 Good morning to all of you. It is Friday morning. I'm delighted to see all of you still alive and happy to come here. I believe we're going to be kicked off by Andre. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you, Andre. Thank you, everyone. My name is Andre Bellio. I'm with the World Economic Forum. Just like to welcome you here this Friday morning. I know Davos is almost over, but as you can see, we've left some of the most important topics for the end of this morning. Preparing for climate disruption, many of you may have had a chance to read or look through the Global Risks Report that we just published a few weeks ago. More environmental and climate-related risks were once again at the top of the agenda. In fact, those with the most likely impact on our economies and societies, four of the five were environmental-related risks. Stream weather events were at the top, and the second one was, in fact, the potential failure of measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change in the future, and that's what we're here to talk about today. Just a quick note, as part of the Forum's system initiative on shaping environment and natural resource security, the resilience agenda is going to be a top priority for the World Economic Forum over the next 12 months, and in particular, given the importance of the topic for the UN Secretary General's Climate Summit that's coming up in New York, September, the Forum is going to make a concerted effort to support the Champions and Initiatives who are going to be driving the resilience agenda forward. So, we have, as you can see, a fantastic panel here today, a lot to discuss in a short period of time, so maybe I'll turn it over to Cristiana to take us on this panel. Thank you. Thank you very much, John Mayne. Let me say, as climate junkie of many decades, I think I can take, hopefully, not personal responsibility, but share responsibility for the fact that climate junkies, we have been focusing much, much more on emission reductions or mitigation rather than on resilience, building and adaptation. This is a panel that actually comes square in the middle of both of those, because I think what we would like to do is speak to the many different types of risks that we are facing, particularly if we're not addressing climate change, and how are we beginning to mitigate or manage those risks. So we have a fantastic panel that represents either the voice of the risks or some experience mitigating those risks. And we will be having, I think, a kaleidoscopic conversation, if I may say so, because you will note that there is, perhaps, not terribly much overlap of the topics that each of the panel members will speak to, but in your heads you can keep the macro discussion, which is how do we squarely, frankly, and honestly face the many different risks that we have and how are we doing on mitigating those risks? So with that small introduction, can I give you at least a partial list of the risks that we have? I would like to start with the one that I think has come up more vehemently this year, which I would like to call the social license this. And that is the increasing outrage, frankly, the increasing outrage of citizens around the world who are, frankly, just getting fed up with the insufficiency of our efforts, the insufficiency of our intentions, the insufficiency of our good thinking, but the insufficiency of results by far. And I think there is a small or, in fact, big part of our hearts who know that that is completely true. That insufficiency and that social license risk, I think actually divides up into two areas, one of which we will speak to today, but the other one that we should also hold in our presence, one is about health, one is about being able to breathe clean air. Air pollution, it is just completely unacceptable that in this year, 2019, 7 million people will die because of air pollution. Frankly, that is absolutely unacceptable. Unfortunately, over the past few years, we have seen growing social unrest on the streets because people have this expectation that they should be able to breathe clean air. How do you think about that? So let's remember that that social unrest is there. At the same time, we have a social unrest that comes out of sheer outrage, as I said, out of the insufficiency of our streets and Vietta will very eloquently speak to. Another risk that we are facing is regulatory risk because I think all companies certainly know that the pace of regulation to protect us against climate change is increasing. And so how are we increasing our resilience to that risk? And I don't think that we will speak to that today, but please keep that as well in your minds. Another one that I think we will hear from today is financial risk and the fact that both investors as well as central bankers are now increasingly aware of the risks and are beginning to put measures in place about the financial risk that unabated carbon emissions place. I think is a good thing. Big question for us to think about is, is it enough? Is it actually moving quickly enough? Another risk that is perhaps related to the social unrest or not yet, but we may see that actually compound is the political risk of leaving some behind. The technologies that we are putting forward are actually being accessed perhaps unfairly by some and not by all. And we do know that the political consequences that we have seen over the past two to three years have to do with income inequality. It has to do with income inequality, certainly within countries and we've seen that, but perhaps in our case even more importantly, the inequality between the countries. And so are we doing everything that we can to ensure that we are not leaving anyone behind. And finally, the other one that we will also not speak to, but that I would ask you to keep also in your risk framework is frankly, we're losing earth resilience. If we're trying to build up resilience to all of these risks, the hot house or hot house earth report and all the reports that have come out this year are pointing in one unequivocal direction, which is the earth can no longer serve as our buffer. Neither the oceans can do it nor the forest can do it. Nature has honestly been giving us a little license to be irresponsible, but that is actually running out. And so what are we doing on that risk and how are we dealing with the very, very quickly diminishing resilience of nature or again in face of the insufficiency of our actions. So sorry to start you on a Friday morning with all the bad news, but the good thing is that we are actually at least beginning to build our resilience to some of these issues. And I think the purpose of this panel is to pinpoint where we are beginning and put out more stepping stones about how are we going to increase that rapidly over the next 12 to 24 months because we have 2020 as the critical year for climate. So with that rather daunting introduction, could I please start if it's okay with you, Bertha, if we could start with you because I think that the voice that you bring of social unrest in particular from the young generation, from the young generation is the most novel, the