 All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. My name is David Livingston, and I am a fellow in our energy and climate program here. It's a pleasure to see many familiar faces in the audience, as well as looking over the attendee list today to see the dozens of different countries that are represented here. It's an indication of the international interest in this issue and proof that this is truly a global challenge which no one country can solve or can block on its own. I'd also like to give a special thanks to a number of ambassadors that are joining us here today. Of course, Ambassador O'Sullivan, who I will introduce shortly, but also Ambassador Tim Grocer, His Excellency, the Ambassador of New Zealand to the United States. Thank you for joining us. I'd also like to give a special thanks to a few members of our team. Maddie Sher of the Energy and Climate Team, whose hard work and the lead up to this event has been invaluable, as well as the contributions of colleagues throughout this building here at Carnegie, whose hard work and often under-recognized or unrecognized work helps make events like this possible. I'd like to give thanks as well to the panelists, to the keynote speakers, to Ambassador O'Sullivan and, of course, to the CEO of the World Bank, Crystalina Georgieva, for providing the experiential and intellectual driver for our discussion here today. And finally, and most significantly, I'd like to thank the delegation of the EU here in Washington for their partnership in this event and for generously supporting the provision of wine and other finger foods which await you, should you make it through today's events in discussion. We encourage you to have a robust conversation. And we want there to be not just a robust conversation here up on the stage, but also out amongst all of you. The easiest way to do this is over Twitter. And if you're looking to engage with us on Twitter, you can send us feedback, send us questions, suggest questions for the panelists that we may read. Please use the hashtag, Clima Diplo. That's C-L-I-M-A-D-I-P-L-O. In a week that is so far included record heat waves in Europe and numerous other locations across the world, that's seen flights, dozens of flights into Phoenix canceled due to temperatures that have exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit. And in a week that's also seen scientists raise alarm over the potential separation of a piece of ice from the West Antarctic ice sheet that is the size of Delaware, it is a very apt time to be addressing the climate challenge and the solutions that are needed to rise to that challenge. Today we're gathered to take the pulse of how low-carbon innovation is rising to meet this challenge, from corporate board rooms to venture capital portfolios to labs to factories around the world. We are also here to discuss the benefits, both at the firm level and the societal level, that is driving this innovation forward. Despite uncertainty over the future of American involvement in the Paris Climate Agreement, low-carbon forces have been unleashed that are exceedingly difficult to reverse. Indeed, this is true even in the least intuitive of locations. The five U.S. states that get the largest percentage of power from wind are all red states having voted for President Trump in the last election. And another state, America's largest overall wind producer, the state of Texas, is a thoroughly red state, which also boasts an economy which is very intertwined with oil and gas. For these states and their citizens, clean energy deployment is not driven first by climate change concerns, but instead by real opportunities for competitiveness and for job creation that are offered by low-carbon innovation and deployment. New global players on the global scene have embraced this low-carbon innovation imperative and the opportunities therein as strongly as the European Union. For decades, it has been a leading protagonist in evolving global efforts to combat climate change. Over the past several weeks, the EU has made clear that its commitment to the Paris Agreement is steadfast and that it will work diligently to see that it is fully implemented. To speak further on this, I am pleased to have the honor of introducing his Excellency, David O'Sullivan, EU Ambassador to the United States. Mr. O'Sullivan was appointed Ambassador and Head of the European Union Delegation to the U.S. in Washington, D.C., in November of 2014. Prior to his appointment as Ambassador, he was the Chief Operating Officer of the European External Action Service, where he established a new diplomatic network from scratch with 140 delegations around the world. Mr. O'Sullivan has served in a number of senior official posts in the European Public Service, including Head of Commission President Perotis' Cabinet, Secretary-General of the European Commission, Director-General for Trade, and Chief Negotiator for the Doha Development Round. Just yesterday, Ambassador O'Sullivan was on Capitol Hill speaking to the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology about the EU's efforts to address climate change. He noted that, quote, breakthroughs in renewable energy technology and a sharp reduction in costs are shaping the way we think about the environment and economy. The transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy is within reach and is the key to long-term sustainable growth. Ambassador, I could not agree more. I thank you for joining us today, and I welcome you to take the floor. Thank you. David, thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon, and thanks to Carnegie for helping us host this event, which is part of the European Union's annual Climate Diplomacy Week, and we have acquired the habit here of organizing a Climate Diplomacy Day in D.C., and we're delighted that so many of you could turn out. And I think the large turnout today represents the magnitude of the problem of climate change and the diversity of thinking and action we need to combat its effects. It's my honor to have this opportunity to share some of the good economic stories that prove that indeed there is no trade-off between the fight against climate change and growth and competitiveness. But before I get into the substance, I would like to welcome the distinguished group of panelists with us for this evening's discussion. I'd like to thank you all very much for giving generously of your time. You're all leaders in your respective fields, and we look forward to sharing your expertise. I'm also delighted that we will honor, that we will welcome later on the CEO of the World Bank, Kristalina Georgieva, a close friend, a former vice president of the European Commission. Of course, now an independent international civil servant, but whom we still think is representing a little bit Europe as well, and we're very proud of what she does. I'd also like to acknowledge the presence of the ambassador of New Zealand, Tim Grocer, a very good friend and colleague also from the trade parties, and I know that New Zealand is firmly on the right side of the climate change debate, though I fear Tim and myself will be cheering for opposite teams when the British and Irish lines take on New Zealand in the first test match in New Zealand on Saturday. Good luck, Tim, but you'll need it. There's a hubris to remark. I may live to regret that, Tim. Many of you may not know that the Carnegie Endowment and the European Union emerged from similar visions. Both were founded with the goal of ending war, or as the Carnegie Charter eloquently phrases it, to hasten the abolition of war, the foulest blot upon our civilization. In our modern age, unfortunately, war still ravages the planet, but there is also growing awareness of another, more profound battle between humanity and our planet. Climate change is indeed an existential issue for our planet. There exists an overwhelming body of research and scientific data that has established the clear link between the rapid changes in climate patterns and human activity. And climate change is not and cannot be an issue for tomorrow. It is happening now. As David already illustrated, we see more and more frequent and intense extreme weather events, more droughts, the fast disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic, coastal erosion requiring the relocation of villages, more flooding in lowland areas and significant impact on ecosystems. But I think it's very important to underline that climate change is not just an environmental issue. As I said yesterday to a congressional roundtable on climate change and was reinforced by my co-panelists, of whom our chairman of this afternoon's discussion, Mishna Bhapna, it is a multifaceted problem with vast security implications. And I think we can never emphasize strongly enough the security dimension of the climate change threat. Changes to our climate are causing disruption to our economic activity, but it affects human health, it intensifies migration patterns, and it heightens competition for scarce natural resources. It is also most likely to affect, most seriously, the developing countries who are least equipped to actually cope with that change. And these are all critical factors that contribute to destabilization and to conflict. Climate change acts as a threat multiplier. It is daily and will continue to contribute to tensions that already exist in areas of the world. And this is something of which I think we need to be intensely aware. And we need to therefore be clear that dealing with the reality and the potential impacts of climate change is a necessity for managing global peace and stability in the future. Now, fortunately, the world has taken bold steps to ensure that future. We cannot forget the historic achievement in Paris in 2015. 197 countries of the world came together and unified behind the Paris Agreement, which was a major breakthrough and a major step forward in the global fight against climate change, because for the first time, we managed to unite all the countries of the planet behind the same objective and put an end to the traditional division between the developed world, who were rightly held responsible for much of the problems that we now inherit, and the developing world, who rightly felt that they were being asked to pay for the mistakes of the developed countries in a common agenda, recognizing that the developing countries also have a stake for themselves and for their own future in contributing to a solution to this problem of climate change. But on a basis that everyone feels equitably represented and a balanced agreement, and that was the great achievement of Paris. But as we know, and as many of you will know, Paris is not the end, it is the beginning. It is a platform. It is a process and a format which enables us to go forward in addressing this very serious problem. The deal, as we all know, could not have been achieved without the remarkable commitment and support and leadership of the United States. It is very regrettable that the United States has now decided to take a different path so early on in the life of the agreement. And thus, the timing of this event could not be more important. And I want to take this the opportunity today, as I did yesterday, to reinforce the European Union's continued and unwavering commitment to the Paris Agreement and to its future implementation. Our commitment is to a more innovative and sustainable low carbon economy. The recent decision of the United States may cast a shadow over the immense achievement of Paris, but it is not wholly disheartening. In the wake of the decision, we've seen an incredible groundswell of leadership from American stakeholders and from around the world. From states and cities to academic institutions, NGOs, and businesses, there is a shared understanding that action on climate change cannot be subdued and that it is in our best interest to act and to act now. Many of the signatories to Paris, including very large emitters of emissions like China and India, have unambiguously reasserted their commitment to the full and successful implementation of the agreement. There is no black sliding and there will be no turning back. Today, of course, we're focusing in particular on the economic dimension of the problem. And the argument supporting immediate action to tackle climate change is not just supported by science-based evidence or that climate change poses a security risk. Action is also supported by a very robust body of economic evidence. We are no longer living in the age where coal and steel are the engines of our economies. The transition to a low carbon economy is in our self-interest and has the business case for addressing climate change through low carbon development is, in my view, inescapable and irreversible. Low carbon economy is now being driven as much by market forces, if not more so than by public policy. Breakthroughs in renewable energy technology, sharp production and costs, and the climate financing are shaping the way we think about environment and economy as David conveniently quoted me saying yesterday and my script tells me to say it again today. Climate action and growth are not mutually exclusive. They are not a zero-sum game, and I really cannot emphasize that enough. A low carbon climate-resilient economy is the absolute key to long-term sustainable growth. And we should not fool ourselves that this transition is in some way reversible or that it is not in our self-interest or that it is not good for business. Quite frankly, all the evidence proves otherwise. The vast body of evidence shows that there is a net economic and commercial gain to taking action against climate change. There are many opportunities arriving from the transition to a low carbon economy. Let me illustrate my point. First, the cost of nonaction is already huge. The total economic loss from natural disasters such as floods and storms has increased fivefold since the 1980s to around $170 billion today. Furthermore, if we do not address the impact of climate change with appropriate mitigation and adaptation policies now, we will suffer a much greater cost in the future. Second, in Europe alone, we have demonstrated that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved while delivering economic growth. Between 1990 and 2015, the European Union cut emissions by 24 percent, yet our GDP grew by nearly 50 percent. And this is true not just in Europe, but globally. 