 We are also working on the regional carbon-picking neutrality, and it's also on the corporate climate action side. So we also have interaction with the team on the ground. And so far, absolutely. Very good thing for us to give you my call, but we can't securely do that. OK. Good morning, everybody. Welcome. Thank you for joining us here. This is part of this stakeholder dialogue today. We'll be discussing how to stay within planetary boundaries, carrot or stick. Sorry, my name is Nicky Dean. I'm the chief editor for Nature Energy, the scientific publication part of the Nature family. And I'm joined today by a very illustrious panel to help talk through this problem. So as we know, there's an increasing impact of human activities on our earth systems, which is causing all sorts of irreversible harm, and hopefully some reversible harm. And our shared resources on which we depend are becoming increasingly in jeopardy. This covers our air, to our soils, water, and broader climate, and threatens both our health and livelihood, as well as that of the wider ecosystems that we're a part of. Now, we are, broadly speaking, agreed that we need to get on track towards a net zero climate safe and nature positive future, but we know this will not be easy. And we're going to need to change behaviors of both individuals, but also the way that our industries and corporations and also our government's work and practice. We're going to need to do this through a mixture of carrots and hopefully perhaps not so many sticks and some kind of mix. And there's a very active and live debate as to how we go about this. But we're likely to see an increasing move towards a more stick-like interventions into the future as things worsen if we're not able to act. And it's important to note that as well as worrying about our systems, our planetary systems today, we need to worry about those in the future and think about the generations to come. So what we're going to try to do is have a discussion from various stakeholder perspectives here about how we think through some of these different carrots and sticks. And I'm very pleased to say that I am joined today by, to my left here, Marjoon, the director for the Institute for Public and Environmental Affairs. I'm joined by Nicholas Gustafson, the chief sustainability officer and head for corporate affairs in the Volvo group. By Jamila Mahmood, the executive director for the Sunway Center for Planetary Health, Sunway University in Malaysia. And Moaka Mukubesa, the permanent secretary for budget and economic affairs in Zambia. And we hope to be joined very soon by Jonas Leonis, the Undersecretary for Policy Planning and International Affairs at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources of the Philippines, who is currently on his way very rapidly from the airport, I'm told. So he'll join us very soon. OK, so, but perhaps to start things off, I'd like to turn to you, Mar, and for a bit of an overview, if you will, of what are some of the levers that we're seeing at the moment, or over recent years, being deployed to help drive action on climate and nature, and how we're looking to these to help accelerate action at speed and scale. Thank you, Niki. It's so good to be back to Summer Devils in Tianjin and talking about levers and drivers, and our experience is that we better have both, you know, better have a mixture of that. There was once upon a time, we did not have much logistics at all, and at that time, you know, we copied laws and regulations from the West, but the environmental laws and regulations not enforced very properly, and as a result, we have experienced real severe pollution of our air, water, and soil and coastal seas. This has been changed from 10 years ago, in response to people's demand for clean air. When Beijing, Tianjin, and the whole surrounding region suffer from severe smog, people demand for clean air, and the government launched a clean air action plan, and then followed it by strengthening our environmental legal legislation, introducing some of the toughest measures, and in the meantime, launched a central government inspection mechanism, sending out tens of thousands of inspectors across the country, holding not just penalized, the corporations violated the standards, but also the officials failing their duty. You know, before that, when we don't have the sticks, you know, it created an incentive for many corporations to cut down, cut corners to win the contract, to be more competitive in the market, and the discharge level remains to be very, very high. But through all these measures taken, China's local emission has dramatically been reduced dramatically. You know, sulfur dioxide from 25 million tons to 3 million, and nitrogen dioxide has also been halved from 20 million to 10. So as a result, you know, the PM 2.5 in general dropped by 47% in just 10 years of time, the fine particles in Beijing from 90 to 30 in just 10 years of time. So today we absolutely have more clean air. So it may sound just like only sticks, but actually, you know, by doing all this proper enforcement, Chinese government also started disclosing the information to the public, you know, PM 2.5 every hour. Some of the largest emitters need to report of their online monitoring every hour or two hours to the public, and we put it on a cell phone app called the Blue Map, and people can see that, so those who, you know, those serial value violators have to respond for the first time to the public intervention. And through this process, you know, hundreds upon thousands of them started changing behavior. And also our data has been, you know, today the disclosure allows us to track the performance of 12 million corporations operating in China. And some of the largest brands, including, you know, some of the leading European brands, tap into the data to grain their supply chain in China. And this created further incentives. And some of the largest financial institutions, including some of the largest banks in China, over the past three years, use our data to do diligence of one million companies who want to borrow money to check their environmental performance before they give them the loans. So all these are the created incentives. So it seems to be based on the stakes, on the regulatory, but it also created market incentives. I think the competition is very good. And today we're facing new