most dramatic and the one that we frankly should pay most attention to. So if I could introduce the wonderful Vietta Thurber from Sweden who is 16 years old who has been a climate expert, I don't use the word expert lightly. I don't think there are many climate experts but this is one from the age of 10. She noted to me yesterday that one of her horrific conclusions of Davos is that of all the people we're talking about, climate change, none of them know what the Albedo effect is, none of them know what the healing curve is, and certainly none of them understand the carbon budget. With that, may I introduce climate expert Vietta who has also mobilized thousands of children to strike on climate around the world. That was me, sorry. Our house is on fire. I am here to say our house is on fire. According to the IPCC, we are less than 12 years away from not being able to undo our mistakes. In that time, unprecedented changes in all aspects of society needs to have taken place, including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%. And please note that those numbers do not include the aspect of equity which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris Agreement work on a global scale. Nor does it include tipping points or feedback loops like the extreme powerful methane gas being released from the thawing Arctic permafrost. At places like Davos, people like to tell success stories, but their financial success has come with an unthinkable price tag. And on climate change, we have to acknowledge that we have failed. All political movements in their present form have done so. And the media has failed to create broad public awareness. But homo sapiens have not yet failed. Yes, we are failing, but there is still time to turn everything around. We can still fix this. We still have everything in our own hands. But unless we recognize the overall failures of our current systems, we must probably, most probably, don't stand a chance. We are facing a disaster of unspoken sufferings for enormous amounts of people. And now is not the time for speaking politely, or focusing on what we can or cannot say. Now is the time to speak clearly. Solving the climate crisis is the greatest and most complex challenge that homo sapiens have ever faced. The main solution, however, is so simple that even a small child can understand it. We have to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases. And either we do that or we don't. You say nothing in life is black or white, but that is a lie, a very dangerous lie. Either we prevent a 1.5 degree of warming or we don't. Either we avoid setting off that irreversible chain reaction beyond human control or we don't. Either we choose to go on as a civilization or we don't. That is as black or white as it gets. There are no gray areas when it comes to survival. Now we all have a choice. We can create a transformational action that will save God the future living conditions for humankind. We can continue with our business as usual and fail. That is up to you and me. Some say that we should not engage in activism. Instead, we should leave everything to our politicians and just vote for change instead. But what do we do when there is no political will? What do we do when the politics needed are nowhere in sight? Here in Davos, just like everywhere else, everyone is talking about money. It seems that money and growth are our own only main concerns. And since the climate crisis is a crisis that has never once been treated as a crisis, people are simply not aware of the full consequences of our everyday life. People are not aware that there is such a thing as a carbon budget and just how incredible small that remaining carbon budget is. And that needs to change today. No other current challenge can match the importance of establishing a wide public awareness and understanding of our rapidly disappearing carbon budget that should and must become a new global currency and the very heart of future and present economics. We are now at a time in history where everyone with any insight of the climate crisis that threatens our civilization and the entire biofair must speak out in clear language, no matter how uncomfortable and unprofitable that may be. We must change almost everything in our current societies. The bigger your carbon footprint is, the bigger your more duty, the bigger your platform, the bigger your responsibility. Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people to give them hope. But I don't want your hope. I don't want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as if you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house was on fire. Because it is. We all speak, I want you to panic. Honestly, I think she's right. We have not panicked and we are certainly not active. On the other hand, because we always have to try to find where is the path forward? I think the other speakers today will give us at least some steps forward in some respects. And, Gozi, I wanted to start with you, because Greta has said we cannot speak politely. And with full admiration and respect for you, I think you are one of the political leaders who has that ability to speak frankly, speak truth to power and speak beyond politeness. And I would very much invite you to speak to the issue of the political risk of leaving developing countries behind, leaving the African countries behind. And what is Africa doing about that? First, let me say that I've never seen you so emotional and both sobering and at the same time magnificent speech from the youngest amongst us. I just want to thank you, Greta. Thank you. If we need our children and our young people to make us think again of what the sensible paths are, then so be it. Let them mobilize to make us think. So thank you. I've never seen you speechless, Christian. This is the first time. So now I know what to do. We want to get you to shut up. I'm going to be traveling with Greta from now on. You definitely get me to shut up. But, yeah, I would like to speak to the issue. Let me touch on one of the big risks that worries me and then bring it back to some solution. That is, at least on the African continent, being put together. It's the risk of people who are impacted by not only economic disadvantage being left behind by the way we run our economies, the increase in inequality within countries, the marginal marginalization of certain groups of the population. But also those who are left behind when disasters strike. And there's no instrument, no protection, nothing to build their resilience beforehand and not much to take care of them after. That's humanitarian aid, which takes some time to come together. Yes, I'm increasingly worried. And it's interesting to me about this exclusion of people that the phenomenon manifested in developed countries where you see in the US, you know, people in Michigan, you know, middle income people, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, whose incomes have stagnated for more than a decade, you know, rising up and expressing themselves through the ballot box. We see the Gilles Jaume in France. We see in Italy, those who are protesting against