2016 was the third consecutive year in which we saw global carbon emissions stagnate and global economic output grow. Climate policies create jobs. The renewable energy sector employs over 1 million people in Europe. We export over 30 billion euros in renewable technology annually. Over half of the world's turbine, wind turbines, are built by European companies. Implementing and achieving the ambition we have set ourselves in the Paris Agreement requires significant investment. A central component of the agreement is to channel investment away from polluting fossil fuels towards clean energy sources. This is a challenge and an opportunity, but Paris represents a unique opportunity to focus our efforts on attracting private investment to support growth, create jobs, and invest in new and robust infrastructure. Thankfully, much of the work to propel us down this necessary path is being shepherded by the panelists that join us today, and I'm sure they will have many fascinating stories and views to share. The innovative spirit of the organizations our panelists represent today look beyond the needs of today to shape a new economic and climate paradigm. They are looking beyond the immediate to identify requirements, not just for tomorrow, but for future long-term action. They are investing in delivering cheaper products and better services to the next generation of consumers, greater returns for investors, and benefit to the environment. So I'm happy to say that we believe firmly in Europe that climate change brings together in a virtuous circle, economic interest, the market returns, and the benefit of the planet and our security needs. And this is something to which we are firmly committed. We believe that Paris represents the absolutely indispensable vehicle for taking that forward in a consensual way across the globe, and we reaffirm our absolute commitment to implementing and taking forward the Paris agenda. Thank you very much for joining us today. Thank you to our panelists, and I wish you a very successful discussion. Thank you very much indeed. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Manish Babda, and I'm the Executive Vice President and Managing Director of the World Resources Institute, and it's a real privilege and a pleasure to be moderating this panel with such a distinguished set of leaders in low-carbon technology. I want to thank the EU and the Carnegie for organizing this event. But the timing of this event couldn't be more opportune in light of the current Trump administration's announcement to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. And it's not just the Paris Agreement. This administration has been quite consistently focused on rolling back much of the climate policy or legacy of the previous administration, the Clean Power Plan, fuel efficiency standards, climate finance, a number, a wide range of executive actions that the previous administration had done to tackle this challenge. And therein lies a real conundrum, right? The U.S. had made a target of 26 to 28 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2005 relative, the year 2025 relative to 2005 levels. Most of the view was that even with Obama's climate policies, it would be difficult to achieve those targets. Now, in the absence of those policies, it makes it even more difficult, according to one school of law. However, there are others who would argue that those policies have unleashed market forces in a fairly significant way, that many of the models underestimate the pace of innovation that's taking place around the country, around the world, and that we will indeed be able to meet if not exceed those targets. And before we launch into this conversation, I actually want to take a little poll in the room. For those of you who are following these types of issues, how many of you raise your hand if you feel that the United States is going to be able to meet its target of 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels in 2025? Right now, we are about 12 to 13 percent below 2005 levels as of 2016. How many of you feel that even with what the current administration is doing, we'll meet those targets? About five. How many of you feel that we're not going to be able to meet those targets? The vast majority and perhaps those that didn't vote don't know. So this is a real challenge, right? Can we meet those targets? And it's quite important to note that those targets, according to many, aren't nearly as bold as what the EU and other countries have actually taken. So in that backdrop, with that level of kind of perhaps skepticism, no better set of private sector voices on low carbon innovation to talk to us about what they think are some of the most exciting innovations out there today. So let me, with that, introduce our panelists. We have John Chase, who's the Vice President for Public Affairs at Vestas Wind Systems. We have Jessica Ligra, who's the Manager for Outreach and Innovation Policy at Dalmar. We have Lisa Hagerman, who's the Director of Programs at DVL Partners. We have Jigar Shah, the Co-Bounder of Generate Capital, and Charlie Mayer, Director of Strategy and Oracle Utilities. It's a really nice mix of different technologies, different geographies. And the way that we thought we would structure this could start with a question common to all of them a little bit about telling us their story. And then I have a number of questions, I gauge a little bit of a group conversation. We'll do that for 40, 45 minutes or so, and then we're really going to try to leave at least 30, 40 minutes towards the end for a Q&A, a robust Q&A, with the audience. So with that, let me start a little bit with this kind of just a couple of minutes on your story. What you see is what is the single most important policy, technology, business model, innovation that you believe can transform your sector and what can be done to help take it to scale. So why don't we just walk down the line this way. I'll start with John. Thanks. John Chase, again, I'm with Vestis Wind Technology, which is a European wind turbine manufacturer based in Denmark. We have US operations here as well, which I'll touch on just after I talk about the global piece quickly. So Vestis is the largest manufacturer of wind turbines in the world. We have roughly 21,000 employees working in the manufacturing sector, operating and managing and servicing wind turbines. Our focus is essentially countries that want to be more on the wind turbine or renewable energy space. We're in 77 countries. Our turbines were in six different continents. So we're pretty large, very expansive group. Here in the US, we have 6,000 employees. We put our first wind turbine up in America in 1982. Since that time, we've grown significantly. We entered into the manufacturing space here in the US in 2008. We have four factories, two blade factories, one nacelle factory, which is an assembly of most of the component parts. And we have the world's largest tower factory. All these are in Colorado. So Colorado is doing very well on clean energy. They like Vestis. We have a lot. Most of our jobs are there. 3,500 of the jobs in America are based in Colorado in the manufacturing sector. The rest of our employees are US headquarters and sales and service are in Portland, Oregon. And we have wind technicians in 42 states. So our turbines are operating throughout the country in many different regions. The industry has grown a lot the last, I would say, 10 years, especially after the production tax credit, which is a US federal incentive on the tax side, which has helped drive down the cost of wind. The second reason why the industry has grown, and from our perspective, the more important reason is because the cost has come down so far. And that's almost entirely through technology innovation. We've driven the cost down just in the last six or seven years, about six over 60%, which is a huge cost reduction. You can be innovative and you can be clean, but you have to be competitive. It's a competitive market out there. Wind has gotten extremely competitive, which has helped us in many states and across the globe especially. So the ambassador mentioned some of the states we're big in. I don't worry so much about red and blue. I worry more about, and I'm concerned about people who want to see more technology and more clean energy innovation, et cetera. So we have very strong bipartisan support. I'm actually looking forward to working with the administration on solutions, et cetera, and driving more wind. We think that it's a great message for the US economy, for US jobs. There's over 106,000 jobs in the wind industry now. The next 15 years, it's going to grow to 250,000 coupled with solar. We're pushing major job numbers here in the US. We also have a big, when you do manufacturing, there's 8,000 parts in a wind turbine. So we have very large supply chain, which is driving more manufacturing and technology here in the US. We're in all 50 states. We spend over a billion dollars, just our one company alone on supply chain. So that's a significant economic investment. Thank you. Jess? My name is Jessica Nigro. I work for Daimler North America. Daimler is the parent company of Mercedes-Benz, as I'm sure many of you know. But not as many people know that Daimler is also the parent company of Freightliner, Western Star Trucks, Sprinter Vans, Detroit diesel engines, Car2Go, the largest car share company in the world, which is also here in Washington, DC. Moval, which I hope to talk a little bit more about later, which is a white hat app for mobile ticketing around the country and around the world and our financial services and R&D divisions. So I really want to thank David and Carnegie for allowing me to come here today because I think that this is a really transformational moment in the transportation world. I think we're going to see so many car companies diversifying into transportation and mobility companies. You already are probably seeing some commercials talking about this. We ourselves have a strategy. We've been working on all four of the following pillars for a long time, but I think only in Paris at the Paris Auto Show last year did we announce kind of a formal grouping and branding, I guess, of these concepts called CASE, which stands for Connected Autonomous, Shared and Electric. So I think all of those things, they work independently and they can work extremely well together to alleviate and hopefully be part of the solution for a lot of the problems that we're talking about today. So I won't get too far into that now. I hope with the Europeans that are here today that you all saw Chancellor Merkel help us announce in Cummins in late May a huge investment in groundbreaking ceremony for our new battery plant in East Germany. We have a lot of innovations both in the electric technology sphere, the autonomous driving world and also in new business models that I don't think too many people are aware of that I think are really exciting. You know, Cardigo, for instance, was found to have prevented between 10 and 29 million vehicles mild traveled per city, per year. That was a study done by Susan Shaheen at UC Berkeley that I really encourage you to take a look at and was estimated to take about 5.5 to 12.7 metric tons of GHG per Cardigo vehicle annually out of that's something that we're really proud of and we really get behind that kind of business model, especially in the future with the possible automated features that could come with a business model like that. So I think for the transportation industry it's a very exciting time and I hope to answer any questions later on. Great, and I mean, I think this issue of the electrification of the transport sector is one of the most important questions that we have kind of ahead of us in the next 15 years. So very much looking forward to hearing more about that Lisa. Hi, I'm Lisa Hagerman. I am the director of programs at BBL Partners. First of all, thank you to David and Carnegie Endowment for the opportunity to speak with all today. BBL Partners is a double bottom line venture capital firm. We've been around over a decade now and the BBL is for the first bottom line is the financial return and the second bottom line are social, environmental and economic impacts in the sectors and regions and the trust. Our first fund was a 2004 fund, a regional fund, a Bay Area Regional Fund of 75 million on 2011. We closed fund two at 150 million and it costs us two funds having a focus on investing clean energy, early institutional investors in Tesla and Silver City as well as sustainable products and services, IT and the health sector. And in, closed our third fund of 408 million into the venture capital fund. And of course, our holy dose is that the second bottom line reinforces the first bottom line in terms of some interesting investments that we're making within the clean energy sector. Domestically, we've made an investment in advanced micro grid solutions which is bringing a hybrid electric building using Tesla, Lofi, and Min energy storage battery and has recently gotten a contract with Southern California Edison, one of others, one of six developers that was in response to the Elisa Canyon Gas League and has also a partnership with Walmart. So really growing and energy storage is truly, I'd say, the way forward in terms of the next wave of clean energy moving from solar to solar and energy storage so that where when the sun's not shining, the wind's not blowing, we were able to get the electricity to the grid and think about really innovative models and finding customer choice with the balance, with the demands of the utility to keep the lights on and maintain the transmission lines. On the developing world, actually at a fund free, we've made our first international investment which is in off grid electric, bringing solar and energy storage units to world parts of East Africa. They're now serving 130,000 customers in Tanzania and Rwanda and through partnership with EDF are now moving into the Yadri Coast and they're providing us this electricity at the same price that individuals are currently getting the electricity from Parisian. And it's really, I echo the ambassador's remarks in terms of clean energy is about health and economic development in Africa. There it enables children to learn, to be better citizens and productive citizens and for more the entrepreneurial economy to flourish with the basics electricity. So where as a venture capital firm it's a privilege to be a part of this innovation and happy to answer questions. Tigger? Thanks. It's a really great feeling to be up here today. Yeah, the ambassador's remarks were just amazing. Remember going into the Copenhagen negotiation, you know, Lord Stern's report basically put clearly on the map that it was economic growth versus deployment, right? This was, you know, just a reduction of 1% of GDP in the world to be able to solve climate change, which was complete crap at the time it came out. But, you know, it wasn't called it at the time. And I think the ambassador said it straight here. This is the largest wealth creation opportunity of our lifetime. And the conversion of our energy system from, you know, basically destructive fuels to more enabling technologies, resource efficient technologies is, you know, is a real pleasure to be able to work in. And I'm glad that the Paris Agreement basically solidified that through the participation of all the countries in the world. They came to the table because they believed in the economic growth potential that these technologies provided their people as well