challenge. The PN 2.5 is dropping, but the CO2 level globally, you know, from 280 ppm to 420 last year already. So this region experienced unprecedented three days of consecutive days of 40 degrees Celsius. So we're facing the global, new global challenges. And in response to the Chinese government, made carbon pick a neutrality commitment. By 2030, we're going to pick by 2060, we're going to cut our neutralized, our more than 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide. But it's not easy. It's very, very challenging globally. You know, the three years of COVID, turbulent energy market, geopolitical tension, shifted the focus on energy security, food security, and security of the industrial supply chain. So in such a kind of difficult situation, we need to absolutely, we need stakes because the world is not moving to work achieving the Paris Agreement. But in the meantime, we also need to learn from all these experiences during the past 10 years in China's pollution control to try to mix the two, to also create incentives. Those incentives are going to hopefully, you know, to incentivize particularly the sectors like the renewable energy. You know, China's going to achieve our renewable energy target five years ahead of schedule. And then the new vehicle, e-vehicles, the new energy vehicles, our penetration rate almost got nearly doubled, you know, year-on-year. So I think there are all these potentials. We need to give incentives as well. And all this depends on one thing. That is information. I think information, transparency, and then based on that, you know, to have all the regions and corporations measure and disclose their setting proper target, we need to digitize the whole process to make it far more cost-effective. Thank you. Thank you. So a real mix, then, of these different types of incentive, carrot stick and the open disclosure, your finding has been an effective approach that you can start translating across different types of these problems, having learned from the air pollution situation. Yeah, last year we worked with our partners to develop the digital accounting platform. And last year some of the largest brands globally and locally have used our accounting platform to drive their suppliers to measure and disclose 62 million tons of their Scope 1 and 2, you know, carbon footprint. Of course, that's their Scope 2, but it's the Scope 3 of those major brands. Those brands who made commitment from Paris to Glasgow to Shamshaik on that zero commitment, much of the footprint is actually on the Scope 3 side, on the supply chain, particularly in China, the factory of the world. So how do we work together on that, matters to the whether those brands can honor their commitment. And in the meantime, it also, of course, matters to our climate future of the planet. Thank you. So I'd like to turn to Nicholas to follow this point up. So we've heard then about an example in China. Volvo is a global company. So you're working across 190 countries. You're going to have to work with the whole landscape of different types of approach like this, dependent on the jurisdiction, different regulations. You're having to worry about, as we've heard, like there's upstream and downstream concerns that you need to think about. So as a global company, then, how do you navigate this very varied and ever-changing landscape of different types of incentive? Yeah. Well, Nick, it's a complex issue. First of all, it's good to be back in Tianjin. And that is part of the answer, honestly, because it needs to be one of the most important parts for us as a global company to actually follow and understand is to engage in dialogue, both with policymakers, but also throughout the whole value chain of our industry. So for us at Volvo Group, automotive industry is heavily regulated. We are used to that. So that's all fine. But the transition that we are into right now, going from almost 100% fossil fuel-powered vehicles to new energy vehicles of different types and so on, that's a transition of our industry, but it's also a transition of the whole value chain. So we committed to science-based targets a couple of years back. Honestly, I can share with you that we knew it was the right thing to do, so to say. There are all these pledges and commitments and we pick and choose and we are really committed to do it. But what we didn't really understand was how important that science-based target tool was internally in our company. We are approximately 100,000 people employed all over the world. And all of our entries wants to be part of this decarbonization journey in our company. And it was really, really good because it showed for real how we make progress in scope one and scope two and scope three. And exactly as Majun just put it, it's transparency in reporting. And for us, our scope three is the absolute biggest one. For us, it's 96% of our CO2 footprint globally. So scope three commitment is essential when we are talking science-based targets. Scope one and two needs to be done as well, but much easier for a truck manufacturer to secure that our production facilities are powered with green energy, that we buy the right things in our transport system in our own internal logistics and so on. But scope three, that is the challenge, obviously. Both downstream, meaning how are our trucks and buses and construction equipment powered going forward with this new energy, be it electric or be it green hydrogen or other green biofuels, whatever is available. But upstream scope three is also a huge challenge, meaning all the components that we buy. So for Volvo Group, we have approximately 55,000 first tier suppliers. And you can imagine it easily becomes millions of companies when you go through the value chain. And that's what we do right now. So committing to science-based target on top, if you like, or at the side of being heavily regulated as we are as well, carrot or stick, it's an interesting journey because what drives us as a company is actually the science-based targets. That is setting the strategies completely for us. Are regulators following this? Yes, more or less. But you have to understand also in our industry, as in many other industries, it's competition. It's fierce competition. So being regulated is maybe more to secure that everyone, also the slower movers, are coming along. But incentivizing or committing to science-based targets