immigration, we see it in Germany. All these are the protests of people who are left behind in one way or the other. And I really believe that's the biggest, one of the biggest dangers we face, is if we don't look at our model of development to see how are we going to make it more inclusive. But it also now links back to people in low income countries, developing countries who have also been left behind. But I don't think that their voices, you know, were heard. It was just that they didn't know how to operate the development model that was on offer from the Western world. But now we're seeing that maybe it's not only that, is that the kind of model we're operating, we may need to change and change, modify, adapt, whatever language we want to use, so that we can not leave people behind. So that's the point where I link back to one of the things that is increasingly happening over time is all natural disasters. Droughts, floods, which have increased in frequency more than 10 times over the past few decades, according to work that has been done by Swiss Reef. And you know that last year, in 2018 globally, more than 11,000 lives were lost as a result of disasters and estimated economic losses of 300 to 330 billion. These are large numbers. And of course, on the continent of Africa, we've experienced droughts and floods, which have led to losses. The normal reaction to this, the normal reaction to this has been to try to, you know, put up a humanitarian appeal, which takes time before people can put money together. And the African countries looked and said, this is not acceptable. We need to put together an instrument that can help us take care of the people who are impacted within two or three weeks of an incident happening. And what they developed, which I'm very proud of, is a market-based instrument, which is a disaster risk insurance instrument. So we went to the markets to try and find a way to transfer the risks to the market. It's called the African Risk Capacity, which has an insurance agent. And I want you to know we are reinsured by Swiss Reef and African Reef, and sorry, Munich Reef. Now, this insurance, how does it work? We have, the African Union has asked all members to try to register. 32 countries have committed and registered as members. We have developed a commercial insurance agency called Africa Limited. And so far, eight countries have joined the insurance pool. And from their budgets, they've contributed $50 million. We've collected $50 million in the six years or so we've been operating. And we've had in four countries payouts totally in 36 million. So the instrument is working. Countries prepare contingency plans so that when there's an event of a drought, of a certain magnitude, it triggers payment within two to three weeks. Because we've already prepared a plan to deal with it. Now, what we are urging countries to do is to have a comprehensive look at out-of-money disasters and have a basket of instruments of which this is won. But the fact that African countries have come up with their own solution, their own idea, they're paying from their own budgets, real money, and that the instrument is working is something that I think one needs to be proud of because very often we are being urged to find solutions to our problems. Well, we found one and I want you to know about it. Now, you know, at the end of this note, the payouts have resulted in 2.1 million people who would have left their places of origin to migrate, staying in place with their 900,000 cattle. So just imagine that apart from the money keeping people in place, stopping them from migrating and maybe leaving the continent even to go to Europe, this is a very, very big result and impact. And I think it's an effort that needs to be supported and commanded. So thank you. Indeed, thank you very much. Boom goes in. It's a very interesting experiment. I would say that it's started an experience. We've been going for six years and the idea started about 10 years ago and it took quite a while to get it off the ground. But it's a very interesting experiment that other regions could look at and I know that the Caribbean is looking at it as well, of finding a financial, not a solution, but a financial reprieve for humanitarian cases truly. And the fact that you can pay out in two to three weeks, I'm not sure how many insurance companies would be able to do that. And I believe the questioning actually is also minimum. You don't have to provide all of that information. It's minimal information that is provided. Can you remind us about it? Because I think the claim on the insurance and the payout actually is very, very important as well. Yes, I think that the key is pre-planning. And this is where you build the resilience and you pre-plan where the area is likely to be, what would be the likely numbers impacted? What do you need to take care of keeping children in school and making, feeding them, providing feed for cattle? When you speak to the, so a lot of surveys have been done in those areas likely to be impacted, asking them, what is your biggest concern? And one of the first is, when this drought hits our livestock, which is our savings, our livelihood. So if you can provide feed for cattle, for goats and sheep, so keep planning what is needed and targeting also which areas, which families. It's very important to also avoid money being misused and misdirected when it hits. So we do that with the government. We provide all the information, technical peer reviews this plan and then sends them to a board after they've reviewed them, which approves before the country's allowed to participate in the poll. But I think Ngozi also, the payout is parametric, right? And so I think that's what you're referring to. You don't have to see little losses. You just get the automatic payout. I was actually just going to go to you, John, because I believe that you are certainly at the top, or at least one of the top of risk management companies that has really been giving a lot of thought to this. And I would like you to share with us how climate risks have come into your line of vision here and what are really the cutting-edge instruments and analysis tools that you are using to help us all deal with this? Yeah, thanks very much, Christiana. And maybe I'll just take off a little bit. We're very proud to have worked as the brokers with Ngozi and others on putting together the African drought relief program. We've done that on a couple of other areas too. In the Caribbean, the hurricane relief fund there. We did one recently just in the last year or so for the Pacific Islands that are subject to the typhoons. We're working with the World Bank now on a volcano project where we might again have a parametric insurance for communities that are subject to the- Could you just define parametric? Oh, parametric means, so for example, let's take Africa. What happens if there's a drought at a certain level? If the rainfall falls below a certain level, then the pounce are automatic. You don't worry about what the losses are, you get it there. And as Ngozi said, the brilliance, I think, of the system that she and others have devised is that