as the health impacts and others at least. I think, I mean, you know, Off-grid Electric's a great story that they've invested in. I mean, they serve more customers than most of the utility companies in the United States. And it's just extraordinary to me what they're accomplishing. I started the largest solar company in the world in 2003 called Sun Edison. And the economic model that we, the business model innovation that we created at the time is now attracted over a trillion dollars of capital in 2003 for the deployment of solar. And so it's an extraordinary thing. And then we started a family office fund, which now is turned into a full-time job here at Generally Capital. Where we are bringing that level of business model innovation to battery storage, electric vehicles, you know, anaerobic digesters combined with power and lots of other technologies that are ready to scale just like solar and wind have, but haven't yet been given the chance to. Today we're the largest owner of behind the meter battery storage in the country we've raised, the largest solar plus storage fund for that purpose in the United States. So when Misha asked the question whether we're gonna hit the numbers, those numbers were calculated based on the lowest common denominator of all the policies that have already been passed at the state level, right? So the Obama administration assumed the federal government would do no incremental real progress and instead just said how much emissions reductions will be achieved if California meets its goals and Missouri hits its goals and Montana hits its goals. And that's what 23 to 25% represents, which so I have no doubt in my mind that we'll hit the numbers. In fact, I thought it was a cowardly goal to begin with. I think we should have been far more bold in terms of the United States of America at the time. But I do feel strongly that when you look at the folks not only on this stage, but the thousands upon thousands of entrepreneurs around the country that are really deploying these technologies at scale, I have a lot of hope for the future. Right, and I'm gonna come back to that point about federal policy in just a moment, but let's get Charlie to come in here. Thanks, I'm Charlie Mayer, director at Oracle. About a year ago, Oracle bought Opower, which is the company that I went to work for in 2003. Opower was a SaaS company, software as a service, serving the utility industry, specifically on the idea of energy efficiency and we'll talk about what that means and how we can help the various states meet their goals that Jerry was mentioning. When President Obama, Ambassador O'Sullivan, other great leaders talk about creating good jobs in the clean energy economy, I like to think they're talking about me. And we are talking about you. We are, good. And also my colleague Ian Reinhart, who I think is here, wave Ian, yeah there he is. So we go to work, we have been going to work every day together for the last few years and it's not just a job, it certainly pays the bills, we have things that we have to do, we work in software, we deal with utilities. It is boring at times, but it's also mission driven and this concept of double bottom line is a huge part of O-Power and it's still in a way part of Oracle, now that we're part of a much bigger global corporation with 140,000 employees, it's enormous, but there are several hundred, well more than a thousand of us who just work on serving the utility sector. And within that group, there are some of us who work specifically on energy efficiency and helping utilities meet their efficiency targets and this is something that they have to do in most cases because they're accountable to state regulators, mostly in the United States and we help them do it with software. I am interested in all of the topics, especially regulation, especially the grid, but I wanna just leave you with one idea about what we can do simply by engaging energy users about how they use energy and that is our total savings over the 10-year life of O-Power since O-Power started in 2007. We crossed a huge milestone just a couple months ago which is we help the world save 15 terawatt hours of energy which is an abstract idea, I think there may be some people in the room who understand what that means and how we might quantify it but it just so happens that that's enough energy to power a pretty big city for a year and a big city that might be the size of Paris just as a random example, just by engaging people about their energy use. Great, so let's dig a little bit deeper on this question around federal policy. So you had all of you, 95% of you thought in the apps, given what is happening with federal policy today, reasonably bold targets, no way we're gonna be able to meet it, Jiggarh gave the impression, not ambitious, not merely ambitious enough, innovation, market forces, clearly gonna exceed. So how important is federal policy today? Granted, I think most would agree it was important maybe five, 10 years ago, is it important today and if so, what do we need to see from the federal government that would enable us to really get on a much more rapid path of decarbonization in ways that also create jobs and promote growth? I mean, federal policy is obviously important, right? So no one's here saying federal policy is unimportant, I think. Frankly, I mean, most of this revolution was led by the Bush administration, right? I mean, the Bush administration came into office, had a bunch of secret meetings to create their energy policy and that energy policy unleashed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and then the Energy Policy Act of 2007, which was the largest boon to the solar and wind industry in the United States and then Bush, of course, to that who was in Texas as governor and then in 2008, he passed an eight year extension of the investment tax rates, I think it was really led to the boom of solar. So a lot of that's occurred and then I think the Obama administration came in and did a lot more planning and a lot more purposeful work in some of these areas. I think the biggest accomplishment, frankly, that they had was harmonizing California and federal mileage standards to be able to actually give the auto companies one goal to shoot for as a book to, you know, two or more. And so all of that's wonderful work and it's, you know, obviously there's a lot of things that we're all confused about with this administration but I think, but to suggest that, like, that the country is not on track to reaching our goals, I think is incorrect. I think this country has always been led on the energy side at the state level. Cars have been regulated by the Department of Transportation but electricity has always been regulated at the state level and traded at the regional level. Sure, there's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission oversight and other federal goals but I think the other thing that's worth noting is that even with the, you know, frankly hateful rhetoric that this administration has talked about this issue with, the continuing resolutions that was passed, you know, largely enabled funding to continue to go forward from the Congress, right? So I think most of the OMB director's suggestions were, you know, sort of put to the side, I think as some senator said, you know, dead on arrival. So my sense is that's gonna happen again. I think Chuck Grassley, you know, said something about how the wind tax credit would be repealed over his dead body and so my sense is that the federal government is not gonna backslide on the support of, you know, unleashing large wealth creation opportunity of our lifetime. I think it's more about whether they're gonna continue to show proactive leadership and that surely hasn't been shown to date. I think the status quo is reasonably healthy because you have these huge states, California for sure, but lots of others that hold utilities specifically responsible for showing efficiency results. The value of federal leadership here and we saw it in the Queen Power Plan is that the federal government kind of encourages the non-participants to start participating. And we were excited about that when it was announced because even though it didn't specifically mandate that energy efficiency would have to be a priority in every state, it would leave it up to states to figure out how they would reach their goal and energy efficiency programs run by utilities would be an acceptable way to do that. So I thought of it as a, and the way I explained it to investors when I was doing investor relations for Opower was that it would help encourage the non-participants to participate. The other thing that I think is important about it is that you have these very effective and powerful local regulators, mostly state regulators, but you sometimes see it at the city level. They're gonna keep doing what they're doing. You see it in Pittsburgh, obviously see it in California, other states. But it's important to harmonize that nationally so that we can participate collectively as a nation with the rest of the world. And it seems to be sort of inefficient and chaotic if everybody is doing their own thing when in fact we have a federal bureaucracy that exists to coordinate us and to help the local act as a national group so that we can be credible internationally. I believe that that's so important when we're trying to solve a global problem. That you touched on a lot of it. I think that the federal and state combined is kind of the way, at least for our industry, has been such a driver. I've been working in the wind industry since 1999. And when we would go to the hill and ask or seek an extension of the production tax credit, which was always, if any of you may know, was usually done on a one to two year maximum extension, which is very difficult to create markets in one or two year extensions. Then it would also be extended really late in the year so you had very little time to actually do it. There is a cycle for building a wind turbine. I always tell people, I'm like, we don't build them, put them in showrooms. So we build it by demand. And I think one of the, I'm not sure they intended it when they created a production credit, but it is a tax credit that's been shown to have worked, but they create a manufacturing industry at the same time. Obviously it was based on reducing, on helping lower cost and help make the technology competitive. A production credit, the solar industry has an investment credit. And I think from our perspective, when there's a market, my company and industries have been shown that they'll respond to the market. The long-term extension, which was the PTC production credit was a four year, it's been now phased out. Just so folks understand that they were one of the first credits that's been actually phased out of the tax code. We'll take place over the next four years that phases out in 2020, but it gave us a runway of support for us to actually make some plans and to go forward into the market. So with that, you see the cost out, et cetera. But I'm not sure folks would realize that they were gonna create 100,000 jobs and manufacturing in the US, or that investors is gonna invest a billion dollars into Colorado on four factories and now have a billion dollar supply chain. Those are the kind of things that, that's federal policy that works. And when you couple that with the state market drivers, a lot of states want them to be cleaner, they want to have renewables on their electricity system. You now see in utilities that, maybe weren't so supportive of those back when they were originally enacted. You're now seeing utilities that wanna own wind and solar themselves, as opposed to doing it through a PPA. So I think you're just seeing a lot more openness and willing to do it. And they do it because it's a long-term investment. It's a stable price and it's cost-effective. I mean, that's where everyone's out there trying to make, they all wanna be economic and they might have investors and shareholders they have to respond to. So I think as you become economic, it helps. I just think that that mix of federal tax support, which has been what the federal government's focused on hasn't been on massive policy and that's a lot of the state action is really good combo together. Please. I would just echo that and some of the venture companies have taken and USAID in fact offered electric initially got a $100,000 investment fund. I think it's really interesting times and maybe it's all for the good that states are taking more ownership. And we saw in California, Governor Sandoval signed legislation last week to read pop solar. It's gonna bring back solar. In fact, 2016 they had a referendum or 50,000 by none of that referendum and it's pretty exciting times. It's kind of locals and state are stepping up and similarly Governor Scott in Florida signed legislation recently to give the businesses a tax exemption. So I think more and more stop bubbling up at the state level and it'll be a combination of federal and local level these choice agreements and interesting times. That a lot of the innovations that we're working on we are benefited greatly by federal policies but also by working directly with cities and states to be able to very nimbly launch pilot programs and have some database learning with some of the technologies that we're planning on rolling out. And you mentioned lead time that's really important obviously in the automotive world. We don't just release the model year 2018 car after a few months of research and development but really many years have gone into that. So to have certainty about federal regulation is really important for us and even more important on the heavy duty side and the buses. The typical time frame that it takes to develop a bus really from head to foot is about 13 to 15 years. So we are developing right now the buses for model year 2030 for instance. So we are looking to the federal government for certainty and for leadership in terms of highly automated vehicle policies specifically. I think also obviously there's a lot that can be done to increase acceptance of EVs. And I think those policies need to come from the federal level but we also welcome state incentives and tax breaks, the HLV lane access for EVs, those kinds of things because we haven't seen the pickup rate that we'd like to see of those vehicles yet. But I think that the state level work is very important as well. To be able to work directly with cities and states to put some of these technologies on the road like Car2Go, obviously we work directly with every single city that Car2Go is in. We have our own partnerships and contracts with those cities to be able to pay one bulk sum for parking, et cetera so that our customers don't have to worry about parking fees or insurance, things like that. So those kinds of partnerships are much easier to pull off than certainly with the federal government. But on certain issues, the federal government we really think needs to take the leading