isn't as a carrot thing. That is bringing us the more forward-leaning companies going much more quicker, I think. And what's interesting in our business is that we are not doing cars any longer. We divested Volvo cars many years back. So we only do commercial vehicles, meaning we are in business to business. We are only dealing with other companies. And what we have learned now during the past two years is that so many more companies are now joining in to signing up to science-based targets. And that means that we immediately come into the equation of others because someone's scope one is someone else's scope three and so on. And for anyone, a business leader in any company out there wants to show progress in each quarterly report. Financing, financial progress. But now with science-based target, also CO2 progress, reduction product progress. No one wants to report quarter after quarter that nothing really happened, right? So everyone wants to really show progress. And for any company out there exploring their specific CO2 footprint in scope one, two, and three, immediately comes to transport. Many companies come to transport. And that's where Volvo comes in then, obviously, with our battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles going forward. So we can help each other in the value chain to actually say when can we do this transition and who should invest in what time. And just to end with, we don't have time, right? So that's also the key thing, to be transparent with your reporting and as science-based target is requiring to actually have targets for 2030, 2035 and onwards, not only for 2050, right? And here regulations is helping us as well because policymakers are regulating us almost, it seems like magic that it needs to be these years ending with a zero. That's the key year to regulate things, right? 2020, 2030. So the next big CO2 topic is regulated to be 2030. It's only six years away. And throughout this value chain, we can tick the box already. We have the electric trucks in full production, so that's all fine. But we don't see the infrastructure as good as in many parts of China. It is starting to really be there, but not in other parts of the world. So this value chain approach is really key here, I think. Very interesting. As a scientist, I'm very happy to hear the discussion of science-based targets. That's great, but this is a very good segue, I think. We hear about all this. So the science-based targets are important. I think the emissions accounting is crucial and understanding the science and the data and so on behind it. But Jamila, if I can turn to you in your work in public health, people are not, you know, if we think about change and I think Nicholas touched on an interesting point about the desire of lots of people in their organization to be part of the change, we're not necessarily motivated by seeing progress against indicators. So how do we need to think about how these various crises come together in a way that helps motivate people's action beyond these sorts of very important, but nonetheless, you know, the indicators and metrics. Thank you very much, Nicky. That's such a relevant question. It's wonderful to be here. And as I was listening to our previous two speakers, you know, the issue of governance is not just top-down, it's also bottom-up. And, you know, having, holding governments and businesses to account by citizens, true transparency is going to be very critical. And, of course, science provides us that foundation. But when you think about it, the science has been there for a long time. Why haven't things changed? And I think, you know, this is where behavioral, you know, aspects come into play. And at the end of the day, you know, I come from Malaysia, we are developing, you know, a lot of our businesses, very small-medium enterprise. We need to look at, you know, how we bring them along, the supply chain that you mentioned, right? And I think one area that I want to touch on is really around persuasion science and behavioral science. What is it that makes people make the decisions that need to be made? And it's not just science, unfortunately. So there are very interesting theories, obviously. If you look up persuasion science, six principles, you know, what is it that, you know, by nature, people want to be liked. And how then do you tap into that aspect of human behavior that takes into account, you know, persuasion, which is true reciprocity, you know, authority, the willing, the desire to be liked and so forth. But coming back to your question, Niki, one of the things I keep, you know, trying to impress on people is not just the climate, it's our health. You know, we've just lived through, you know, the most horrific pandemic in our known living history, recent living history. And it's not the worst pandemic to happen. There are worse things coming. But when you look at the health aspects, if you look at the planetary boundaries that we're talking about, the latest one to be breached is microplastics. What is the impact of microplastics on our health? We have rise in, you know, gut cancers because of the change in the microbiome is all to do with probably the stuff we're consuming. A lot of it has plastics. One of the studies that has been done is 80% of the blood samples taken in the study had microplastics. Babies are passing microplastics in their feces. Mothers are passing microplastics through their breast milk. What is that long-term impact of that? You talked about pollution. Pollution, yes, causes respiratory illness. It also causes eye disease. It causes a rise in hypertension, diabetes, and all the complication. Obesity even is related to pollution. And there's so many other aspects of the planetary degradation that is linked to our health. And I think if we bring people back to health, what is more valuable to us during the pandemic? What was the number one priority for us? Our elderly people are kept safe. The people we love, our children are kept safe. We are safe. And nothing else mattered. The economy stalled at that time, right? Everything stalled. And I think if we can bring people to value health, which is so personal, and to show the interconnectedness of our planet and our health, and through businesses, through sound government policies, through good citizen action. And I think one thing we never talk about enough is mental health. Young