they know beforehand how the governments are going to spend the money. But one of the great things that distinguishes, I think, insurance from relief efforts by, say, the developed world to help it is, the relief efforts take a while to come in. They, you have to process that. You have to get the mobilization of the funds and it often comes months later and the insurance efforts are immediate. So I think that's a big thing. It's also important, I think, the insurance efforts are actually ones that really knowing insurance as their contributes to some entrepreneurship beforehand in the affected communities. It also helps with loss mitigation and doing that. So we're very much committed to working on that around the world. And I think we are the, I think we're the only broker that's done any of these sovereign programs around the world. So we feel very good about that. Maybe I'll just use that to take up on the general idea, though. There's a lot of things to touch about, but maybe I'll touch off on the, just the porous among us and the under insurance that occurred. And so I think Swiss Re has estimated that there's about a $500 billion gap in premium equivalent terms in insurance around the world. And 96% of that is in emerging economies. These are the folks that don't have the protection, whether it's for mortality risks. So whether if the breadwinner dies, will the children have money to, a gap to get them to adulthood? Or whether it's ensuring the communities are the livestock or the livelihood of those. And we've been working, we're one of the founding members of the Insurance Development Forum, which brings together the private industry and the public in the form of the World Bank and the UN to try to create some mechanisms where we can close this protection gap. This has just, this is really the first time I think we've seen this kind of a public-private effort developing real results. And it's really gathered steam in the last few years. We are looking at more projects like the African relief drought relief. And one of the issues we're facing is the scale of disasters is changing. So we, at Willis-Towers Watson, we have about 1,000 people that work on climate risk analytics. And we spend about $100 million a year on climate-related models in terms of trying to figure out what's going to happen here. But even with all of that, you take a storm that was in use in the turn of the century that was a 100 year occurrence, that's now a one in 17 year occurrence. And so what we're seeing is, and it relates to I think Greta, your observation about the pace of change, things that you could budget for and that were rare events are now becoming common events. And that's part of the thing we have to deal with also. And I think I would just say, as we look at it, we see that parametric and crop insurance in particular are going to be some of the best ways we can help the underdeveloped world. John, a question. The increase in both frequency and intensity that we're seeing, do those two factors that we see that are interconnected, but do you separate those factors in terms of how you do your increased risk coverage or do you bring those together? Which one takes you in which direction? Yeah, so we actually try to look at and analyze each of them separately, but then bring them together to understand what insurance needs are. But the frequency, for example, and the intensity, there's also another component, which is what's happening. So where development has taken place, where there exist communities today that didn't exist 30 or 40 years ago has also affected what's going on. So we try to bring that all together in understanding. So let me push on that and take you to Greta's world because in Greta's view, because we are being so dramatically and dramatically irresponsible, we will actually hit two degrees or more. I've heard from many insurance companies that that puts us in what they call systemically uninsurable scenario. Do you see that? Do you see that we're moving toward a systemically uninsurable scenario? We have to understand what that means. That means none of us can buy insurance for ourselves, for our companies, for our properties, for anything. Systemically uninsurable. So is that, do you manage that scenario? Is that one of the scenarios that you're looking at? And how are you minimizing your risk against that and our risk against that? So I think as we think about the twin things, whether it's a mitigation or adaptation resilience, I think insurance is much better suited to the adaptation and the resilience area than it is to the mitigation. Not to say there aren't things they can do, but they're not necessarily distinguished from the rest of society that much of what they can do. But when it comes to the adaptation, yes, I see there are clearly segments or areas that are in danger of becoming uninsurable. But if you think about the way it... Segments or areas, geographical areas and segments mean... Well, let me give you just a simple example. Last year with the wildfires in California, those are of a severity and intensity that we've never seen really before. The campfire was actually the single biggest in short losses that we had in 2018. If those that occur at anywhere near the same kind of frequency and an uncurring basis, a lot of that just won't be sustainable. After the floods... Sorry, let's just understand when you say it won't be sustainable, you mean it cannot be... Yes, insurance for it can't be sustainable. But insurance is bought on a one-year basis, so insurers don't have to continue to insure it. Well, but for those of us who would like to be insured, that's the problem. That's the problem. Of course it's a problem. That's the problem that you do on a one-year basis and you're not looking at the projections five, 10, 30, 40, 50 years. That's the problem. That's precisely good. So how is the insurance industry or the risk management industry actually taking climate change into account in your modeling? Because we're not here talking about weather events, right? We're talking about climate events. So how do you take that into account? Because I think structurally that's the problem. That insurance premiums are sold on a yearly basis and you're not taking into account the long-term view that we already know where we're going. So I think that's precisely right. But there's no mechanism for insurance to say we're going to insure what the situation is 25 or 30 years from now. I mean, that's just not a possible function of insurance to be doing that. So I think what insurance can do- That's a sobering statement. Right. But I mean, I think we have to recognize that reality. So what insurance can do is model what's likely to happen, what the effects are, what that could mean for the availability of insurance, or what it could even mean for the cost of insurance and try to get people to act to prevent that scenario from occurring. And I think that's what our contribution can be. If you look at the task force on climate-related financial disclosures that was led by Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg, that is the beginning I think of something that