role because we can't have this patchwork as you mentioned before with greenhouse gas and cafe regulations to have so many different bodies of the state and federal level all regulating. So I think absolutely right. So we're seeing this remarkable crescendo of I think outpouring of kind of support and commitment from states and cities ever since this speech that President Trump made at the Rose Garden withdrawing the US. But there is this concern about coordination and cost and is this the most efficient way? How many of you saw yesterday there was a ad in the Wall Street Journal around the Climate Leadership Council? Did anyone see that? There was an op-ed in the Washington Post, an op-ed in the Financial Times. It's a carbon dividend proposal, right? So a number of big companies came together with senior Republican leaders, Baker and Schultz, Larry Summers, wickedly smart people like Stephen Hawking were supporting it. And the basic premises, look, the conservative case for action on climate, let's get a carbon tax in place. Let's get a carbon tax in place that is $40 a ton escalating over time. And the way to make this really work for America is that every American household would get a $2,000 check dividend. For 70% of Americans, that would represent a net benefit relative to increasing costs because of this tax. Clearly not for the more wealthy Americans, but it builds much more popular support. A couple of other provisions on this, but this point about it may seem unthinkable, but is that a good idea? Is the idea of a high carbon tax a good idea? And any thoughts on whether you think that is plausible in the near future to try to get a more clear, consistent signal at the federal level? Well, sometimes. This was a big deal, like for me, this was kind of one of the biggest kind of announcements in the last couple of years in terms of a conservative case kind of for a carbon policy. I mean, there's no chance it goes anywhere. I mean, it's so laughable as to just sort of like, it shocks me at like the lack of introspection, right? I mean, I honestly think the reason it happened was because they all thought Hillary Clinton was gonna win and they worked on it like for a year. And then they were like, oh, well, we might as well release it anyway. And so, I mean, I just think that like, I mean, if Hillary Clinton would have won, then the deal on the table was to basically strip EPA of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in an exchange put in a carbon price with this dividend feature, right? That is the deal that Jerry Taylor basically negotiated at the NISC concentration. But like, now that like, Republicans in office, and it's not just any Republican, but one that like, bucks the establishment, I mean, having George Shultz involved in something is not helpful. And so it's sort of like, you know, like, what are we talking about here, right? Like, I mean, and there's nothing to trade, right? Because the current EPA administrator isn't gonna like do a lot of stuff on greenhouse gas emissions anyway, right? So there's no trade there. And you know, the thing about Republicans is that like, and the same thing should with climate denialism broadly, is that people are not dumb, right? I mean, they do what's in their self-interest. They get reelected, they do these things. And so I'm a little tired of folks not actually having really self-realization of how this works. It's, you know, if we all love supporting things, right? The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a Christmas tree support for this man, whatever, in the 2007 was a bigger Christmas tree. And it's all great, right? But nobody wants to actually say that I am setting my constituents' industry like on a track to dying, which is what a carbon price is, right? You're basically saying, I want to just make it sure it's clear that you are on track to actually like, you know, going out of business. Now maybe a 30-year deal instead of a 10-year deal, but we're putting you on track, right? Now you and I do that. I read all of your reports at WRI and it says, well, these industries are not gonna be cost-effective under this scenario and this is what's gonna happen and we're gonna move from this type of cement manufacturing to this one and all of your reports are amazing, right? But what self-serving Republican is gonna be like, yeah, I would love to put the bad stuff in place too. No, they're just gonna put the good stuff in place. Here's another tax credit for you and here's another research development grant for you and here's another like, you know, like R&D budget for this fourth-generation nuclear plant but they're not gonna actually like say, let's put you on a track to, you know, to die, right? So, what do you mean? So, I mean, this is a very, I mean, many would argue that we do need a carbon price, a high carbon price to get to where we need to get to by 2030, 2050 if we wanna achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and do so in a way that generates jobs, creates growth, is actually efficient, that the current regulatory framework is not the most efficient way to get to where we need to go and a carbon price is an economically much more efficient technology neutral growth stimulating way. Whether or not it can happen in the next year or two, fair point, but for the next 10 years. But that's debatable. So, any other thoughts on that? Well, I'm not as familiar as what was announced yesterday. I actually have to be honest, I didn't see it in the Wall Street Journal but I saw it on a clip, you know, in headline news and it was the climate leadership council and I thought, this is interesting, you know. And, but what, you know, what's happened to date is the, you know, the cap and trade in California is happening and sort of the premise of it of, you know, allowing certain allowances for the heavy polluters and there's, I think there's something there and then in, I believe it's British Columbia, there's an actual carbon tax in place. So, yeah, so, I mean, I think it's just too early to tell but in theory it seems to make some sense. I'd agree on the chances of it but I agree on the chances of something like that moving legislatively, I'm very low. I think, you know, you hear a lot when you're with individual members or out in the field in the districts, there's a lot of support for what's going on. I think when you get back here sometimes some of the bigger issues take and, you know, you're not gonna see those type of big policies move but again, it's been, I can't remember when the last energy bill was, I think it was the last. Oh, seven. Oh, seven. So, you know, spend some time in it. I think issues stay out there when they come back around, but I would not say a carbon tax or that that proposes because of legislative opportunity in their term. I would offer that at least in my industry in the transportation world, a lot of these gains are gonna be happening not necessarily because of regulation or these kind of innovative carbon models but more because of market trends, because of the way that technology is moving, the way that people have chosen to move. I know so many people now who live in urban environments who don't have cars anymore, who like to take the metro or bike share or. I love using hard to go. Now you can use it with the whole family with the Mercedes four doors that are out there. So these kinds of models, I think that more and more people and especially young people who are perfectly happy to take the metro to work and then take a lift home or if it's raining, drive to work and then maybe if it's beautiful later, take a bike share at home. These kinds of things are gonna be second nature to urbanites of tomorrow, of today and tomorrow. And so it's not only the regulation but I think that this is also driven by those market forces and we're absolutely committed and I know a lot of our competitors are also very committed to making sure that these business models work and the technology does become ubiquitous. I don't hear a whole lot of business support for a carbon tax and I think that that makes it very tough. And on the other hand, you heard all kinds of business support for the U.S. staying in Paris which is, and I was actually surprised at the end to see how many enormous corporations were on board with it and how the Secretary of State who certainly has plenty of experience in big business, how he was on board with it. And so that's one reason why that felt like a misopportunity to me but it reminded me that if this is gonna work, it has to work for business. Yeah, and absolutely agree that kind of post, I mean the last few months to kind of be scale of engagement from business to kind of advocate for the U.S. staying in Paris was quite remarkable. But even this proposal that came out yesterday in the journal, you know, it had a P&G, it had Exxon, Johnson & Johnson, GM, had a number of fairly significant companies at the CEO level endorsing this. So it's something that I hear from the panel doesn't seem very promising in the U.S. Just to contrast that with what's happening around the world, you know, over 40 countries have a carbon price already, China is moving towards the national cap and trade system, emissions trading system this year, so it's an interesting contrast around what's happening. But let's, even in the absence of that. Can I just add one bit on the corporation? So I think what's interesting is the Google, Apple, Walmart all being part of this pledge to go 100% renewable, that I think has promised and is driven by the corporations themselves. So their self-interest, that's exciting. Yeah, at Oracle HQ in Redwood Shores, California, where I visited for the first time a year ago, I was astonished at how hard it was to find a trash can because everything is recycled or composted. And it's, I mean, it's tremendous leadership from Silicon Valley Company, not just on what comes into the building in terms of energy, but what goes out in terms of weight. Let's just play this out a little bit more in that one of the things then, in the absence, let's say, of the carbon price or federal policy and yet the scale and urgency of the challenge, right? We know the U.S. needs to get to net zero emissions by mid-century, 35, 40 years from now. It reminds me, 38 years ago today, the Washington Post carried a headline top of the fold. I don't know if anyone remembers, 1979, only press conference on the roof of the White House, right? This was when President Carter installed a water, a solar system on the roof for heating water in the White House. He made this pledge that by 2000, the world will have 20% solar as part of its energy mix. But now we're at a point where we actually do need to get to net zero in this country in 35 years. Is that possible? What do you see as the pathway there? What do you see as the major potential areas where we really need to focus in order to get there in this time? So this is the Paris long-term objectives, goals. How do we get there? Well, I mean, I think at least, at the very least it's now been established by the IEA, the Energy Information Administration, like many other groups, WRI, et cetera, that we don't have a technical barrier to reach in. But I think for a long time there was a concern that we couldn't actually get there. We didn't have the technology cable getting there. And we still need to invest in R&D. I think there should be no ambiguity there. We should continue to invest in basic science, advanced science, incremental science, like to get to better solutions, cheaper solutions. But we no longer have a technical issue. And I think, and further, like everyone who studied has now shown that 80% carbon reduction using today's technologies at today's prices would have negligible impacts on energy costs, right? So that last 20% we still have to figure out. But the first 80, I think folks believe now we can do, whether that's transportation or whether that's electricity or even cement and steel manufacturing or ag or other things. Like we know how to get there for 80% of it, right? And that takes you a pretty long way. I mean, 80% reduction gets you to like the end of 2030, right? And then that last 20%, we gotta like figure out, right? And so we have some time to figure out that last 20%. So I think it's important for folks to note that the smartest minds in the world believe that it's not a technical issue, right? So then the question becomes, how do you get deployment at scale, right? How do you deploy electric vehicles at scale or car sharing or frankly just intensification of density, right? I mean, one of the biggest challenges we have are liberals in cities who don't want high-rise buildings, right? And we need to figure out how you actually build and unlock $2 trillion worth of opportunity according to the years of Chicago last month in San Francisco, like San Jose and then New York, right? Just getting more dense buildings where people can actually live and just benefit from car to go and other technologies as opposed to moving to ever larger ex-herbs is one of the big ways for us to reduce carbon on a structural basis, right? And so I think outside of these federal carbon policies, there are ways for us to actually unlock, with the first real estate president, we should actually be able to figure out how to densify cities, right? And there are a lot of opportunities in that area to really reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2030. But even if that seems overly ambitious, and in my mind it does, although I'll have to believe the experts on this, you think about all the graphs of all of the bad things that we're putting into the atmosphere. I mean, they're all up and to the right, which is good and finance and bad and climate, right? We need to start bending them, which is an idea that I got from Johann Rockstrom, who's just, it's a simple idea, but you see a curve going like this, don't worry about where we need to be in the future, just think about how we bend it now to make it move in the right direction. I think in the utilities business, that is an achievable idea, and many utilities are already doing it, both because they have to, but also because they see the long-term benefits for their business and it helps them be more efficient. So I think that at least in our business, it helps to talk in terms of the concrete things that we are doing right now that are working and let's keep doing those things and encourage the utilities that aren't doing it to start thinking that way. It's also a lot about how these innovations play in together, right? It's not ever gonna be one thing, but how things work together, and at least in my industry, there's a lot of talk about whether highly autonomous vehicles will be electric or if they're just gonna be, everyone all of a sudden has his own pod and doesn't mind commuting two hours now because he can sleep or work or play with his kids on the way to work. And I just don't think that's gonna happen. I really think that- I would