people today don't want to have children because they're worried about climate change. So how do we now tackle that future workforce that is going to be depressed, that's not going to be productive? So it's all related to the actions we take today. So I want to come back to the Anthropocene, us human beings, driving change. And we need to be the ones. We are the decision makers. We are the ones who vote people into governments and into local governments and national governments. We are the ones who make decisions at our working level. So I think how do we help the governance aspect to be much more long-term, not just the five-year tenure that most politicians have? So if you talk about this stick and the carrot, you need both. But the stick is always short-term. The long-term and the carrot is about long-term education, long-term and good sound communications that's relevant to today, understanding how people consume information. So if I can share one thing we're doing in the university, is that we have included now a course called Planetary Health and Community, where every student cannot graduate unless they complete a seven-week module, which means they understand the impact of the decisions they will make as future leaders. And therefore, whether they're an engineering student, whether they're a culinary art student or medical student, they have to know that they will have a responsibility to make those right decisions when they become leaders. Thank you. This is a very interesting perspective. I'd like to switch slightly now, if I may, to you, Moaka, to change perspective up a little bit more and approach things from where you're coming from in Zambia. You are needing to think about, and colleagues of yours in emerging economies, how we craft multilateralism or bilateral trade, debt relief measures and so on, that are going to be fit for tackling these planetary crises, thinking about climate mitigation, what we're facing with issues around water, some of these health crises. These are critical as you're trying to also develop your economies at the same time. So what's important for you in trying to think about crafting these in this context of some of these targets that we've heard about, but also some of the concerns from citizens about their own future and their own place in this world. Particularly thinking perhaps about issues of the fairness that we hear about so frequently through, for example, the recent loss and damage discussions at last year's call. Okay. Thank you very much. I think this topic is actually pertinent. Before we go, I come to the characteristics. I think I just want to indicate that largely we are agreed as developed countries and developing countries at the table. That we need to protect our planet and we need to keep the planetary boundaries and basically go toward net zero. But I think we need to look at things a little bit more. I'll give an example of my country, Zambia. Net zero planetary boundaries, there are a number of issues that we have actually put in place in terms of policy. For example, when you talk about going green, the government has policies which actually exempt customs duty, for example, for solar equipment to go green in energy. We actually also have exemptions. We have reduced customs duty on electric motor vehicles from 30% to 15% exemption on withholding tax on income and on green bonds, which are under our stock exchange market and so on. A number of those and then we also did set up what we call the Ministry of Green Economy and Environment, which I think it's a milestone. Through that ministry, we're actually developing what we call the climate change bill just to ensure that traction is actually made. However, I think as individual countries, we cannot just end it there. We have our discussions. We agree net zero planetary boundaries. Then we all get up and go away and say, go do your part, go do your part. I think that is not enough. Fundamentally, the essence of human activity, which is undertaken, is basically to enhance our livelihood. And if you look at the developing countries really, for me, I think we need to tackle two fundamental aspects. One is trade, fairness in trade. Most of the developing countries like Zambia are basically at the base of production of some of the key ingredients of the technology we're talking about currently if we're going to actually actualize the Green Revolution. Talk about electric vehicles. Key ingredients. There's copper, which Zambia produces. We have cobalt, which DRC produces. But what price are they getting for those components? If you look at DRC, poverty is high. Why? Because of the price that they're getting. Zambia is no different. We may produce the copper, but can the people in our country actually afford to buy the electric vehicles that we're going to add? So I think we need to fundamentally look at how we discuss fairness about trade. It's good, of course. It's given that developed countries actually do value addition, but you cannot actually value add if there's no ingredient to value add to. So I think it's time to talk about, to discuss differently on trade. And then when we come to credit, I think at Cope, if I recall at Cope 27, there was a launch of the Alliance for Green, what is called Alliance for Green Infrastructure in Africa, where it has been, it was indicated that there will be a raising of about $500 million, because we are appreciating that if we're going to achieve net zero, Africa has a huge financing gap in terms of the infrastructure which is required. Question, good undertaking, what are the particular steps to actually create that? Perhaps we need to relook at our credit financing. We have the institutions which actually assess credit rating of various countries, including developed countries. Should we continue focusing on GDP, inflation, export, debt, or should we bring into the picture the climate aspect? A good example and quick for me to give is DRC. DRC actually holds one of the biggest forests that takes in the carbon, that is produced by developing countries and developed countries together. But are we valuing that when we're talking about financing and credit rating? So I think from our perspective, I think those are the discussions we need to make if we're actually going to achieve the net zero, we're going to achieve our objective of staying within the planetary boundaries. Because