 The first question is if you assume that if you agree that consumers are leading the change, they have a role in leading this transition by the choices that they're making, and that technologies and governments are enabling the transition, somebody has to absorb the risks, and this is where the investors come into play. The second question is if we agree that changes are already happening, and I insist on the fact that the changes have to happen at scale, and I will insist on that for the rest of this workshop, and if we agree that multiple solutions are required, and Olivier has just given us one of the multiple solutions that has to be part of the energy mix, for an institutional investor's perspective, where should we invest? And I'll finish briefly my presentation with what is left for governments to do in this area, and I think Mr. Laurent had used a fact that we may have already hinted to the fact that we all agree that carbon pricing has to be agreed on, whether we like it or not, but I think there's an agreement in that regard, and then I'll finish with what is left for companies to do. No, the energy industry has been pushed to do more with less, to go for more vertical integration and capital efficiency, and this is where here again institutional investors are coming into play in that marriage between finance and energy. So let me start with the first one. When it comes to risks, I think the momentum, I think you can all agree today that the momentum to reinforce the national contributions is possibly the highest ever that we've ever seen. However, and I think it has been highlighted again this morning, it is not sufficient, and there are few issues that I would like to highlight here again from the perspective of institutional investors or from the perspective of the energy sector. The first issue is that the global kind of governance is very, very deeply questioned, and I will not dwell into the details of why it has been questioned. We are living in an era of questioning multilateralism, we are questioning free trade, we are questioning security, we are even questioning, I mean we also have I would say crisis of leadership, but I guess that's a discussion for another session than this one. But the point is that even in October 2018 when the IPCC report was issued, and even if it was alarming enough, it did not accelerate the required changes that are required. So there is, I think, and that's probably the change this year, there is a growing realization across the board of the complexity of the task. There is a growing realization of the wide interests and needs of the different stakeholders involved, I mean going from I would say consumers, taxpayers, citizens, vulnerable populations, and of course the industrials, the energy producers and consumers, etc. From where I sit, I think there is a growing realization that the existing energy system that we have today, which, and I would like to remind you, we took probably a large part of the 20th century to build, has seen costs that cannot just simply be written off. The energy system we have today has seen costs in it that we cannot write off as, and from the investor's perspective, that's a key part. However, and I don't want to, don't get me wrong, changes are already happening, and leading energy companies, leading companies, cities, mayors, populations, I think sectors I work a lot with the maritime, with the maritime industries, they have been taking concrete actions to either decrease their emissions or fully decarbonize. Shareholders, insurance companies, institutional investors, as you all know, have been raising the pressure to align the corporate strategies with the climate reality. I mean, that's something that we have to deal with. One of my favorite graphics from the BP's energy outlook shows how long it takes for energy transitions to occur. And our common friend Spencer Dale likes to remind us with his dotted line that you probably don't see here, but it's the big line that you have on the graphic. I don't know why it is shown as plain, but it's the one at the extreme high. With that dotted line, it shows that renewable energy may reach 10% of the world energy demand by 2035. In less than 30 years from the point, it provided 1% of world energy. And if that's the case, if we just extrapolate that trend, it means that renewable energy would have penetrated the energy system more quickly than any other fuel in history. And even then, even with that 10%, if you reach that 10% of renewable energy, you still need 90, you have still 90% to cover. 90% of the world energy needs will need to come from other fuels. My personal take from this graphic is slightly different. Particularly if I isolate the two fastest growing technologies, renewable energy indeed and nuclear. The conclusion that I take from it, and that's a very quick conclusion that I'm sure Kosmin will probably challenge, is that impactful change really generally occurs in these two specific examples. First, when the debate has been depoliticized, aka nuclear. And when there is a combination of intensive R&D, government incentives, but also, of course, enabling market mechanisms. And I'm insisting on this one, and free trade. Only free trade enabled solar panels to move from one continent to the other, and we reached the decreasing cost that we have witnessed in the last decade. The same dynamic is happening at a slower pace, I must say, in other areas. And it is happening, and I think in this order, number one, in energy batteries and storage, and we've discussed it last year, I think, extensively. It's also happening at a second in mobility, in the area of mobility, and also it's happening third in a process in heavy industries, that Tanaka-san has started hitting that in his presentation. But here again, from an investor perspective, this lack of visibility on the sequencing is probably the first missing link that we have in our climate change governance toolbox. So I think we need targeted instruments with optimal risk returns ratios for the various emitting sectors with various utilizations to really accelerate this transition. So the governments can guide the energy mix, the insurance investments through their toolkit of various policy mechanisms. But I think only institutional investors can help absorb the market risks but also the technology risks that I'm talking about here. So if we all agree that change is already happening at scale, I repeat that, and that multiple solutions are required from an investor perspective, where should we