buy that though. Yeah, but you should be living in a very dense high-rise and pretty. But so I think that in the far future, probably 10 years from now or even even a little bit further, when we see ubiquity of highly automated vehicles, that's about the timeframe that we, my company has said publicly that we wanna be the leader in the luxury class for EVs in the US and around the world, and those kinds of things work together because you're gonna see probably increased amounts of sharing of these vehicles. If you're seeing more and more lifts or ubers on the road that are uber pool or lift pool because they're so inexpensive compared to dragging yourself to the metro and blah blah blah or renting your own car, and then you add electrification on top of that. Battery prices are getting cheaper year by year. Energy storage is getting easier year by year. I never would have thought I would have done an employee-only email recently with a discount on MB energy storage for my home, which is up and running now and eventually we'll also get to the commercial and grid level as well. So those kinds of innovations and more competitors, we're trying to compete with Tesla in this market, is only good for consumers and it's good for the earth as well. So I think that it's impossible to reach that goal unless you're really trying to combine all of the innovations along with innovative business models. One more, just maybe one more question before we open it up, just a little bit. We've been talking mostly about the US but all of you are global companies by and large. Where do you see some of the most interesting kind of innovations taking place? Which geographies, which countries, kind of do you think we should be keeping an eye on for some real breakthrough kind of scale game changers? What's, how's the rest of the world looking at this? Well Denmark, of course. Denmark. Ha ha ha ha ha. Awesome. Say the Denmark story or? Yeah, I would stop it. Ha ha ha ha. One thing that really impressed me recently I was at a company event in Budapest and we had a speaker from China come in and of course China has a lot of challenges and also flexibilities that we don't have here in the US and he told a story about a new traffic system and camera system in Shanghai that was just launched very, very recently and it benefits from no idea about personal privacy or your own domain within your vehicle. Basically what the system is is that if you speed, camera will catch you, automatically you'll get a ticket via email in the mail. If you cross a crosswalk when someone was pedestrian was trying to get through, law broken, camera caught it, you'll get another ticket in the mail. You run a red light, those kinds of things. You could go on your 20 minute drive to work and all of a sudden you've gotten five tickets and you didn't see one police officer. 1884. So obviously this comes with a lot of drawbacks and not that I'm necessarily advocating something like that for the US but I think that with the rise of highly autonomous vehicles that don't break laws, that don't almost run over pedestrians, that don't get drowsy, they not only have safety benefits but there's gonna be a ton of environmental benefits as well that assist with things like congestion. I mean, look, I think Canada frankly is leading in a big way, I think investment sure does. Doing a great job of piloting these carbon pricing, obviously started with British Columbia but now just launched in Alberta and I think he's mandating that all of the provinces have it in place over the next few years and so I think that's really great and Canada does have a really bad track record, right? I mean, when you think about what commitments it made and then its emissions actually went up and we're sort of benefiting from low oil prices so the oil sands don't make any profits anymore but you have this sort of fight within the political class in Canada and they're showing the way of how to solve that. Costa Rica I think is doing extraordinary work when you think about really operating 100% with no abundance of grid, they're as close as you can get really and I think they're getting, as a country that you could follow obviously like the Nordic countries sort of do it through hydro but Costa Rica is doing a great job with wind and solar and the hydro that they have. Denmark's doing a fantastic job around distrute heating, 60% of all Danish homes are now connected to distrute heating. We should definitely do that here and literally shock, DC has one of the best distrute heating systems in the country from Georgetown all the way under Federal Center Southwest all the way down to the Capitol and no one uses it because the federal government can't seem to get out of its own way but we have it there and it could be sold to a private center company and connect all the buildings in K Street and other things to that. So there's a lot of opportunity there I think that even like when you look at Germany and what Germany is doing, I think Germany, like obviously there's a lot of the back and forth that people have done on their heating tariff but what Germany has done that people don't recognize is you know they're already one of the most energy efficient countries in the world but they really have very proactive programs around renewable heat because decarbonization has to include air conditioning and heating as well and Germany is really leading on figuring that out and so I mean I think when you look at all the countries around the world there's tremendous amount of learning coming from you know I would say like six or seven or sort of separating themselves from the past but no I think it's impressive where we're headed and it's really about you know like the desire to unlock this wealth creation opportunity right I mean the technology's been there and McKinsey is at this point been paid by every government in the world to give them advice and so everyone's got their own you know cost curve and but you know some people actually read the report and other people put on the shelf to collect dust right and we just have to like learn from the countries that are deploying at scale. We'll turn to the McKinsey colleagues in the room for a response later but why don't we any other thoughts on Joe I mean I would just add that kind of what we've seen in India and China just in the last couple of years I mean President Trump called out both of those countries and his rose garden speech and here we have you know China plausibly peaked coal and three, four years CO2 emissions of plateaued India announced earlier this year this is India that they're not going to build any more new coal fire power plants until 2027. And 100% EVs by 2030 which is yeah exactly I mean and this is this is quite remarkable for countries that are still very much in the early stages of industrialization so let us open this up we're going to take rounds of let's say three, four questions at a time and we're going to rapid fire them to our phenomenal panelists here. So please if you could just say your name where you're from and then a short question that would be great we'll start with you please and then I'll come to the ambassador. Do we have mics? Yeah. My name is Contessa Bourbon from the New York Times. Thank you for this informative panel. I'd like to ask Mr. Chan and the other panelists how is your company impacted or your expansion impacted by the policy of President Trump to withdraw from Paris agreement? How would it impact your expansion in other countries or in the US? Was that to all the panelists or was that to I'm sorry, whoever would like to answer that. Okay, great. Let's take two more questions and I'll come back. Ambassador. Was how to leverage this back into the non-electricity energy sector and transport for both of our small countries, large physical countries, few people. It's a massive issue. Now I'm getting really quite optimistic here because I can see the average cost curve moving down on convergent technologies but I actually wanted to ask you because I had this Indian policy in mind if you look at a game changer. Well, I'm sure they've done it because of the particulates in the air. I'm sure there's a climate change aspect to it but it'd be largely other environmental co-benefits I guess driven them in this direction. This sounds like to me a major game changer and what Daimler are thinking about. I'll take one more question. Hi, my name is Alex Darlan from the British Embassy. I'd just like to put it out now but for the UK being very, very good at promoting innovation and things like smart roads, et cetera. But my question for the panel is around what regulation changes you'd like to see that help promote innovation and spark competition in between technologies and to try and change the way that it's not just about, for example, innovation in products but how the system, fundamentally why? Great, why don't we come back and see who would like to pick up any of those questions? I can take that one. Yes, I'd like to agree that the UK is leading. We do good work there, Eon UK. And in fact, when I was trying to explain what energy efficiency is to public investors I would show Eon TV commercials that Eon made to demonstrate our product to the end user and it was basically talking about how you make decisions in your life based on how you rate and compare to your neighbors. And so Eon had a very clever, very British way of describing efficiency as cool and getting everybody to participate. So I agree on that. In terms of how to test the different technologies I think that EU countries in particular have an opportunity as they comply with the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive to put different technologies against each other and see how they perform. You don't necessarily have to be in the EU to try this. We could try it here, anybody could try it but we have a target. We're gonna spend a certain amount of money. How does each technology perform? And then you put them up against each other and make your bets and see how it goes and back to ones that work long term. We see that happen, certainly in the United States where software solutions that are produced by Oracle are often in an energy efficiency portfolio with very old school solutions like home energy audits and light bulb rebates. And each solution has its pluses and minuses but it's important that there be a diverse basket of options out there. I can take a couple of those. To answer your question I'm gonna try and then let me know if I misunderstood. But I think on the topic of convergence of different kinds of technologies to encourage consumer behavior especially and this decarbonization idea, we understand that we used to be a company just with cars and trucks and that was it. But I think now not only with Car2Go but also with Mobile which is the leading provider of mobile ticketing. We're really trying to encourage people who don't have a car, don't want a car to be able to use all sorts of this different kind of technology and I do think that highly autonomous vehicles which is the kind of SAE level three through five autonomy are gonna become ubiquitous in time and that all of those technologies together will help people not only in urban areas but in rural areas as well to be able to get to that last mile, people who are far out on train lines. I was asked just this week a question about how autonomy will affect rural areas in the US if these kinds of parts can go on dirt roads. The answer is TBD. We think that infrastructure is certainly a big part of it that we need to see a harmonization of road signs especially within countries. We can deal with lots of different countries' road signs but a little bit difficult in every county has its own road markings and road signs. Difficult for the technologists developing the ADS tech there. In terms of what we'd like to see for regulations I can speak a little bit for this country. I work a lot on obviously the autonomous vehicle issues and a lot of states are coming out now with their own AV regulations. They're very interested. I think they believe that if they come out with a law on AVs, companies like Daimler will come and do business there. Open up R&D facilities, et cetera, test, et cetera. But what we really need to see is the federal government taking a lead role to reassert NHTSA's authority on this because we cannot have a patchwork. And if we do have a patchwork, I think that that really risks the commercialization of these kinds of vehicles and the optimization of the technology both for the environment and also for people's lives for the disabled, for safety reasons. There's so many potential benefits that are much greater than only the environment. And so from a regulatory perspective we're working very closely with NHTSA and with Congress just in the last week both the Senate put out their own AV principles and we saw a suite of 14 bills in the House ENC committee that I encourage you to take a look at and we're looking forward to continuing working with those legislators on bringing this innovation to market which we really need the federal leadership in that regard. When else wanna pick up on a couple of those questions or another round? Well, just, I mean one more thing. I mean, first of all, Ambassador, like what the country did on methane emissions with thousands of extraordinary wealth. So I think that's another, the New Zealand's a big leader in that piece of it. The one thing I think people just have a really hard time grappling with is like an energy storage. People think energy storage is so expensive. It's amazing, right? And so I think when you think about the cars and electricity coming together to think is the core of your question, I think that you have to keep in mind just the sheer scale of what we're talking about. Like when you look at a Tesla vehicle or a Mercedes-Benz vehicle on an electric side, we're talking about 20 kilowatts of storage, right? I mean, it's not a small amount of storage. And so if you had a million cars, that's 20,000 megawatts, that's backing up the entire New Zealand grid. If you had a million electric vehicles, you literally could just back up the whole grid for free because people already paid for their electric vehicles. So, and the same thing is true is gonna be in California. California's entire peak load for electricity grid is 60,000 megawatts. And so they have 33 million cars in California. If a million cars in California turned electric, you could literally back up almost all of the grid in California. So I just think people just have a hard time wrapping their brain around these numbers and where the dollars are gonna come from. The dollars are gonna come from people like myself who have an electric vehicle and who basically, I could back up my whole house with my electric vehicle. So if something goes wrong, I could probably just like power my, I can't do it now because V to G is vehicle to grid technologies are not yet approved by car makers. But it is something that could