really at the end of the day, we have all agreed through the SDGs, human activities to enhance livelihoods. But as we protect the planet toward net zero, livelihoods have to continue. So how best do we do that? I think we need to address trade issues, we need to address financing issues. It's an interesting point you raised there about the, for example, we use the example of the forests, and we often hear discussion around ecosystem services and how do we think properly about their value. So to come back to this idea of where we're thinking through carrots and sticks, how do you think we can more appropriately move towards valuing systems, services like that as part of these sorts of negotiations that then help with the development of countries like Zambia or DRC or similar. So that we are, you know, I guess where does that discussion need to go to make that more productive? So we can bring about the fairness, we can have this like a net zero transition that is just for all. But where we're recognizing these additional things like, you know, the forests, the responsibilities that we have to a lot of these different ecosystems and natural resources, where does that need to come from, do you think? What's the best pathway for it, I guess? Okay, I think I'll give an example of one of the interventions that the World Bank has been undertaking with Zambia. We have, I think it has changed name now. The Waves Accounting Evaluation Ecosystems in Zambia where they are valuing, they've helped us to actually put a value to our water resources, to our forest resources and minerals and so on. I think we need to, as a global community, start taking that into account as we are doing our various valuations, as we are doing our credit-worthiness assessment. I think that's one step that can be taken so that everybody actually gets their fair share. When you talk about carrots, if a person, if someone is brought to the table and actually can see, implicitly, get the benefit of the partnership we're talking about, I think we can actually make headway. Okay, thank you. One other theme I'd like to come back to before we perhaps open up the floor for some questions is we've heard some discussion about youth, particularly if Jamila was talking about younger people. I think we need to think a bit about both the drive of our younger people, new employees coming into workforces, much more mission-driven arguably than previous generations have been. We're worried with the idea of planetary boundaries without safeguarding the planet and planetary health. How do we make sure that the voices of youth are heard as we're developing these different incentives and carrots and sticks out into the future? I mean, does anybody want to go, Jamila? I think it comes back to governance as well, right? Traditionally, and most of the time what you see is that whether it's governments developing policies or whether it's dialogues, youth are included to just listen to their voice. I think what we need to do is radically change that. I think youth should sit on boards. Young people should sit on boards. Young people should be sitting in advisory councils, to governments, to policy-making institutions because it's not just about consulting. It's actually about listening to their ideas and their concerns because they are the ones that are inheriting the problems we've created. So I think it's the tokenism of youth participation has to change. Certainly, what we have done is we have trained young people, starting to train young people how to analyse policies because you may think they're too young to be able to understand complex policies and to our surprise, it was the 16-year-olds and the 17-year-olds are better than the PhDs because perhaps they're the innocence of their minds being able to see things so clearly. And I think we are missing that great opportunity if we don't start thinking about how we radically include young people in pretty serious stuff. I have a long history in the non-profit sectors I used to sit on the board of Save the Children in the UK and Save the Children has a youth board and when the youth board meets adults like us just listen and they can tell us off if we are not doing the right thing. So I think we've got to have that kind of attitude because the radical ideas will come from then. Nicholas's Volvo going to... Yeah, I think when we were talking about young people we noted that since a couple of years back honestly how important it is to get the young people involved and representing the private sector here a bit it's important for companies to show that this company wants to be part of the solution for the long-term future and to be humble to it a bit. There are no easy fixes. We need to be humble and we need to show our next generation that at least this company is forward-leaning, we take it seriously, we want to do something good and we want you to start in our company to help us doing that. And I mean this is pure business driven because we need these people to help us in this. So it's essential for our business to actually make it happen. Another positive thing with the younger generation is that they tend to be more global citizens than we maybe are. So they really want to do good for the globe not specifically for their home country and with this world of protectionism that we see and trade issues and all of these things I think it's really important that we don't miss out on those things as well to really be secure that we save the planet. Not just one region in the world here and there. That's important. Mark, did you have something you wanted to? Yeah. Yesterday I was, you know, I attended a symposium on the launch of the annual survey results of the public environmental protection behavior in China. And based on this result, I mean we've seen rising awareness but how to translate this awareness into action is still, you know, behavior change is still difficult. The challenges responded, you know, particularly the young people responded by saying that first they don't know much channels to participate and then some of these projects are not to their interest. You know, they can be energized with that. So I think we need to address that problem and try to penetrate and try to get great channels for that young people going to feel quite much easy, lower the threshold for them to participate and also to make it more