can help us a lot, as we get good, reliable, consistent information on what the financial risks are that are being posed to companies or to the whole system, then we can factor that in to make sure we change it. OK. I mean, you've given us a lot of food supply here, John. Because, I mean, clearly, consistently raising the cost of insurance can also not be the answer. Can't be the answer. So financial risk. I think with that, Francois, we're into your bailiwick, your puddle. Can you share with us from Central Bank's perspective? I do know that there is a group of Central Bankers who are now, if I may, use the advert finally, beginning to put your heads around this and really trying to understand the financial risks that we are facing. Could you share some of that experience with us? Thank you, Christian. Before coming to financial risk, may I have a general comment following Greta's impressive call for action? Please. This is a fight. This is our fight. And this must be a global and comprehensive fight against all the risks you mentioned. And to succeed, we need to build a powerful coalition, as powerful as possible, with NGOs and citizens, with business, and with governments. I come from a country, France, and from a continent, Europe, which are among the most committed in this fight. May I say that we can only deeply regret that the most important government left the table? I hope it's temporary. But the Paris Agreement was a hope. And the decision by the American government is a very adverse one. We as Central Bankers are committed to be part of this coalition. And so we decided, after the Paris Summit, you remember December 17, organized by President Macron, one planet summit, to create this network you mentioned, which we called NGFS Network for Greening the Financial System. At the start, we were eight around the table, led by the Bank of France. We are now more than 25. So this coalition of the willing is gaining ground. We made some efforts before the network, Christina. Can I reassure you? So it's not finally, but we need to accelerate. And so we can do two things. And we are working very hard in this network for that. The first one is better monitoring risk. And the second one is to increase opportunities to build resilience and finance resilience. One quick word about risk. And I will concur with some things John just said. We consider, and we said it in the first NGFS report, that climate risk is now part of our mandate because it's a long-term determinant of financial risk. So our first priority is that all financial institutions should be aware of the present risk and of the future risk. And these two dimensions are very important. Insurance is probably slightly ahead for the reasons you mentioned. But it's also a very important priority for banks. About the present risk, we make progress through this disclosure task force, the so-called Michael Bloomberg task force, in the framework of the Financial Stability Board. But it's still a voluntary disclosure. And my wish is that we can introduce in the coming years a compensatory disclosure. This is about the present risk. The most decisive progress will be to have a long-term view of the future risk, which you mentioned. Because it's not only a short-term question, one year. It's a 10 to 20-year question. And we are working on the NGFS about climate-related stress test. I don't want to bore you with technical details. But some of you are perhaps familiar with what we call economic and financial stress test, which we developed after the crisis. We need also climate-related stress test. Looking forward, it's a very tricky issue from a technical standpoint. So we are working very hard in order to introduce stress test to measure the future risk. I think it would actually enrich the conversation if you would say two sentences about what is climate-related stress testing. Sorry to tell you. No, no, no. I will try to limit myself. Bring it down to our level. I will try to limit myself to two sentences. The existing stress tests are related to microeconomic scenarios. Let us suppose GEP goes down by 2%, what will happen in bank policy to simplify it. So the first way probably to achieve it is to make the relation between climate change and microeconomic consequences. And Gosi gave some examples. So if we have this link, then we can have stress test. We are accustomed to it. But we must be more sophisticated. What does it mean for energy prices, for energy exposes, et cetera? So we must have also micro and sectorial growth. I don't want to be longer, but clearly it's one of our key priorities in GFS. Can I add one positive word about opportunities? We must strengthen resilience. And clearly, the answer in this fight does not belong exclusively to the financial sector. Public policies are extremely important, building resilient infrastructure, housing policies. We are all aware about that. The good news there, there is at least one good news. Many alerts, but one good news is the development of green bonds. There is also already an outstanding of $1.4 trillion. But our estimate of the needs to build this resilient infrastructure and policies in the years to come is almost one additional trillion each year till 2050 in the coming 30 years. So there is a tremendous opportunity to develop the green bonds market. But here, it's also demanding. It means to build on reliable standards, to build on a reliable taxonomy. What is a green bond? And I can only support to give a positive example, the initiative by the European Commission to build a common European standard. When I say European, Christina, I would love to associate the UK to this European standard. And I strongly hope there will be no Brexit in this coalition. And we have private taxonomies at present. There are probably some specialists in the audience. Green Grants Abundance or Climate Bonds Initiative, we should have a convergence of this different private taxonomy. And it would greatly help to develop a qualitatively strong green bonds market. Thank you very much. I would agree if I would want we can be political about this. I would agree with your statement on this. I would also want to ask that we are very hopeful that we can keep the EU being the political leader on this issue. Because in the absence of some people on the other side of the Atlantic, the focus is on Europe. So we are also many little candles lit on that one, Francois, for you. No, no, no. Can I only add that if you look at the European Commission plan against climate change, it's really a very comprehensive and classy one. It was not very noticed, but it's one of the best initiatives of this European Commission in the last two years, led by Christian Ziemann and others. Yes, very true. Can I just add to Francois, France has been a leader in the disclosure with your law on the energy transition for green growth. And that mandated some carbon disclosures for asset owners and also for listed companies strengthened in some of the carbon disclosure. No, France is really very impressive. And thank you, John. Can I add that in our case, it's compulsory for insurance and climate change? Yes, exactly. Adopted, if