happen in the future. And so this electrification of everything, which is something we started 100 years ago but never finished, is something that we can do. And battery storage I think is ready to be leaned on for that. I think there's a more credible decarbonization strategy on the transport side. I think the area that's gonna be even more challenging is on the industrial side. Yeah. Let's take another round of questions. I see two, I see. Why don't we start with one or two since the mic is over there and then we'll come to the front. Hi, I'm Crudelia and I'm with the Washington and Ireland program for service and leadership. We're working on a paper at the minute to envision what the economy and the environment will look like in 20 years in Ireland. And I was just wondering if you had the chance to just put out a vision for what you want in 20 years, what would you actually envision it as? Question of the vision in 2035, 2037. Excellent, let's take a couple more. Was there one more in the back there and we'll go to Alden and... I noticed there's no one from oil and gas on the... And I'm wondering if there are any plans or policies in the works with the oil and gas legacy industries, create some kind of bridge to this future where they're not needed anymore. And if there are existing technologies that could be used. Excellent question. Future of oil and gas in a two degree net zero world. Let's take one more. Alden since he's standing. Alden, my reunion of concerned scientists. We've been discussing Paris and the US pulling out and can the states and business community and mayors and others sort of fill the gap. And I think that's an open question as you were saying Manish, but at least it's possible. There's another area that's gotten much less coverage and visibility, which is the Trump administration's desire to gut US climate research, climate science, Earth observing satellites, ARPA-E, mission innovation. All the innovation, the US has played an oversized role in that over the decades. Question for the panelists is how big a threat would that be if that drive to sort of diminish US science and technological leadership succeeds and what are your companies and others doing to try to convince Congress not to go along with that ill-advised proposal? Great. So 2030 vision, future of oil and gas and science, research and innovation. Small questions, we'd like to start. I can take the 2030 vision. That's something that technologists are working on every day at Oracle across industries, but in the utility space, we're looking at the grid that we've been talking about, which is a wonderful asset, a huge enabler of humanity. But it's old, it's working on ideas that were cutting edge over a century ago. And we're trying to modernize that and support utilities as they build and operate the future grid. And I think that the main idea, we've talked about it just in the last few minutes, is you have all these electric cars driving around, you have storage as well as distributed generation, whether that is your own solar panels or your wind turbine or whatever. We have to get a grid that is smarter and able to manage complex switching all the time by itself. And so actually Ireland is leading in this respect. One of our clients there just rolled out Oracle's new network management system. And they were so excited about it that they produced a YouTube video, which is rare for a utility to do when they deploy enterprise software. But they are future proofing their grid. They're doing it with software. And we would like to see more of that around the world. Wind industry worked with the Department of Energy on a wind vision piece report, which was 20% by 2030 and then growing beyond that. We feel that we can get there. On the technology side, there's very strong markets. This is just in the US, this is in global. Strong markets out there. So that's kind of what we're focused on and what we're looking at. Offshore wind as well. Yeah, there's a lot of... Offshore is a big piece. And Vessus has a joint venture with Mitsubishi on offshore. And it's been a bigger issue in Europe, although you're now seeing some projects going, at least one off the coast of Rhode Island that's coming in, which is very positive. I didn't answer the woman's question about Paris. So nobody else did. So I'll take a shot at it. Please, please, yes, I noticed. From our perspective, we believe that wind is gonna continue to grow regardless. This is an issue that with the job growth, with the cost of wind, with the market center out there, we think that there's a very strong market for the industry right now. So we don't see that slowing down. And maybe just to pick up on that, I think we've been talking about that we're now seeing a lot more happening at the state level, as exemplified by Governor Sandoval signing the Bringing Back Rooftop Solar in Nevada, and Governor Scott in Florida, bringing solar and allowing for tax exemptions for small businesses. So it's just, we're at a point where we're seeing a lot more happening at the state level, and even the California Public Utilities Commission. This was prior to Paris, but announcing a mandate that utilities have to look at their 1.8 gigawatts of energy storage by 2020. So these are all mandates that are spurring innovation in a signal to the market. And just on the research and science innovation, we're gonna see who to be determined in terms of ARPA-E and other funding. I know in California, there's the California Energy Commission that has the EPIC program, Electric Program Investment Charge that is for R&D projects. And even at the local level, you can't discount very small programs. For example, this is more in the vein of greening the business, but at DBL, we work with our companies to help them realize the social and environmental impact. So we helped a couple of our companies get their green business certification, just greening their office with LED lights, et cetera. Well, in San Francisco, there happens to be an ordinance that if you are a clean energy company defined by more than 75% of your businesses directly in clean energy, you're less than 100 employees, and you get your green business certification, you qualify for a payroll tax exemption. So that's a direct savings to the company, 1.5% of their payroll. So we'll, I think it's still to be determined, but on the R&D side, it's still needed. And we'll see where we go from here. I can answer some of that, Lauren Gasta. Just from Maryland, I live in Maryland, and Maryland's not on track, so certainly happy to help you, like getting Maryland on track. Montgomery County might be on track, but Maryland's not even close. And it's sad because Governor O'Malley was the one who announced 100% clean energy, fossil fuel free plan in order to go by 2050, and yeah, it's not even close. So we can have a conversation about that. But I think in terms of oil and gas, there's a lot of great things happening today. The oil majors themselves have done a really poor job of allocating capital. So all the oil majors outside of Exxon Mobil since 2008 have lost money on their investments since 2008, on their new investments. Chevron put out $57 billion into projects that have an average cost to find oil at like $57 a barrel. So oil has to trade above 70 for them to even break even after the passage of time. The same things to Michelle with Sacklin, BP is a disaster as everybody knows. I think the good thing about the oil and gas industry is the gas industry is doing great. Like today you can get landed gas in small quantities in parts of Africa at $7 a million DTO because of the LNG sector. And so there are an extraordinary parts of Africa where I mean, if you could get diesel fuel, maybe it could work, but like they can't even get diesel fuel because like it's just the supply chains are that bad. And so the natural gas industry I think is gonna do an extraordinary job of industrializing a lot of these pork cities who are currently working on diesel and other technologies. So I think there's a huge bright spot there which is funny between the Qatar Saudi Arabia stuff because Qatar is obviously the leader in gas and Saudi Arabia not so much. And then the UCS stuff, I mean look, who talked about that before? Like I mean, do I think that like the OMB director has his headscarons right now? But like, but the Congress does and I think that I think the Congress will restate a lot of that funding, right? I don't think that just because it's not in the president's budget, which everyone said it was down to arrival, doesn't mean that like the Congress isn't gonna like this of what my company is doing and many others is where you know calling our local senators and congressmen and saying it's important to put like you know $18 back into the budget because it doesn't cost much to do this climate research stuff. It's like 0.0001% of the total federal budget. And so you're not saving any money by cutting Noah's budget or somebody's other budget, right? So we're all working hard to like you know make sure that folks realize that basic science and frankly a lot of this data is like used by the weather channel, right? So there's lots of corporate interest for this data as well. A lot of firefighters around the country really need this data around you know what's gonna happen with you know firefighting seasons and some of that stuff. So I fail to believe that you know everyone's lost their brain in Washington, DC. Yeah, I'd like to back that up as well. I think that one of the programs that we really love and have been working over the last several years with many of our competitors that falls into the basket you're talking about a super truck. And this is, it's such a wonderful program that has really enabled all the heavy duty manufacturers to work together to see massive gains in the kind of heavy duty trucks. There's more and more goods every year on the road. I myself get about 10 Amazon Prime packages a week it seems like. So, and even when I order them together they come separately. So we're working on that as well and I'll save that for another day. But in terms of freight, you know the MPG of those trucks is low as you know, relatively low. And so anything we can do, even a very small percentage helps a lot when you look at the number of trucks on the road. And so super truck is something that we think is really important. And there are other programs like that that as you said, I think Congress really values. And I'll leave it at that. On the vision part of the vision question, I would say that I think companies like Lyft, Uber, Cardigo, Moval, these new mobility services as they operate in cities do a ton of data collection on the way people move. That's changing as I mentioned before. And I think it's gonna be really important for city managers, city and state DOTs to understand that and to understand it as we go because there's not one policy you can put into place in 2029 hoping for great change in 2030. It's a rolling process. And I think that requiring sharing of that data with city administration is fair. And I think it will help all of us in urban environments as we move forward to be able to work from that data so that we can improve infrastructure in the ways that we're going to need it tomorrow. Great, I think we have time for one more quick round of questions. So great if you could just grab a couple more questions and then we're gonna close. Start with the gentleman right there. My name is Michelle Munger and my question is how has large producers of fossil fuels affected the debate about renewables? So like Charles Koch and his donation to PACs. How has that affected the debate and legislation going through to help you guys? Bobby and Ronnie. Yes, please. Yes, so I'm curious to ask you, are there gonna be any policies where a conversion of combustion engine trucks or cars to EV vehicles, especially, is any policy just like RPSLB coming up soon? Is if I look at a lot of truckers in the nighttime wanna go up to sleep in the trucks, that's where we can charge the trucks, right? So what are the focus of your company where this policy can come up soon? Sorry, what kind of policy is in here? So a conversion of combustion engine trucks and cars to EV vehicles, because you see a lot of people don't wanna buy new cars but they can convert it and do that. Great, let's take two more and then I'm gonna turn it over, please. So then, is there, what is it? Hi, I was curious to know what role do you think individual entrepreneurs and individual innovators have in sort of fighting this global challenge or addressing this global challenge, because I think the discourse we're having right now are fascinating solutions by corporates or by big entities. But what role do you think individuals and small levels sort of, you know, resources of people with smaller resources could play in working towards addressing this issue? Thank you. Great question. One more? All right, like a woman, a woman back here. Yeah. Hi, my name is Andrea. I'm from the Bank Information Center. I have a question more about development. I know a lot of people say that it's unrealistic to expect undeveloped countries to transition directly to these renewable sources of energy, which isn't necessarily correct because there are ways but I just wanted to know what some of your views are on how we can help that transition from being very undeveloped to going directly to renewable energy unlike most Western developed nations that had a long phase of using these non-renewable sources of energy at first. Thank you. Great. We'll take one final one and we'll let you be quite selective if that's okay. And then, yeah, I think she was waiting to say it. My name's Dovia. I'm from the Public International Law and Policy Group. My question is also sort of about developing countries. So I'm kind of curious, these solutions sort of seem a little bit more long-term in terms of low-carbon energy seems like a longer-term transition that developing countries can make. With regard to that, what short-term policy alternatives do you see that can be effective in that sort of timeframe where we can make the low-carbon energy transition in developing countries? I'm thinking something along the lines like in India, I think a couple of years ago, they tried to implement the odd even car policy that wasn't too successful. So something along those lines, what's a good sort of policy alternative in the short-term? Thank you. Great. Okay, thank you. So who would like to, do you want to kick off with the conversion of combustion engines? Sure, sure. I have to admit I'm not an engineer so I can't answer your question from a technical perspective. If you're talking about fleet conversion, this is something obviously right now that is very difficult on the heavy-duty sector. We do have Mitsubishi Fuso E-Cell fully electric medium-duty truck, I believe it's a class five, a class six vehicle that's fully electric with about a hundred mile range. And of course, obviously working through