invest? Vaclav Smil reminds us that, basically, after we increase our energy-empowered density needs, dramatically, we want now to find solutions to totally reverse those past trends. I think a simple way for those of us in this room who are not energy geeks like us, a simple way to say this is basically to address the emissions in different utilizations, different technologies will be required, you will need solar PV, but you also need CSP, you will need solar PV, but you need some storage with it, you will need massive energy efficiency programs and heat recovery in the industrial sector, and you need, obviously, nuclear. And why I'm pointing at nuclear? Because you have the wider electrification that we want in the economy, and that's beyond EVs, I mean, I'm talking about edge computing, internet of things, artificial intelligence, smart homes, et cetera. That, at the end of the day, puts additional pressure on the utilities to decarbonize first and to decarbonize faster. So nuclear energy provided 4% of global energy in 2018, that's 2700 terawatt hours. It hasn't grown since 2002. Cosmin, I would be more interested to hear your thoughts about where we stand on research and fusion efficient, I mean, is it going to really solve our problem on the utility side? But in terms of technologies, there are a few counter-intuitive trends that I want to highlight here, which have been really driving investments for more than a decade now. And when I say counter-intuitive, it's really for anyone who believes today that investors, all of them are deserting fossil fuels altogether. So the first, here again, counter-intuitive trend is that we still have massive efforts and massive investments to recover more hydrocarbons in terms of production. We are trying as much as possible to optimize the efficient use of hydrocarbons produced and a lot of money is going into that. A lot of money is going, especially when we try to increase the focus on low costs fuels, but also low carbon fuels. And the reason for that is very simple. Today you have less than 20% of hydrocarbon molecules extracted from the earth. That's oil, gas and coal, of course, but less than 20% of that actually turns into useful end-use. Energy, plastics, et cetera, only 20%. The rest is wasted. So today the industry has realized that and there are tremendous efforts happening to restructure the business models and reward optimizing an efficient use of fuels instead of rewarding the volumes of hydrocarbon produced. So there are efforts, as you can see, of vertical integration at scale, into refining, into petrochemicals, by several large players. That's one example of this effort. And I'll cite one last extreme example of the crude to chemical scheme that is being looked at in Saudi Arabia. The aim is really to reach 70% conversion rate from crude to plastics. Second interesting dynamic is happening in mobility. And here I'll get into the internal combustion engine. So there are, again, massive R&D efforts and investments happening in the area of ultra low emission fuels and engine technologies. So with that you can assume that the internal combustion engine can still enjoy a few years of monopoly in the transportation sector. But in parallel there is a drive among cities, among politicians to ensure that transport prices are actually better reflecting externalities, internal costs, and other things. So to really have a view on the real cost of transportation, the real cost of urban and road transportation. So with the development of all those technology solutions that we see in Europe and US, etc., smart charging schemes, ride hailing, bike sharing, there are increasing calls, especially among cities, for the right pricing framework, a fair price framework for the use of public space by these charging stations for the utilization of commodities and the scarcity of resources that go into those technologies. And when you run the numbers, at the end of the day you find that liquid fuels are, might be actually the winners from these all let's all cost in everything approaches. And I'm just saying. Third point, in addition to solar and wind and storage in these different forms, and I think we discussed it extensively last year, but here again I want to highlight in the context of continuously this decreasing cost in storage as well. The uncertainties about which technology will wind, beyond lithium ion and redox flow batteries, concerns about the commodities that are being mined in tricky places in Africa, needed for specific storage technologies. And even when regulators show enough, I would say, creativity to reward flexibility, investors remain concerned. They remain very concerned and wary again of regret costs in those technologies. So a couple of points to conclude, what is left for governments to do? I think, and that comes, that came today in the discussion between Patrick Pouyanet, Laurent Fabius, May, but we organized at Epicorp recent strategic industry round table where we brought people from the energy sector and the financing community together in a single room, to address the question of what are the instruments that are needed to accelerate the energy transition. And these two communities don't really talk to each other most of the time, so that's why we thought it would be interesting to bring them together. And the very first recommendation that came up was the need to formalize a price on carbon, any price, but just formalize a price on carbon. That was considered as a single most effective mechanism to really enable level playing field between the different technologies and the consumer's choices. But the problem is, in the absence of carbon trading mechanisms, and I'm here thinking outside of Europe and some other places, what is being proposed, for example, in the American Green New Deal, when we start estimating the social cost of carbons, it ended up producing ridiculously wide ranges. So when we leave it to the economists, we ended up having very complex calculations when it comes to carbon prices. And even if carbon taxes should, in theory, be an easy form of carbon pricing. So I agree, the calculation is complex. I agree, non-marginal changes related to climate change have to be factored in. I agree the tax has to be revenue neutral, but the first steps are required and you hear that from both communities alike and from the government as well. What is left for companies to do, and I'll finish with that, these two graphics that I'm showing on my slide really summarize, I think, the dilemma facing the energy