram was saying we are a hubristic species that thinks we can spoil things and then have technological fixes to it so the point here is I don't disagree with the question about getting away from fossil fuels I don't disagree with the question about whether we eat meat or not and I don't disagree with the question about biodiversity but what is missing is the voice of the voiceless the humans and the non-humans and if we don't get that right we will not be able to demonstrate that COP28 or any other COP is going to demonstrate anything different from what we have experienced in the last 30 years that's important Aram you want to come in on that I wanted to come in on the biodiversity question a little bit I'm really glad that the person raised it I know now we will come in on this as well and I think it's important we see them as we look at trends 2023 onwards as really the same challenge for all the climate crisis if we are depleting our biodiversity we cannot achieve climate resilience if we're not building the nature I think our colleagues now worldwide have made the case so strongly that I really wish that COP15 and COP27 were really one event so to say in the past year and hopefully going forward as we look at COP28 in the future by diversity cops the world will find ways and segues to bring the two conversations into one large space because they're really one two sides of the same question how do we save the planet and that cannot happen if we do not work with the biodiversity that we've been we've been given so that was on that question I just wanted to come in quickly on the first question which made me smile I think we don't have an option if we're not optimistic and if we don't make these these dire changes needed then there's just no planet being again so I think we've got to come up with ways to ensure our own sustainability on this planet we've got to find ways to tell ourselves this is all the destruction that's taken place we now need to just enter a new era where our children and their children function and operate differently with the resources that we have and then the victims are already here sharing the stories of what happens if we don't so back to you Larry Thank you Larry just very briefly we're running very short on time I just wanted to flag the bioenergy, biofuels aspect of this so obviously the sky high prices of fossil fuels have meant that there's even more demand for burning bioenergy and biofuels which has which is making the biodiversity crisis worse so one thing that we really clearly need to need articulated is the need to prioritize through clean energy that isn't based on on grabbing food from people and putting it into the tank or cutting down forests for energy and failure to step back on or cut down on biofuel use when we were going through and are still going through this food crisis globally is one of the big failures of global solidarity and governance so just wanted to throw that in Well we have talked about so many interesting things here and so many interesting things tied together you know what is a good life what does it mean to be a leader today we're all fighting a war it's not just the linsky but how do we learn to communicate like him to get people on our side and and have this success you know how do we how do we talk to people about their issues and not our issues in order to drive this all forward I want to just super briefly and I mean like 15 seconds each of you can you point to one thing that's coming up in this coming year that you think is a positive development that could help or an opportunity I'm going to start with Sean with me I think we are going to start to see from the corporate perspective delivery on all of this chat and goals that have been taking place I know from my work that there are several things coming and the more momentum we have behind that at least from one side the better so I look forward to India championing sustainable lifestyles to climate vulnerable people hopefully making progress on the loss and damage agenda EU agreeing on the fit for 55 now during the Swedish presidency but also very hopefully citizens of Europe the energy savings that we can collectively make will bring a powerful message of solidarity also in the face of the Ukraine war clarity on the vision I will insist on that and I think the climate debate it is telling us how important it is to know where to go how to go and what to achieve our another I am actually excited about the potential of jobs growth and sustainability all coming together and the livelihood perspective the livelihoods lens will actually give us that political demand for sustainability from the people who are most impacted and that is where a lot of the innovation is already happening the massive scale up of clean energy solutions that started with the fossil fuel crisis really coming to fruition investment in manufacturing investment in debt deployment starting to bend the emission curve is I think going to be the big story on emissions and energy this year Aram my colleagues I think have covered it all I agree with all of them and the ones that raised it maybe if I could add one it would be the IPCC definition of climate resilient development I think that's really nice and well and as we focus mitigation and adaptation actions and investments at country level that will be a nice shift so we stop talking about mitigation and adaptation separately and have one focused climate agenda at national level thank you and thanks to all of you that was so interesting I really appreciate it being a good conversation amongst all of us and I wanted to hand over now we're hoping to see a video that we wanted to show you at the beginning but we now will try to show it to you at the end here can I hand over to have that introduced thank you can you see me Mons here again and before we start the keynote speech which has been recorded for technical reasons I want to throw in my own little positive note to end with you know we've had like seven bad years of global deteriorating international relations with I think we had a good year in 2015 with the STGs Paris Agreement but it's been