plug-ins and eventually toward fully electric passenger cars. We also recently made the decision to switch, if you want to buy a smart car anywhere in the US or Canada in the years to come, starting right now basically, it's going to be an EV smart car. We're not going to sell combustion engine smarts in this continent anymore. So obviously we're really hoping for some robust infrastructure nationwide. We also recently announced a partnership in Europe with ChargePoint, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with. And I wanted to also address what can individuals do? And I will caveat this, that this is not the Daimler perspective, this is my own personal perspective, that I'll say I'm a vegan and I encourage everyone else to go vegan as well. Well, on the developing countryside, I'm trying to think of how to start the answer. So we've been at this for 70 years. It's not a new concept, right? So we've been at this for 70 years with large amounts of failure. So the number of people who are poor in the world are roughly the same as when the World Bank has started. So it hasn't really worked. And I think when you look at where we're coming from, whether it's solar lanterns or clean water technologies or other things, we're using a far more distributed approach, right? We're using mobile banking, we're using some of these other types of technologies. And we're making a big difference, right? So for the first time this year, more people got connected to the grid by a solar than did by the grid, right? So that's a big deal, right? So we've crossed that threshold. And that's today. And I do believe that everyone will have basic electricity services by 2020. So that's three years from now. So I don't think that, and largely not because of light, but frankly because they all want to charge their cell phone. And they need electricity to do that. So I think that's gonna happen. And I'm proud of that because I do think that people deserve basic electricity. And I also think that on transportation, other places I think bus rapid transit has had huge impact in many of these parts of the world. I don't know if the odd and even thing is such a great idea, but forced conversion of rickshaws to natural gas has worked. I think you're gonna see forced conversion to electric vehicles pretty soon just because it's actually gotten down in costs so much that it's actually pretty cost effective and provides the grid services that we talked about otherwise. So there's a lot of near term things that can be done. I think the big challenges in these countries is actually around just, you know, balance of power issues, right? The diesel infrastructure in Nigeria for instance is so powerful that like, you know, if you're caught saving diesel, they'll shoot you, right? So it's a big problem and they've got a platinum plated grid. So, you know, they've rebuilt that grid like 12 times. So they can actually, we have enough grid infrastructure in Nigeria to power 100% renewable, but figuring out how to like get the diesel mafia to calm down is not necessarily something I'm an expert in. So there's a lot of things like that that we're doing, but I do think that it's important that it's only been the last 18 months that we won this battle, right? I would say many think tanks in DC were calling us villains for suggesting for a moment that we move away from centralized grid infrastructure to distributed grid infrastructure to help these folks actually get electricity more quickly or micro grids, which we're now rolling out in Ghana, other places. And so I'm really quite like happy with our near-term performance and the way in which we're encouraging entrepreneurs. These are all led by one person that has now become 10% entrepreneurs, right? This is not large corporations that are leading most of this stuff. These are all companies that were starting in the last seven or eight years, Mobile Soul, you know, Ufger Electric, you know, Mcopa, you know, others. And so it's an extraordinary revolution. I mean, one thing you could work on is figuring out how Amazon actually brings the packages. That'd be good to solve. But at least- But yeah, we're pretty excited. And just to dovetail on that, DBL partners as an investor in Ufger Electric and spring solar energy storage units to rural parts of Tanzania at the same price that they're currently getting if I'm caricing them. As I mentioned, 130,000 customers in Tanzania and Rwanda today. And, you know, on the policy level, there are so many challenges, but it could also be an opportunity because you're essentially like in California for the solar industry, it's been this battle with the utilities around net metering. But in Africa, you're leapfrogging the grid and we did a round table with the CEO of Ufger Electric and with UN Foundation Sustainable Energy for All and DFID and, you know, someone in the room said, you don't understand in some of these countries, the minister of electricity is reporting directly to the president of the country. And it's a lot of challenges, but if we can get the message out that, you know, the obvious what electricity brings, economic development, improved health, that in one-on-one conversations with the leaders of these countries, the electrification of Africa as a case is really transformative. But one thing on the policy side, because I think it's just a policy, is that like one of the things we're fighting in a big way is the number one largest fossil subsidy in the world is the consumption of fossil fuel, right? So it's kerosene subsidies and diesel subsidies in these countries and getting them to switch is impossible. Like literally like, I'll go to these UN things, I'll talk to like ambassadors and other folks and they're like, oh, it's on the schedule for the G20 this year, and they don't do anything, right? The ministerials are like, wow, we're thinking about it, but we haven't really done anything. And it's just heartbreaking because that money is literally flushed on the tubes, right? In India, it is quite clear that 65% or more of that money is actually adulterated by the supply chain and never gets to the forest at the point, right? And you're just like, what the hell? Like, I mean, it's such a big number. I think it's like something in the order of $75 billion a year in diesel and I mean, not counting Saudi Arabia and Iran which are huge numbers, but I mean like just, it's a huge amount of money and we literally just can't do anything about it. It's so sad. Charlie? I'd like to answer two questions. One about the Koch brothers and the other about the role of entrepreneurs. These are both great questions and relevant. So the way it works in state regulation is that there are, they're commissioners usually, utility commissioners, they're politically appointed and we go and lobby them just like people on the other side would go lobby them and you don't see a whole lot of movement on one side of the spectrum where there are no energy efficiency resource standards in the state. There may not be momentum. There's not a lot of action there and then on the other side, California, like there's a lot of activity. There is discussion about how the regulations are changed and how they're evolving but it's a solid situation and then you have these states in the middle like Ohio and Indiana and Arizona and many states in the South that are trying to figure out what to do and those are the states where we go and educate commissioners about what energy efficiency is and how it works and I don't know this for sure but I imagine the Koch brothers and similar also go there. I can't speak specifically about what they're doing and how it's working out but the way the system works is that everybody gets a voice, everybody gets to talk about it. It takes a very long time so everybody has several opportunities to do it. Ironically, our office is in the same building as the Koch brothers until fairly recently so we got to see the elevator which was always fun. But it is, I don't mean to over dramatize it but it's a pitch battle and there are lots of people involved every day trying to figure out especially at the margins how it's working and it swings back and forth many times in a year sometimes. The entrepreneurship question is wonderful and it's personal for me in the sense that I worked for two guys who just decided that they wanted to make a difference. One guy went on a, he created an ed tech company sold it, did pretty well and then went on a lawn Jeep ride in South America, went with a girlfriend, came back with a wife kind of thing like it was a life changing experience for him, wonderful. Same person, thank you, thank you sir. It's true, same person. But the one thing that he got out of that experience was he saw a tremendous environmental devastation and as he tried to think about what he would do in the next chapter of his life the one thing that he was sure of was that it had to have something to do with making an impact, positive impact for the environment and so he started this little company, he got his friend from college to work with him on it and 10 years later they sold the thing to Oracle for $532 million after saving close to 15 terawatt hours of energy, that's two guys and an idea. That's, unfortunately I think we'd have to close this panel in just a minute, great story. I think just wanted to ask each of you if you wanted to leave kind of one message with all of us, preferably under 140 characters because I believe David is tweeting all this to the rest of the world. Let's just take a quick final message from each of our panelists and then I think we will close and I'll hand it over to David who would like to start with that truly memorable message that all of us would be. Well if I may. Yes. Although it's a quote, but I will read it very quickly. I think clean energy is about innovation and of course for venture capitalists it's about using the power of entrepreneurship to create transformation in our society. So going back to 1926, you've probably heard of this quote before but Nikola Tesla predicting a certain product. When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain which in fact it is. All things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole. We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly irrespective of distance. Not only this but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face despite the intervening distances of thousands of miles and the instruments through which we shall be able to do this will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. A man will be able or woman will be able to carry one in his best pocket in 1926 on the protection of the smart phone. So this is just truly a privilege to be a part of this innovative panel with such distinguished speakers on a topic that's so important for our health and breathing clean air in our next 20 years. Thank you. Thanks Lisa. Okay I'm not as eloquent as Tesla. But I will say that I really also wanna say thank you to everyone on this panel and thank you. Great job moderating. I would encourage everyone to really think about the transportation network and web if you will as really fluid and dynamic over the next coming years. As I said I think it's an extremely exciting time for not only people in the transportation industry but also for users of the transportation web. And I would encourage you to really try every day to make full use of the full potential of this transportation web. Thank you. These are all real good. It's hard to compete but I mean I just, from our perspective it's you have markets you're gonna see the technology adapt and lower the cost and that's what we're doing on a daily basis. You have to be able to compete but there's a lot of different technologies out there that costs are continuing to come down. And I think the policies are helpful but it's also increased research development, driving down and making the technology economic. And I think that all the folks up here and the folks out here in the crowd are working in industries that do that and I think we're gonna respond to whatever the challenges are. Thank you. Last word. No, thank you so much for having this panel and inviting me to be on it. Thank you to all of you for being here. It's nice to talk to a big room that's full. It's especially nice when we're talking about this topic. I'm skeptical on these issues. I'm less skeptical after this discussion actually. I'm sort of a little spring in my step. I appreciate all the learnings on buses and trucks. Thank you, that's, it's amazing. Cause I always think about utilities as being huge polluters and like what are they gonna do to help themselves but the transportation issue is also huge and it's cool to know that there's a happy future for trucks and buses as well. So on that point, I would just close by saying that yeah, we can do it. Whereas President Obama said, yes, we can. If we're working together and if we coordinate. Bigger? Yeah, I think this is about deployment at scale and I think that unlocks the largest wealth creation opportunity of our lifetime. So I think we all have to like join together and figure out how we actually create the new framework by which we unlock these technologies that really sort of I think empower folks around the world. Great, I just want to close with, just many of you may have heard this story from a couple weeks ago but for those who haven't, it really struck me that the Kentucky Coal Museum a couple weeks ago decided that they needed to actually procure solar power because fossils were too expensive. And it's because of people like these that we have here that borrowing a little Einstein only by attempting the absurd can we achieve the impossible. I never would have thought the Coal Museum in Kentucky would be wanting to need a solar for financial reasons but a huge warm round of applause and thanks to these five climate-second entrepreneurs. And I think they're done. Thank you very much. Let me turn it back to David who I think we have a real treat ahead of us in just a minute. Thank you all. Thank you very much, Manish, for a masterful job of moderating. I understand the dangers of being the one of the only things standing between you and food and wine and so I'll keep things brief. I thought there was an excellent question on oil and gas and I would be remiss if I didn't mention a major research initiative in our own energy and climate program called the Oil Climate Index which you can go and Google and find which essentially answers that very question. It says it's not simply a matter of on oil or off oil. We're going to be close to a 80 or 90 or 100 million barrel global economy for quite a while. So how do we get emissions reductions in the oil sector itself? And I would encourage you to go on there and this is about the selection of oils that we use and the sequence in which we use them but it's also about the value chain and introducing renewables such as solar for enhanced oil recovery or introducing renewable