sector. On, I think, the left-hand side, you can see energy sector is one of the sectors that provided the lowest returns to shareholders during the last decade, just among the S&P 500. It's a fraction of what IT or real estate have provided. The energy sector is really today competing with other sectors that are much more attractive for investors in terms of returns. And the problem is that the gap is really wide, as you can see. Energy provides less than 10% of return while IT or consumers have provided more than 300% over a decade. And the other problem is that in terms of valuation, some parts of the energy sector seem undervalued. I'm mainly talking about the upstream side of it, but there is always that persistent fear of stranded assets because we don't have the clarity over the climate change trajectory. And on the other side, in the right-hand side, you can see that in parallel, returns are also being squeezed in the different parts of the value chain. I took here the example of the gas sector, but the same is true across the board. So, if they really want to survive through the energy transitions and continue to provide an attractive value proposition for the investors, energy companies have no other choice than to embark on vertical integration at scale. And that's not only vertical integration, as in the past, to stabilize the earning by benefiting from the counter-cycle profits in upstream and downstream. That's really also to maximize the margins across the value chain. And on top of that, in the national oil companies particularly, the 80% production that Patrick Boyanet was referring to earlier today, they are directed, they are instructed to extract additional value from the sovereign and finite oil and gas resources. So, for corporate strategies, I would say that a low-carbon world is retranslating into more integration, more scale, more optimization. And then I would just like to remind everyone that the journey of integration is really a marriage between two different business models, two different operating cultures, returns, expectations, and time horizon. And why I'm saying that is that after the integrated management of this different segment of the value chain, the next step might be to seek, it is actually to seek growth by optimizing the balance sheet even further. And that's the pressure that we are having also in terms of financing the energy sector. So, in some areas, I mean, U.S. Shell benefited, as you all know, partly from long-term commitments from private equities. If you start considering oil and gas resources as just any other investment asset class, the same could happen at a larger scale between large oil energy companies and investment funds. So, what type of industry structure will we get in that drive for low-carbon world? But I would like to finish on a – oh, I didn't have it here, but I had a nice slide showing that after all, within the infrastructure sector, the energy sector remains the preferred industry for institutional investors. And I'll finish with that. Okay, thank you very much, Layla. Yeah, I cannot agree more that government should do the carbon price or carbon tax to give the clear message to the business sector. Unfortunately, the discussion more than decades didn't lead us to any official carbon price or carbon tax. That's a problem. It's definitely the best way to reduce carbon, but unfortunately, it didn't happen. So, in a way, for the green financing, as you say, one of the criteria for the investors is, does cooperation have the internal carbon pricing for the decision of the investment? That is happening. I mean, TCFD, task force for climate – I mean, financial risk disclosure, certainly internal carbon pricing is one of the things they request. And many major oil companies like Total, BP Shell, they are the member signatory to the TCFD and doing even – of course, these internal carbon pricing is really ambitious enough. That's a question, but $40, $50, $60 set. And an interesting discussion in ISAF in Japan was that last year, exactly the same time, the ISAF meeting, I talk, I raise the issue of internal carbon pricing by saying there is only one or two Japanese companies who had the internal carbon price at that time. Now, the CDP representative told me in the public discussion that there are 70, 70 companies in Japan has now the internal carbon price. So, this is a huge difference because, as I said, 200 Japanese corporations are now signatory to TCFD. So, TCFD means they should have a kind of energy scenario for the future. Otherwise, they can – sustainability scenario definitely contain – include the carbon pricing. So, eventually, this kind of pressure from the financial sector for requesting disclosure will lead the corporations to what is desirable in terms of the carbon pricing. That is my observation. Do you think so? Yeah, I fully agree. And in all the models that I've seen in various energy companies, international and national, you basically have three main frameworks. You always have a sell with carbon pricing on it, whether you fill it or not. That's another question. But conceptually, you have usually two main methodologies. I mean, you either just follow blindly what you have in the ETS, and thanks to Europe provided a sort of framework for a carbon price. That can be used in other areas of the world, here again conceptually. Or, as you mentioned, you can just decide to have a flat what you think is an assumption for future pricing. And that's the reason why at the end of the day we end up having that focus that I mentioned on not only low-cost fuels and hydrocarbon, but also low-carbon crude and hydrocarbon. So, that's not an idea that just came up yesterday. I mean, I think the major oiling gas producers have been working on that for the last decade or so. But at the end of the day, I think people like to think of the idea of carbon and other fuels as a stock as well. So, that's a stock and you need to just put a price on it. And when you decide to deplete that stock today or in 30 years' time, that's an assumption that you have to make. But I totally agree that most energy companies today have carbon pricing assumption. Thank you very much, Leila. One additional question to you is that what do you think about this climate change agenda? Last year it was, what do you think about climate change in Saudi Arabia? This year is what you think about climate change and gender. Well, not much. I don't feel like an expert in the area to be honest with you. I'll leave it to my male colleagues to comment on it.