downhill since then in the international relations I think there's an undercurrent of optimism that things are coming together I think a lot of big parts of the world are realizing what we might be missing and I see I see a lot of signs of this already in 22 you know from the midterm election in the United States to the gelling together of the EU in the face of the Russian aggression the uprising in Iran the peaceful transition of power in Kenya and China also for example opening up a bit and approaching the foreign relations with a softer voice and a more collaborative style than we've seen in the past years so I think for me this current of undercurrent of a better multilateralism I think is a sign of hope for the future and on that note the president of our main multilateral body in the world the United Nations General Assembly is now Sabah Karachi of Hungary he's the president of the 77th Assembly a Hungarian diplomat he has also served as a state secretary of the office of the president of Hungary he has had many related sustainability related posts such as being founding member of the Hungarian scientific panel on climate change permanent invitee to the presidential committee on sustainable development and at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences also he was co-chair of the open working group that on the sustainable development goals that were actually the group that invented the SDGs and the 2030 agenda for the 2015 decision and his slogan is solutions through solidarity sustainability science and I cannot think of a better way to close this inspiring panel discussion by listening to his message to us that we received and has been recorded so let's try to play this recording and thank you very much for joining Dear friends in our quest for sustainability Isaac Asimov the American biochemist and science fiction writer once said no sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is but the world as it will be he was right decision which path to follow now will have a direct impact on the fate of the forthcoming generations of humankind too yes we have entered the Anthropocene era in the history of the earth but are we up to the tremendous responsibility of being the main shapers of life on our globe we usually make our decisions with the assumption that we have the relevant information for the best possible outcome let me draw a parallel if you need to cross a road and there is no traffic light you assess the flow of cars there are several factors for you to evaluate the number of cars the distance between them the speed the width of the road the number and the location of banana peels your abilities to walk even the possibility of a police officer showing up what we know is that in our world today we need to get to the other side of the road as on our side of the road conditions for life and civilization are becoming unsustainable the other side that is more sustainable peaceful respectful inclusive socially more just and therefore better for the current and future generations of humanity and their only home this fragile blue planet just as we agreed in our real world the cars are the wars the blatant disrespect for human rights the depletion of our resources the inadequate education of our children the growing inequality of distribution of food and other resources and most alarmingly the worsening altering climate crisis it would be self-deception to expect that a friendly policeman will suddenly show up in 2023 in fact in 2020 we had a sort of policeman called COVID-19 it introduced to us the prototype of the antropocene era crisis but even that was not enough to cause a speedy transformation despite our joint promise we gave earlier in the SDGs the Addis Ababa protocol and the Paris Agreement in 2023 we are providing science briefings to the UN General Assembly the world's number one deliberative and policy making body an institution comprising 193 member states with a combined constituency of 8 billion people we hope to see a coalition of scientists that can advise the assembly in shaping key decisions and validate how sustainable their implementation is how fast we are crossing the road and how many cars are approaching we will have the UN conference on water in March to agree and decide on game changers for water and resilience new financing models for water and a global water information system are both key elements of our new integrated water and climate agenda we will review our progress regarding the Sendai framework in May to lock in early warnings for all as well as risk assessment and mitigation the SDGs summit in September will be the moment to synthesize it all for the whole sustainable development agenda and to put the road on a beyond the GDP track with scientific guardrails approved by the international community Dear friends we have to focus on the future we cannot get through the road based on how many cars went by yesterday we can't build traffic lights it will take too long to agree on where to put them and on the side that will pay for them but we can get our act together and provide the basic scientific guidance we all need to cross the road the road that divides humanity's demise from its second chance please join me in this endeavor while doing so I ask you to be mindful of the limitations of our knowledge but all the same to be resolute because time is evidently not on our side how to do that how to resolve the basic dilemma of the 21st century well to quote the immortal words of Hamlet that is the question and it is with this question that I wish you thought provoking discussions I sincerely hope to get positive, impactful and game changing outcomes from your deliberations good luck and a happy new year to all of you thanks for your attention thank you so much all of you who've attended today who've asked questions who've listened to all these really wonderful and fascinating insights and I hope that you all take this forward in your own work this year and think about these things with us thanks again sorry we're a little bit over time but I think it was worth it to hear that final address please take care have a great 2023