 technology. That is what so many tell us that is going to pull us out of the climate crisis. New green technology that will enable us to remove billions and billions of tons of CO2 that we humans have put into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. New green technology that will magically materialize just in time, conveniently allowing us to sit back and do nothing. We get told so often that new green technology will be the silver bullet that solves all of our problems. And I start to wonder if these politicians, CEOs, entrepreneurs, government officials, if they're hoping that if they just repeat these words over and over again, new green technology, new green technology, if they do this enough, maybe they'll manage to convince not just us, civil society, but themselves as well, that this is somehow possibly true. What is conveniently ignored in these fancy conference presentations and speeches for suit wearing so-called leaders of politics and the business world is that this new green technology hardly exists today at all, let alone at the scale required to counter our emissions of over 42 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. With every passing minute, the climate crisis becomes a more and more a race against time. What we do or don't do in the year 2040 or 2050 or beyond for that matter is of minimal relevance if in the coming few years we fail to rapidly reduce our emissions, stop expanding fossil fuel projects, and rethink all the priorities of our society. We've been putting off real climate action since decades before I was even born, and we cannot afford to continue this way. It's no exaggeration to say that our actions over the next handful of years will define the living conditions for all future generations to come. Maybe one day some of these new green technologies will become a reality, but if we continue with business as usual as we wait, cross our fingers and hope, the 1.5 degree target will have already been put well out of reach. It's basic physics. We have a limited carbon budget that is the amount of carbon we can afford to emit while still hopefully limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. And that word hopefully, that's important. All carbon budgets are just estimates, predictions that give us perhaps a 50% chance, perhaps a 66% chance of success. But that's all. It's all hope. So if we use up our carbon budget, say between now and 2030 over the next few years, we will set off tipping points that no wonderful green technology that's possible in perhaps 2050 could ever possibly reverse. And naturally, there's no guarantee that such technology will even be viable at the scales required. It is very possible that we could wait very patiently, cross our fingers and hope, and at the end be left with nothing. Nothing that is except tons and tons of carbon dioxide needlessly put into the atmosphere because people are live in the year 2020, and that's us, me and you here, chose not to act. We, the younger generations, are the ones that have to live with these consequences, live with the consequences of the decision of whether we right now choose to act or not. And I'm telling you, this is a risk we're not willing to take. And naturally, these technological solutions or so-called solutions can at the most, at the very most, treat the symptoms of the climate and ecological crisis. The idea that we can justify the expansion of coal mines, new oil pipelines, gas fracking projects in the year 2022, just because maybe in the future, possibly if we hope enough, there would be possible to remove some of that CO2 from the air and store it underground, completely ignores the on-ground environmental catastrophes that fossil fuel projects are. The Adani coal mine, for example, in Australia, where I come from, will irreversibly destroy almost 450 kilometers square of land in Northern Queensland. Indigenous land, in fact, land that belongs to the Wangan and Juga Lingu people. It will waste away millions of litres of water, pollute nearby water resources, and further threaten already endangered animal species by destroying and taking away their crucial habitat. No carbon capture storage plant built in Iceland or wherever else in 2040 or beyond, no other form of fancy, wonderful green technology can reverse that. The climate crisis is not only a question of molecules of CO2 put in or taken out of the atmosphere. It is intrinsically interlinked with the ecological crisis and our failure to prioritize a living planet over the profits of major corporations. The endless greenwashing that we're confronted with on a daily basis, and this fantasy that we're fed, that we're constantly daily fed, that future technologies will at some point magically appear and wipe away all of our problems, is proof that the climate movement is in fact winning this fight. We have opened the eyes of public society to the climate crisis, and in response, politics and the fossil fuel industry are doing everything they can to lull people, civil society, into the false sense of security that technology will eventually handle everything, that we can sit back, cross our fingers, hope, and wait. So we have to push it back against these false narratives. Greenwashing in all its forms must be clear to everybody, and only then will the next step be possible. Creating a debate where claims that green technology will solve everything without us needing to leaf to finger should and will be treated in the same way as climate denialism now. In no serious discussions and debates about the climate crisis is climate denialism considered acceptable or welcome. Greenwashing must too be waved away. It cannot be welcome in our debate about the climate crisis. It leads nowhere. Of course, technology doesn't just mean carbon capture and storage or other magical technical solutions that will wipe away our emissions. Other forms of technology and digitisation are a major part of the power of the climate movement, and our ability to both spread our message at unprecedented speed and to connect with one another globally to form a movement of diverse perspectives, approaches, and capabilities. In many ways, the climate crisis is also a result of the failure of the mainstream media. Since before I was born, scientists have been sounding the alarm that we have only one planet and that business as usual result in catastrophe. But the vast majority of journalists and mainstream media outlets did not and still have not risen to that challenge. They have not risen to the challenge of communicating the climate crisis to the wider public. And apparently, that job, like many other jobs, has been left to us, young people. This makes social media, in particular, an enormously valuable resource, and enables us to set the narrative, defining exactly how we want our message to be conveyed and to reach others without solely relying on the mainstream media and being independent and now we are being able to be independent from how journalists want to represent us and our