I remember even before the Paris Agreement, isn't it? Yes, even before. Well, thank you. That brings us then to, I would say, one of the sub-themes of this discussion is the value of data and what the data can do, in particular, if you have historical data from which you extrapolate into the future. Mark, and so could you share with us from Expedia's point of view the value of the data bank that you have and how are you using that to look into the future? Yeah, so a few things. Because Mark could just a different economic lens and build on something that you mentioned. We do have an issue with countries being left behind. The developed world and actually the whole world, about 10% of global GDP comes from travel and tourism. In developed nations, it's around 10% can be a little bit less. And under developed nations, nations like Puerto Rico or Dominica significantly higher 20%, 30%, 40% of their economy depend on travel and tourism. And when those nations do not have the capability to build up resilience, like France, for example, is diversifying the travel to build resilience, it can leave them incredibly vulnerable. Puerto Rico has suffered incredibly. We have been working with the Clinton Global Initiative in our own interests, but also in the interest of helping them to help build infrastructure, solar panels on schools and hospitals so they have a chance to actually recover. But we're also working with other more developed nations like a Tu France to help them actually drive different tourist activities away from the Eiffel Tower and to other places that are helpful. I think if we can get the developed nations who are more sophisticated to help the underdeveloped nations actually develop this resiliency, it is incredibly important. And I think if we don't do that, again, we're just going to drive more equality around the world. So you talk about how do we create panic, I would tell you that if the White House was actually located in Puerto Rico, I think we'd be in a different situation. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Did you want to speak about experience and experience also? Ha ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha. Well, I think there's a few things that Expedia does. And I think, of course, we should be talking about prevention here. Number one, we all need to be working on prevention. And I can speak on it from a traveling tourism perspective. And I can also add to it from the perspective of a leader of a Fortune 500 company. I think all of us, it's incumbent upon leaders in the private sector to, first of all, put your own house and work and Expedia's working with three degrees to essentially offset its carbon footprint. All of our buildings are already certified. Make sure that at least we are doing what we can do. And I think that's the first step, both as an individual, both as leaders in private enterprise. But beyond prevention, I mean, we have been working not only with the Clinton Global Initiative on resiliency, but we also work with various government entities around helping to mitigate the consequences when bad things happen. So for example, we're working with Florida when evacuations are required to help ensure that not only do people have places to stay, but we're regulating hotel pricing. And you talk about data, monitoring, what is regular pricing, what is that normal pricing so that people who are evacuating affected regions don't actually get taken advantage of. So there's a bunch of things that we can do as a private enterprise. And I think increasingly it can be important that the private enterprise does get more involved in this. And I think find the strengths that they have to lend into these things. It's not just about money. It's about private enterprise using their own capabilities and competencies around data, around making alternative destinations available, helping people evacuate some of the things that we're doing, but it's important that we all get involved. Thank you. Thank you very much. This has been a very rich discussion. And I'm watching the clock. And I'm sure that there are many questions in the audience. So I would like to open up for that and then reserve a few minutes at the end for each of you to make any closing statements that you would like. So just a fair warning for that. So questions? I'm a climate scientist and member of the Swiss Parliament since 11 years. First, thank you Greta for your speech for coming here. It's a great inspiration. And I think this is also what we should talk here about is the young, I have to say, finally claim their future, fight for their future. And in Switzerland also, they have the school strike. Thousands of students because of you Greta are in the streets and asking to go to zero emission. And Greta mentioned the CO2 budget. So if we would now take this seriously, the 1.5 degree target. And if we take this CO2 budget seriously, the risk for 1.5. So then the risk discussion we should have here is our economy prepared to limit to this budget and perhaps also to the banks. So if we keep the oil in the ground, we have to keep a lot of oil in the ground, we will have stranded assets. So how are we prepared financially to do what the young are claiming to save their future? Ernst-Watt, can you jump into that one? No pressure. Two things. First, we are committed to direct or monitor the financial sector towards renewable energies. I will come back to that. But, and this is what I stress with the green bonds and enhancing resilience. Finance cannot replace adequate public policies. And this is a very important thing, including for insurance. Because sometimes people tell us, so you are dealing with emergency measures after the airplane has crashed. But our priority is to avoid the airplane crash, prevent it, or to prevent the fire in our house. This does not refer only to financial regulation. In the example you just gave, it referred to sound energy policies. My second comment about the financial risk, there has been already significant progress by financial institutions, including banks, about the financing of carbon-related projects. Many banks, on a voluntary basis, said, we abandon the financing of CO2 incentive projects, or the thermic factor, et cetera. We have to find the right balance between pressure by public opinion, including NGOs and prohibiting regulations. As far as we can make progress with voluntary commitments and disclosure, I think it's more efficient. I would be cautious before saying we must completely prohibit this kind of financing. You were not there yet. But I think we are on a positive track on that. If I can just push a little bit more, because actually I think it echoes with a question that has been percolating throughout the whole week here, and that is the stranded asset question. Because one thing is, as you point out, the fact that some development banks, increasingly some private banks, increasingly investors, are actually pulling out, let's say, decapitalizing coal. Let's just talk about coal for the time being. Decapitalizing coal, and that is certainly sending message to the coal industry. But that's not the same as assuming