hydrogen as an input into the refining process to make oils lighter and essentially to approach the oil sector with a framework of carbon efficiency in the same way we look at buildings and we say how can we make them more energy efficient? So I would encourage you to take a look at that. If there's one thing I've walked away with today is I had on my mind as I was designing this event the old song for those fans of the Muppets by Kermit it's not easy being green and I thought we would kind of really hammer home against some of those challenges but if there's anything I'm walking away with today it's not only easy to be green in the 21st century but it is imperative. If you want to be competitive, if you want to be relevant and if we want to have a major pillar of global growth when there seem to be so few to rely on it is about finding a low carbon innovation path and following it aggressively. There's no one who knows that more than our next guest and our closing keynote speaker. Kristalina Georgieva is the chief executive officer of the World Bank including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association. In this role she works to build support across the international community for mobilizing resources for poor and middle income countries and for developing more effective solutions for the very poorest. Previously Georgieva who is a Bulgarian national helped shape the agenda of the European Union which you heard earlier. First is commissioner for international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response meaning that she understands very well some of the security and migration and refugee dimensions of the climate challenge but she also managed one of the world's largest humanitarian aid budgets and the entire European Union budget and staff as when she served as vice president for budget and human resources of the European Commission. Before joining the commission, Georgieva held multiple positions at the World Bank including most recently vice president and corporate secretary from 2008 to 2010 and director for sustainable development from 2007 to 2008. It is an honor to welcome you here to the Carnegie Endowment and we very much look forward to your remarks. Thank you. Thank you David. Wonderful introduction and a reminder that that is actually not you but me between now and reception. So that would keep me short. When you see somebody from the World Bank you of course expect a lot of technocratic talk and mostly the economics of climate change and that would come but before I get there so you are warned that it was gonna come. Before I get there I would like to first talk about my mother. In the, in 2003 I was director for environment for the World Bank. Whenever I would be home beforehand I was director for environment for quite a number of years. I would be of course telling my mother what I work on and she would have absolutely no problem understanding why it is important to fight pollution, why it is important to have clean air in cities and clean water but she for the life of her could not understand why I was worried about climate change and she got even less able to understand it when I said well there would be a warming of the planet she said so what, so bad about that. In parenthesis I was explaining that during a very bitter winter in Sofia. So my mother was old generation she would not call because it costs money she had a pension equivalent of $30. The only time she would call would be if somebody dies or somebody would get married or a baby was born but actually if somebody dying was like the routine. Three o'clock in the morning I'm here in Washington the phone rings and it is my mother. And I panicked, mom what happened? She says this thing about climate change, I got it. I got it because at that time at 82 she witnessed four events that she has never seen before. Remember 2003, heat waves, elderly people in Europe especially in France but across Europe died. There were forest fires in Bulgaria that were absolutely devastating and then massive floods and landslides that dropped some of the infrastructure the Black Sea into the Black Sea. So here is my opening point. My mom just on the basis of pure common sense got it. How easy that there are people that still have trouble to get there. And that takes me to my World Bank, economics of climate change story. First at the bank for quite a number of years we have been extremely concerned of the risks climate change present to the most vulnerable, most destitute communities and countries. We just got a report called Shock Waves and it predicts that if we are not to get our act together as humanity, by 2030, rather than reversing the trends in extreme poverty, we would see at least another 100 million people falling in extreme poverty. As it was mentioned, the numbers are high. Actually in absolute numbers indeed we are not very far from where we were in 1945. The caveat is that the global population has what quadrupled since then. So in relative terms there has been success in the fight against poverty. And I actually would add to that that we would see unless we get our act together, not just poor countries suffering the devastating consequences of climate change. It would be quite massive everywhere and who is to say whether the communities we currently enjoy would not be among those affected. So we believe that the fact that we are now in April hitting new high of 410 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, this is a very bad news. And it actually is an incredibly strong call for action for all of us to hear. And if we are to hear it, then actually it can be the generator of great news. Because as we heard from this absolutely fabulous panel, I caught the Q and A part of it. I'm sorry I wasn't here before. It is actually now an opportunity. You make money by being green. The opportunities for economies to grow on a low carbon path are quite significant. And it does who are not getting on that path now are shooting themselves in the foot. So how can we get it to be more accelerated? Because yes it is opportunity, yes good things are happening, but they're not yet happening as fast as they should. And here from the bank, from the World Bank, I would present to you three very important things we are part of, one policies. Very often at the bank we brag about the great investments we have done in climate resilience. And we have done many, but actually the most important contribution we have made is in promoting policies that paved the way for massive shift, massive transformation. In China for example, we have funded billions of dollars of various investments. And yet to my heart, the very best we have done for China and for the rest of the world is a modest amount of I'm told $14 million from the global environment facility with which we funded working with China for China to create the framework, the policy and regulatory framework for renewable energy. And where we are today is China has a amazing $100 billion industry, solar industry that is benefiting of course China, but it is also benefiting other countries. Working on this policy path is what we ought to do more of. I was in Vietnam recently and there we have done great investments. In fact, one thing I don't know whether the panel said but it is quite remarkable. We see today investments in renewables exceeding by a very good margin investments in coal and oil. In Vietnam we have done a very difficult, very important project in hydro. And now the question is, what next? The amazing story of Vietnam is that it kind of happens to be a very sunny place but it practically has almost no solar. Especially you go to the south, Ho Chi Minh City in this area, why is it that there is no solar? And the answer is very simple. It is regulatory environment. It is having the predictability of price. It is having the storage capacity. So if you do massive investment in solar you actually can store and use it. And these are the barriers to be removed. Yes, we also would fund some, but our big contribution is on the policy environment that would then unleash private sector investments. I met with private sector investors. They were anxious to tell me that they're there. Give us the right policy environment we would fund it. They actually said, one of them came to me afterwards and said, look, I want you to know that we can fund it. Please don't fund it yourself because you would be destroying the potential for private sector. And so of course I told him not to worry. And we are working now on the policy environment. I expect to see in Vietnam what I have seen in China. India, India has been for such a long time the country people would say is not coming on board because in the negotiations India would have a particular standing. And yet the country has been transforming quite massively. Somebody here said that and it is true. It is driven mostly because of urban pollution. This is what creates, I mean, not very different actually from China for that matter in India even more. I was, when I was in India this time, what happened was it just was incredible. I was invited to speak in the Central Bank of India. So we asked what would the Central Bank of India want me to talk about? And I frankly speaking expected it would be interest rates, what would happen now with US moving in a particular direction. That's the Central Bank of India. Guess what is that they wanted me to talk about? Green bonds. India is a country where the jump of green bonds is quite impressive. So we see this role on the policy side being hugely important and we believe that what we can do and we are doing quite a lot on that on the policy front is to make sure that there is a predictable and significantly significant for policy makers price of carbon. It was in my office in 99, 2000 when a very smart guy, Ken Newcomb, I don't know any one of you here knows him. I see some people nodding, Ken invented the prototype carbon funds. So in these days, not only my mother didn't quite know what this climate thing was. Many people thought that we were nuts. They would say, you know, there is not the auto protocol. Who is gonna buy this thing? Why are you venturing into it? It was the right thing to do. We made many mistakes. I'm not saying we were perfect, but now we believe is the moment of truth when working on a price of carbon is absolutely essential. We are proud to be partners in supporting the high level commission on carbon price. I am sure you have heard, you know what the outcome is of their work. This is Joe Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner and Nick Stern, Lord Nick Stern. One thing that is common between these two very smart gentlemen, former chief economist of the World Bank. Now in little brackets, actually both of them when they were chief economists of the World Bank were not quite on the mainstream of climate action, but they are very smart people. They came to understand that this is hugely important and they came up with an analysis concluding that carbon price of $40 to $80 per ton between now and 2020, rising to $50 to $100 per ton by 2030 is going to give us the framework on the basis of which transformative action across the board is going to be accelerated. Now the most important thing people associate with the World Bank is our investments. We have made a very firm commitment by 2020 to have 28% of the lending of the World Bank directed to climate action. We have done an assessment of where we are. I am very confident standing in front of you to say that we will meet this target. I'm actually on the view that we need to kind of step on the pedal and do more. Our investments go across a spectrum very strong in of course in renewable energy. Solar in India we have invested about a billion dollars in solar we would do more. Our only constraint is the ability to lend to India because they're reaching the so-called single borrower limit, I mean the maximum they can borrow from the bank. We do quite a lot on the side of adaptation to climate change but also land use, deforestation, land management, things that are incredibly important to capture carbon and they are also very helpful for countries to be more sustainable. But what I'm most proud of in what we fund is that we are bringing new solutions to countries that are most destitute. I was in the Central African Republic country that has been tortered apart by violent conflict into religious conflict in the last years. It is a place that is sort of often not on the radar screen of anybody and we are committed to fund solar plan to bring electricity to Bangui. Central African Republic has 8% access to electricity. This is morally unacceptable, shame on us. It has to be addressed and we don't want to address it with diesel or coal. We want to do it the way it should be done in year 2017. So in two years I promise the president that in two years they will have it and I will be there when we are powering Bangui with solar power. In meanwhile we will do small solar of course but if you want the city to benefit you have to figure out how you produce it, how you store it, how you distribute it. We do need all hands on deck, all funding directed in a way that would help us to deal with the problem that is one we have created ourselves. And we believe very strongly that all we can do from green bonds we have issued 16 billion from the bank to generating opportunities for private sector as we do now in Vietnam. To funding ourselves especially projects that are pilot that are innovative that help innovation to penetrate. This is what we all need to do. So let me finish since time for wine is so pressing. I started with my mom and I'm gonna finish with my car. I don't love them equally. When I left for Europe some seven plus years ago, seven and a half years ago, I could not part with my car. So seven years neighbor had to drive it around because I just couldn't sell it. It is a tiny Audi TT, not electric, but with manual gear. And I know I sell this car I would never ever buy manual. I mean that's it, shift is gone. In parentheses a very good thing to have shift if somebody tries to steal your car, but the sight of that. So I'm still driving my TT back and forth, but this is the last week, two more weeks actually. The last two weeks I will be driving my TT. On the Sunday when Macron was elected in France at two o'clock in the afternoon, I said to myself, Macron is bringing France in the future and this is such a great news. I love my little TT, but the time has come. So I got out and I went and bought a Tesla, which is by the way a great car. I looked at Mercedes, but what is, your Mercedes, right? But not yet. I actually looked at you as a European. I thought maybe there would be, no there isn't. So not yet. So okay, good. So the short and the long is that we all bear responsibility. And as much as we love our old habits, we ought to find it in ourselves to kiss them goodbye. Goodbye. And with this, thank you very much. Enjoy the reception. Wonderful to be here.