stories. Effectively tackle the climate crisis, the will power of the people is essential, and using technology, we can reach many more people than before. It is mind blowing, in fact, what social media enables us to do. In 2019 and 2020, in Australia, we experienced our worst bushfire season on record, in which over 14 million hectares of land was burned and approximately 3 billion animals were killed or severely harmed. In Sydney, where I grew up, the air was filled with smoke and the sky turned grey, orange or red even, for months on end. The smoke was so strong that you could practically taste it. I'm not quite sure what it exactly was about Australia during that time that seemingly touched the hearts of so many people globally. But to see my phone filled with photos of demonstrations across Germany against demons, a company who had agreed to work on the Adani coal mine, children clutching photos and drawings of koalas in Turkey, and demonstrators dressed as kangaroos in Peru, made it clear to me that we weren't alone. Everybody saw our struggle. Of course, there are enormous difficulties that come with increased technology use, technological waste, the mining of rare earth metals, and the power consumption of digital technologies. And of course, social challenges, polarization, increased echo chambers. But these are challenges for which there are answers or at least ways forward. And technology can be such a powerful tool. Now, in 2022, the climate crisis is not a crisis of knowledge. Of course, we live in a world with unequal connectedness and access to technology and information, and equality of connectedness and knowledge must be part of the better world for which we are fighting for. But principally, we have the knowledge needed to build this other world that is possible and must be possible. And we have the knowledge we need to pull ourselves out of the climate crisis. What we lack is the political will. I often ask myself why exactly I do this, why I organize on the streets with Fridays for Future, why a campaign against the seemingly all-powerful fossil fuel industry, why I continue to believe that we can change politics and the priorities of our entire society. All in all, I ask myself why I put myself out of my comfort zone, where I'm confronted daily with the realities of the climate crisis and the injustices that exist in our world. I do it because I don't want to look back at past me and think I had the opportunity and the privilege to be part of building a just and ecologically sustainable world. But I didn't do it because it was too difficult, it was too uncomfortable, it was too scary. I don't want to live with that guilt and regret. Sitting back and crossing our fingers and hoping that new green technology will magically appear will not save us. But organizing, mobilizing, campaigning and connecting our fights globally to build that other world is possible will. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Patsy Islam Parsons. Great talk, very energetic and inspiring talk. This is exactly what we were hoping for. I liked your sentence. We have all the knowledge to solve the climate crisis. What's lacking is the political will. I think this is at the heart of what we're going to discuss in a minute here. I also very much liked how you stressed the green tech false solutionism. A whole other issue is the brown tech false solutionism because a lot of coal and oil companies are using artificial intelligence to exploit even better the reservoirs that should remain in the ground. But thanks for bringing this up and we'll now turn it over to Bernd Hirschl, to speak English. Bernd, you have the stage. Welcome. Thank you, Tilman and thank you, Patsy, who has now prepared the ground for the deep dive into the question of how we can become climate neutral and how we can support digitization. My task is now to open the theme field of climate protection and digitization in the broadest, in order to look into the different areas where we stand, what the challenges are and what maybe steps can be. And I have divided the big theme field of climate protection and digitization into six different theme fields. I have already presented that, I will skip that. We always start from the point of view of what we have to invest first, when we create information and communication technologies and operate. That means the view along the life cycle, on the manufacturing side and on the operating side. I want to look at that as a first step. And then, of course, we have the great hope that we can use the IKT, the digitization, on different levels. And I have divided it from the most important areas in my opinion into digitization, which of course serves one side of this efficiency, where in the footnote sometimes a little bit of sufficiency comes with it, if it works well. And the rebound risks are also in it. So in this first area of efficiency, the second area has a lot to do with the power system. We have the biggest challenges and we need flexibility there. But even if we want to get the other sectors in, we need flexibility for the sector combination, that is the second big area. And the third is the area of participation and participation. I want to go into these three areas and at the end, we are dealing with a very important sixth dimension that brings us to the question of condition one or zero. And zero is in this case the danger of blackout and I would also like to go into that at the end. Let's get to the first point and I will now try to symbolize the image of the wave where we are standing there. At the beginning, of course, this question can of course be at the very top, if we create IKT, then it can be that it replaces something, that we have a substitution. Then of course we basically have a very positive situation, but often there are additional additional effects, additional technologies where we have to look at what they bring. Anyway, when we create the stuff, we first have the situation, the wave goes down, we invest, namely first of all by having to use energy, we use a whole amount of raw materials and some of them are also critical raw materials and we already have a first important issue that we have to take care of. The basic measures against it are also efficiency in the production, we have to reduce the energy consumption, we should, and that is done by some companies, create the whole thing, if then created with electricity, that is a trend, you can say, that some companies in the area, through power purchase agreements, specifically also import electricity and thus make the balance even better. That should be mainstream. In raw materials, exactly the same, here too we have to be more efficient and especially when we look at the critical raw materials, basically only helps us to establish a circular economy. So we have to run these raw materials completely in the circle and that is also a strategy to accumulate raw materials that we do not have in the inland, then also to run in the circle and to accumulate them. So that means that