the cost of those stranded assets in order to accelerate their exit from the energy system. So do you see, and let's just pick on coal, because it is the most carbon intensive, do you see the coal industry exiting from the global economy on a slow death pace because they don't get insurance, they don't get fresh capital, they're totally losing social license? Or do you see a faster approach that would be the assumption of the cost of those stranded assets? And do you see that as happening on the public side or on the private side of the corporations themselves? A short answer to a very complicated question. This is typically an example where finance can help, but where the decisive progress would be carbon pricing. If we had an international carbon pricing for not only for the coal industry, also for the oil industry, we would have had the long-term cost of diamond change incorporated in the pricing. And we all know that in order to develop this kind of carbon pricing, we in the European Union made progress. And it's not obvious. You mentioned this yellow jackets. We are all aware probably in this room that the yellow jackets move started with a revolt against an increase of carbon taxes. So it's a question of the left behind. There can be social solutions. But even in the European Union, it's not obvious. But the decisive progress, which I really wish, is to have an international carbon price. But, Christiana, maybe can I add a little bit to that on the issue of stranded assets? I think that there's a sense of urgency with which we need to act. And we must immediately regain. Those countries and those populations that depend on these assets, be they oil, or whatever, gas, there are huge opportunities in those countries also. You know, there are two sides of the balance sheet. And where the finance and public policies need, I totally agree with Frank. So it's not just about finance. You also need a good set of public policies to incentivize action, either on the pricing side, whatever. But I'm saying that we need to really seriously begin to think now and plan for the transition and the phasing. You know, we can't just be talking about it. If we have that sense of urgency, we need to recognize that there'll be all populations, all countries, that are going to be left behind. And it comes back to what I'm saying. And they are not going to be left behind quietly. If they cannot exist and make a living where they are, they will move. So I think we need to think how do we They will move exerting pressure on others. Exactly. So we really need to think how do we plan the transition? How do we seize the opportunities for renewables and other alternatives that are there? How do we bring the financial resources to bear so that these populations can have what we now call a just transition? And I do not believe that there's enough discussion of that topic, so I just wanted to add to that. Thank you. Jules? Holi endorsed your call for a just transition, and I think that's absolutely right. And I agree with you that a carbon price would accelerate the process. But I'd like to point out that financial markets are already starting to recognize that this transition is underway. And financial markets don't wait for the final results on industries. Financial markets have the ability to peer into the future and see what's coming. Let me just give you two illustrations. Over the last three years, every one of the big coal companies in the United States has gone through chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. And here's another wonderful example. GE, a great company, decided a couple of years ago that they would expand their gas turbine business and bought Alstom's gas turbine business right at the very top of the gas turbine market. Because renewables are already outperforming gas as a form of power generation all around the world. So when GFML bought Alstom's gas turbine business pretty soon, the market recognized it was a lousy deal. Look at where the GE stock price is. So I agree with you a carbon price would dramatically accelerate that process. But I think as financial investors, we should all recognize that this transition is going to happen much faster because financial markets see the decline in fossil fuels well before the fossil fuel company executives have realized that they are in the toaster. Are there comments or questions? Hi, my name is... Do you mind standing up? Oh, sorry. Yeah, thanks. I'm Yuki Asagawa. I'm from the Japanese newspaper Yomirishin. When I just wanted to ask Greta after all these discussions, are we answering your questions or requests? Are you seeing any hope? What we're doing? When I came here and have listened to many people who speak here, you would think that people, they say that we should reduce our carbon emission and prevent the 1.5 degree warming because that would risk a huge financial loss. Why not just do it for the sake of life and because it's the right thing to do? I can tell you that on speech isn't closing. Greta is having a very, very profound effect. May I mention one other thing just quickly that we need to bear in mind that the climate change and all these phenomena will also have a profound effect on the type of emerging diseases of the future. We also need to think about the health aspects. I have another hat of being chair of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and new phenomena, new types of, or even the intensification of the existing diseases, infections. These are things we need to think about. You remember the Zika virus that we went through recently and others because of increasing heat and so on. And that's also an aspect that is not being talked about. But increasingly in the global health world, thinking about what kinds of vaccines or other remedies, how do we need to get prepared for possible pandemics that may occur, these are things. So to Greta's point, it's when you think about finance, you think about life. What will happen if the situation leads to new diseases that we'll have to cope with? And to complement that, in those of you, the latest Lancet Food and Eat Report actually points out Lancet has been focusing on those negative health effects of climate change. But now they've just drawn our attention to the positive effects that we would be able to derive. If we all change our eating habits and aligned eating habits with A, what is better for our bodies, and B, what is better for the planet, which happens to be exactly the same diet, we would actually reduce emissions by a substantial portion of what we need. So the fact that we can improve ourselves as human beings and our bodies and our health and improve the health of the planet at the same time, thank heavens we don't have to choose between those two. There are actually two imperatives that align with each other, which makes Vietta's question even more daunting. Any other question or comment? My name is Patrick Chapat. I'm an authoritarian cartoonist for the New York Times and the European Union. And I just want to, since I have the mic, just place an ad. And if you have time to check out the cartoon exhibition in the program, there