attractive is very important. In China we have one project, you know, there's one very well-known project called Ant Forest. You've probably heard about that. Everyone use AliPay and based on that you can save your own, you know, energy and reduce your own carbon footprint and then this can be transformed into real tree planting in some of the region, you know, western regions in China. So hundreds of millions of people. I can imagine most of them young people are very actively, you know, participated in that. In our case, you know, we have a blue map app that also help young people to get involved. For example, we work with a college, you know, young people's organization called CYCAN and to help the grad, you know, college students to take a picture and through the AI technology to understand whatever species. It's not just flowers, but also, you know, insects and animals and what kind of plants and of course fish and different things. So this new, and they have helped us to put, they have uploaded more than 300,000 pictures in just five months of time, you know, just all have watermarked on what kind of species this is and it's, you know, it's one of the way. And then another, you know, on the climate side, yesterday, you know, one result is clear. In China, you know, the people's awareness on the ecological side and on the pollution control side is much higher than the climate side. On the climate side, it's still not quite there. You know, we're still lagging behind, say, regions like Europe, you know, which can have such a high level of awareness, public awareness, which can support very, very tough public policy on the climate side. In China, you know, the government have created this 30, 60, you know, commitment, but people, people haven't really linked to their daily life with that. So how do we create those links? You know, it's not like smog. It's not palpable as the water pollution and air pollution. So we need to create those. We also need to use more creative ways to engage the young people. So one of the tools we develop is, again, AI technology. Take a picture and then of, say, this cup and then it can feedback with you a carbon footprint, an embedded carbon of the life cycle, you know, from cradle to the gate or to the graveyard, you know, this whole life cycle carbon footprint. Of course, it's based on a carbon life cycle, LCA carbon footprint database that we're developing. And today we're trying to work with companies who have already measured thousands upon thousands of, sometimes tens of thousands of their products, the product level carbon footprint. But much of that have not been disclosed. There's no way for people to understand that. So we need to create a searchable user-friendly catalog and link that with, say, new tools like Take a picture to understand the embedded carbon. So next time it's not just about, in general, this kind of carbon footprint of this cup, but very, very specific. This specific brand, even the specific batch of this, if we link that with AI technology and then big data and particularly internet of things, there are ways for us to come up with instant measurement and reporting of the carbon footprint. I hope that through this we can help people to really make different choices. Thank you. And just around the south, yes, please. Just to add, I think one of the industries which has actually shown or demonstrated the ability to capture young people is basically the film industry. Because in this era of social media, actually everybody is glued to social media. They're watching movies and so on. I think that's one of the avenues we should actually really look at critically if we're going to capture, because we need to capture them young and they grow up with those concepts and basically come to effectively leave them and implement them. Thank you. Nikki, if I can share, one thing we are doing is actually working with Sony Interactive with the PlayStation on gamification of climate change. Because I think, you know, if you talk about young people, they like gaming. So, you know, you're absolutely right. This is how we need to understand how do people consume information. It's not through the traditional newspapers or the journals that you and I may read. It's through interactive gaming. It's through the shopping experience. How does that become a lesson in understanding planetary boundaries? What you were saying earlier about that cup of water, I remember when I was in Switzerland, you can buy clothing with a DNA and you can trace where the cotton was grown, who grew it, you know, how far did this shirt come to where you purchased it from? So the entire chain of events and making that, you know, something, a discovery of knowledge which is exciting and interesting. So I think, again, if you don't talk to young people and ask them, what excites you? You know, how do you consume information? What will make you want to do something? We, as, you know, the manufacturers, as the business people, you're losing the business opportunity to understand, you know, what your audience really wants. Yeah. Thank you. I think this is probably a good moment to open up for questions before the session comes in and so if anybody has a question, there are some microphones. Is one over here? Yes? I have a question and there are so many differences and gaps between the developed countries and the developing countries. How can we ensure the climate justice in transformation? What can, what should we consider? What factors should we consider? That's all. Mo Maka, would you like to take that or to start with or? Okay. I think to add to what I had submitted earlier, as we look at the boundaries, the targets that we're setting, I think the other issue, the fundamental issue to address is that, given developed countries have gone through this development path, industrialized, and of course they do actually contribute significantly to the emissions. And then you have the developing countries actually still milestones behind and they need to catch up in development. Talk about the carbon markets. I think in terms of developing that, we have basically, that has basically leaned more in the developed world compared to the developing countries. How do we bring the developing countries in there? Is it enough for the big industries to buy carbon credits and continue emitting? Because that sounds more like a red flag to the developing countries to say, sorry, the development path this way has closed. Use another door. I think that's not really the way we should be moving. Perhaps we need to ensure that there's a stick in regard to the developed countries. They need to start taming down their emissions and perhaps allow a certain threshold for the developing countries to continue the developing path while new technologies are being adapted with financing coming through for them to actually move on toward the net zero. I think it's a balancing act that needs to be done. Nicholas? Yeah, I think here, the private sector has a special role, of course. If you separate a little bit the private sector from regulators, I think on this topic, it's very important for the big companies of the world like us that are present everywhere that we have a plan, a global plan for all these things, how to make sustainable transport possible everywhere, and that we'd not just have one for the developed part of the world like Europe or like US or somewhere else. It's extremely important that we take that kind of responsibility for our companies, but also for the globe to have a global plan for that because regulators are not necessarily doing that for us. If you are only here to fulfill regulations as companies, then we are stuck into regional regulations because that's what it is. Fulfilling the toughest CO2 regulation, of course we will do that, but that's in Europe. Second toughest in the US. We will also fulfill that one. But if we are only here as a company to just fulfill regulations, that's where it ends. So I think it is a special role for global companies to actually have a global map with or without regulations for it. Thanks. I think the just transition is very, very important globally. Globally we have the common but differentiated responsibilities principle that need to be adhered to, the $100 billion commitment made by those industrialized countries need to be delivered. I think this hasn't been fulfilled. I think all this needs to be done on the global level. On the national and local development side, I think how to really ensure a just transition. We are also just getting new experience of that. After China made the carbon picker neutrality index, we have our green finance created the first round of taxonomy by getting rid of all the co-related projects, co-power projects, fully out of that. But then the last two years, power shortage during the peak season and then the turbulent global energy market plus the geopolitical tension have made it very, very challenging to ensure energy security. And then in this new round of taxonomy, the co-power, clean coal have all again been put back into that. And the green finance have been renamed as transition finance because we're understanding the transition is far from being accomplished and it's going to be much bumpier than expected. Having said that, I go back to this idea of Karen Sticks. I go back to this idea that fundamentally, I think data transparency is extremely important because without that, we're going to have, particularly when you don't have like in Europe, you have that kind of, we just don't have any coal. We don't support any coal project. I mean that's easier. But when we need to do transition, you need to differentiate those who are really doing the transition or those who just pretend to do it. This green wash, climate wash, transition wash, it's all over. ESG wash now. So how do we create this real accountability system? We're working with our partners to develop a corporate climate action index. Last year, it assessed the performance of 1,000 global and local brands and listed companies. This year, it expanded to 1,500. The idea is that we need to have a science-based way to really assess the performance and then really identify those who are really doing the transition and then give them support, give them real incentives. And then to the others, we probably need to have more sticks. All the stakeholders have to come together to really put pressure on those to really deliver whatever promise they make. The accountability is really important, absolutely. I think that's, first of all, a great question. I feel sad to tell you that it's going to be really, really hard because even though now we've described the planetary boundaries as safe and just boundaries, it's changed from just safe boundaries. I think a couple of things we haven't really talked about and the shifts in legislation. For the first time, you see civil society groups taking big oil companies to court. Today, in my phone, I got a message that the Church of England has divested and shelled. The writing is on the wall, right? So there will be some significant shifts in how investments that hurt companies are going to slowly shift the conversation. But the issue of justice, at the end of the day, it's about equity, as you mentioned. Countries like mine, like yours, still need to build schools and roads, and that will come from funding that may not be fossil fuel-free. So how then do we hold the major polluters to account? And I think that has to be put centre of everything. And data transparency is going to be key. One area, obviously, that we haven't talked a lot about is the rise, the stories. I think, again, I come back to communications. What will make things change? It's human stories. I always tell the story about, I wish he was here, a Filipino lawyer who took a company to court on behalf of dolphins. And because he said if the company set up their business there, it would actually kill a lot of the dolphins. And his future children and grandchildren would not have the opportunity to enjoy dolphins and won the case. What a powerful story that justice can be achieved, even as bizarre as the story about fighting for dolphins. No, the story about pollution. I always tell the story of Ella, a nine-year-old girl in London who died because of severe, actually, 20 asthma attacks in two years. And the coroner, for the first time in the history of humanity, this little girl has a death certificate with toxic air pollution as a cause of death. No one else has had it. Gave the mother enough fuel and energy to advocate for clean air. And as a result, London has ultra-low emission zones that reduce pollution. I mean, it's human stories like this. Behind every number, there is someone who has a story of suffering. And