are a few cartoons on the climate. That I think are helpful and strong because I think also of the power of images, when we get tired of words, images can help. But Greta, you gave me some hope back in words. You have now become a very important voice on the world stage very quickly. So that must be a lot of pressure. It's good that you have your family with you. I think I want to wish you good luck in that. I just want to ask you, where are you going to carry your voice next? I'm sure you have a lot of requests and I don't know how you're going to be able to get back to school. Where are you going next? And good luck. Thank you, you too. Like, I am going to sit outside the Swedish parliament every Friday until Sweden is in line with the Paris Agreement. And just hope that more children around the world will join me. And now there has been, I think, over 100,000 children around the world who has been striking for the climate. And so hopefully there will be more. If you'd like to come to the American Parliament. Yes. If you would like to accompany Greta today, she's going to be striking because today is Friday. Greta has her striped it. And so if you would like to accompany her, Greta, where are you going to be today? And what time? I am going at 12 o'clock. I am going to strike outside the Weff entrance at the promenade at the ice house. You know where the ice house is. So on the library side, that exit, you know the ice house, it was on the second floor. So 12 o'clock, see you all there. Any final questions or comments? Please. Oh, Jean-François, journalist for the Swiss television. Greta, a lot of people here, including me, are going back with their cars, with their planes. You are going back to Sweden with train. How do you expect that all of us can change our habits? Maybe you, Mr. Birroir, will you continue to use the plane? I think that your obliged to is difficult to go to United States by train or by boat. But you, Greta, what is your advice to us? What should we do? I am not asking anyone to do as I do. I understand that many of you live across the globe. And it's very hard to get there without flying. But I am not flying because I want to practice as I preach. And if I did fly, I would feel so bad and feel so guilty. And so yeah. Please. As I had a question, to be fair, I fly quite often. And as Greta just said, sometimes on the board, but each time I have the choice that I travel by train. And second, we in all our companies can strongly develop technical means, like video conferences, et cetera, and avoiding flights. And it's also a progress for our efficiency. So I strongly hope we can develop this way. We will still have the question of the left behind countries. And it's what you said, Mark, about tourism. How can we combine economic development and ecological transition? And for all of us, the answer seems obvious. But we should pay stronger attention to the resistance there are in some left behind countries or within our countries in some left behind categories of population. And to be fair, this is perhaps a priority. We forgot a bit in the last years. I'm really obsessed by this element in order for the coalition to be really a global coalition. There are still some resistance. And we shouldn't have contempt for this resistance. Absolutely. A good lesson learned from the yellow jackets. A good lesson learned. There are less positive lessons with this one. No violence. I say the Frenchman in the room, violence is not acceptable. But this lesson is important. That lesson is very important. To the question of flying, I think what it points to as well as our personal choices and needs is the need for us to do two things at the same time, which is top down and bottom up. So change systemically, in this case transportation sector, that honestly there is no reason anymore to have flights that use fossil fuels in their engines. Because we already know that even in the hard to obey sectors, we can definitely move over to renewable fuels so that we have to accelerate the systemic change by sector, but also change behavior patterns. So to those of us who fly, and I include myself, we also have the possibility of our previous flight currently with fossil fuels to actually offset that, which is the minimum that we can do. It is not even the responsible thing to do. It is just the minimum thing to do. But it does mean that both in transportation, as well as in every generation, as well as in every other sector, we have to move toward both top down transformation as well as bottom up. Closing remarks. I think just a call out for the private sector to get involved in this issue, find ways where you can leverage your assets and your competencies and have aligned them with what is absolutely the right thing to do, create panic. I think that's a great call out. For me, it's to say that there's a global phenomenon of people who are left behind and marginalized in almost every country, and that we should make that the center of focus and that we can tackle that by thinking, planning, and solving for that problem. And I'm also proud that Africans have come up with a solution themselves, market-based, to help plan and think ahead to solve one of these problems. Yes, just following up on that, I'd say the two main themes we have are one of mitigation and then one of adaptation or resilience. And I think it's important to recognize that both of those are vitally important. I was at a session earlier in the week, not at Davos, but where somebody was saying they were concerned that focus on resilience or adaptation could take the focus off of mitigation. Mitigation has been what people have worried about for a long time now and absolutely right, but there are vulnerable communities around the world and building resilience and adaptation is also vitally important. Have you had any closing comments? No, I think I've said anything else, but I really needed peace or I wanted a solution. If you would like to be excused a few minutes early, you are totally entitled. No, I can't wait. You remember GFK? I think many of us will follow you. You remember GFK's famous call, so my fellow Americans don't ask for what America can do for yourself but what you can do for America. We should ask each of us what can we do for this fight and if I can add one wish following GFK's, what can America do for this fight? Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you very much to all of you, to all of these great comments, including Vietas. I would just like to add two closing remarks. The first is that one of the underlying themes that we have been playing with here is definitely that resilience has to be strengthened. But very interestingly, I think you've seen resilience both for curative purposes, for preventative purposes and for transition purpose. And the transition piece of resilience had actually never registered with me, so I just wanted to register with all of you. And my last final remark is that through many different turns and occurrences in our lives, we have all been given the temporary license to lead. Let us make sure that we do not lose that license in the eyes of the Yogi. Thank you.