here is where I come back to education and values. As a doctor, I will tell you the first organ that develops is the heart, and then the brain later on. And when the baby is born, what do parents do? We focus on the brain, right? We don't focus on the heart so much. I'm not saying everyone, but generally. And therefore, we don't grow up with the value systems that are required for us to have a safe and just planet. Whereas traditionally, as human beings, our sense of success is when our community thrived, how do we bring this back? So it sounds like very soft and philosophical, but it's essential. How do you bring the essentials back? We have just five minutes left. I want to give people a chance to ask questions if there are any. So maybe if anybody's got something they want to put their hand up, we can take a couple and then go from there before we end. So there's one here and one here. So this gentleman here, please. My question is regarding where you would like to see more young researchers and entrepreneurs using their talents. So what are the areas that you see as underexplored, where perhaps decades as opposed to years of progress could bear fruit? And if you'd like to ask yours as well, then we can take all the answers together. Thanks. So I'm Carolina. I'm a global shaper as well, based in Stockholm. And my question is if you could wish for one outcome at COP28, what would that be? Okay. So maybe if we go around. So, Ma, if you'd like to start, we have what would you like to see people focus on? And do you have a one outcome for COP28? Which saves me having to ask that at the end. So thank you. Wow. Focus on so much that we can do that. And I think fundamentally, you know, now we fully, you know, our growth is still very much dependent on energy and resource and all these resources. We hope to turn that into, you know, dependence on technology. So I hope the young people could lead to the innovation, you know, of technological innovation. I think that part is extremely important. And young people are super active and they have their own ways to cross all this message to their young colleagues. And I also hope to see them working more on that. On the COP28, I do hope, of course, you know, everyone, we can have more peace. I think that's the most important. Without that, it's difficult. But based on that, you know, I hope, of course, enhanced ambition, but nationally it's going to be challenging. So corporate accountability is extremely important. More than 9,000 of companies made net zero commitment. How do we hold them accountable and translate particularly the scope three carbon, you know, commitment into real action? I hope to see that. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Well, in our industry, innovation is key. There are so, so many things to still be innovated. So just pick a technology area and you're welcome to come to old one and help us innovate. We work a lot with small startups all over the world. But of course, focusing mainly on the green transition, but also in data. It's a huge thing in data in transport industry. It's a lot of waste in the transport system still. So we need quick innovation in many parts of it. On COP and on accountability. I think it's a really important COP coming up now. And to Mayun's point, all of these companies in the private sector committing to facing out fossil fuels, including oil. My question is actually the opposite. How long time will it take? Because COP is negotiations between countries, right? How many of these cops will we have? How many thousands of companies will we need to see committing and delivering and facing out of fossil fuels before we get countries to actually sign that paper? On your question, I think young people can help us by doing research in very much in technology and AI and data, but really trying to tell us what is important to young people and therefore charts the pathway and what kind of innovations are required. I think that's really important. On COP, to be very honest, I give up on COP, right? I think it's a talk show. If anything, if I had a wish list, first of all, if you're going to make a commitment, make sure you're accountable. So on the loss and damage fund, for example, there has to be a measurement of accountability without which my wishes don't announce anything if you can't be held accountable. The second thing is I wish that we will end this nationally determinants, national determinants. That's the low hanging fruit. Anyone can just pick a number out of the air and say that that's a national determinant. There should be a standard formula based on science on what every country should be committing to, not what you think you should be committing to. That's number two. The third thing is I think that should be a major fine for any company that's greenwashing, greenhushing, ESG-hushing and ESG-washing. So I have three wishes for COP, even though I don't believe in COP. Thank you. Moaka, last word to you briefly on the two questions. Okay. From my perspective, the youth are the engine to growth from my country. The youth actually comprise more than 80% of the population. And so what we expect to see from the youth is innovation. They are challenged with various issues and key among them is jobs, lack of jobs. I think we'd like to see the youth look at themselves as the solution to the problem. What innovation or how does the youth actually become the solution to addressing that? Coming to COP 28, I think for me, the simple thing is pragmatism. I think what I'd like to see is decision, not commitment, because we have been committing. And for countries like Zambia coming from the developing world, commitments have not taken us anywhere. Any step close to net zero, to planetary boundaries, any step closer to actually achieving the sustainable development goals, to which I think many of our developing countries actually miles from achieving. So what I'd look forward to is to see decision that actually will make a change for our countries and actually at the global level, overly. So it's an issue of saying this is the issue, how to ensure that what will be your part to play, what will be my part to play that will actually benefit all of us. That's great. Well, with that, I should draw everything to a close. I'd like to thank all of our speakers and all of you for a really great conversation. Thank you very much.