what we are talking about can then also be a little bit less. But we also have a whole bunch of raw materials and when we are here, what we are currently learning, namely the energy sovereignty, but also the raw sovereignty of our own good, that resilience, connectivity, things that we have to invest economically, then there will also be such conditions as, for example, lithium conditions that we have in Germany, that we have in the European Union, on the one hand it is profitable if you pay something like that, so that is also an important strategy. And in the sense, I have already said it, the energy sovereignty, of course, you have to think about the same thing for digitalization and I will introduce the term of digital sovereignty here. The question is, where are these technologies actually produced in which countries are, I think, in terms of the current events due to critical questions, but also the question, where are the decisive software products, the operating systems produced? That is also an important component and also platforms that are important to us, but also the data in general, with which we want to do so much, who accumulates it in which countries and do we have in a way that we can do enough with it, which we want to do and have to do. So all of this would be through the transfer of digital sovereignty. Let's come to the second aspect, the operating side. So when I operate I usually use energy. So we also have the energy consumption at the top, and that is essentially electricity. And you all know that, there is always this nice saying, if the internet were a country, we are at the moment on place six, as always calculated in the global country ranking. In Germany, this is always an eight to nine percent electricity that we currently use for IKT or for internet consumption. There is not everything with it yet in detail, but that is almost always just this internet research. So that's a pretty big fish. But of course, it's a little bit too simple, because we get something for it. We'll look at the user side on it. And of course, here too, we have to shape the processes more efficiently. We need, for example, something like climate-neutral calculations. Just like they are currently built and structured, there is a lot of energy and a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. And in this respect, it is a very important point, like heat consumption, but also depending on what they have for the application, to operate these systems, these computing centers, flexibly. That's not so good at various applications, but in any case, there is a huge flexibility potential in it. Data savings is a very important point, yes. So not just to increase the data, but to program savings here and also to deal with the data. Programming savings also means more efficient algorithms. And in the end, also with AI. At the moment, there is such a huge AI wave, which you could do everything nicely with it, but it's just an incredibly extensive calculation process. And that's why it's good to see here why you actually need it, that is, to use it efficiently and efficiently. So with that, we come to the user side or to the possible user side. That means, here, the pendulum or the wave could go down a bit in the direction of the green side. That means digitization, which promises us efficiency, where in the most most important cases, savings come out. The one or the other digital application also aims directly to sufficiency. And here, of course, we have a lot of different areas. Efficiency and possibly also sufficiency potential are both on the energy consumption side, but also on the resource side. And here, we can decline all the individual sectors. In the energy sector, for example, there are a lot of energy management systems on different levels that can help us to become more efficient by just providing information, visualizing. There is the heating monitoring, for example. Or we know, with weather forecast data, we can go into the situations of renewable energy. There are infotools for electricity consumption. And I have always taken these three examples, because we recently looked into a study and looked at where we actually stand, what kind of distribution it has and what kind of environmental performance comes out. I'll get to the result in a moment. Of course, we have the mobility, the networked mobility, is the password at all. We only get the mobility walls, if we network everything well. But of course, the corresponding offers have to be behind it. The network alone doesn't help. Industry 4.0, work 4.0, work 4.0, we have made a huge leap in Corona time. And we are also here in some research projects to evaluate what it brings and what we see there at good effects for mobile work or home office, etc. I think we actually took a lot with us in the last two years, but we have to pull out the right keys. In the area of the building, Smart Homes is still in the children's shoes and the whole thing also goes into sectors such as agriculture. Here, too, we have a lot going on at the moment. You can basically say, if you look at what is going on in all these application areas, you have to notice that the wave is basically not going down, but it is, in any case, in the same weight. So it is not very much yet what is to be earned there, because the whole thing still has a very small expansion in all sectors. We have already announced a whole series of rebound effects. That has been discussed here in different sessions today and yesterday. And of course we also have the problem that we sometimes have too much attention to hardware that is hardly used in a relationship. For example, in the area of the household that is equipped with smart meters. And then the question is, if the smart meter has a systemic use or has a social use, but for the household no commercial use, who pays it then? It is then not actually meaningful that here, too, the state or the energy supply here takes the cost or a high part of the cost and does not choose on the household. The issue of flexibility is especially important in the electricity sector and here, too, when the digitization is used here, it can bring a very great benefit. And that is, on all levels, we need this flexibility. We need it on the consumer side. We need it on the consumer side and can use virtual power plants with decentralized distributed small and large and very different production units. We can create complex, at the same time services with storage. That only works when we manage them digitally and control them and regulate them, the so-called multi-use. We can also use many small storage batteries to merge together to something that can then also bring system services. That can be done normally today only with very large production units, but when we make an intelligent pooling data-driven and with IKT, then this is also possible here. Dynamic rates are still not really introduced, are still not mainstream, definitely require digital structures. Smart Grids stands for itself and in this area there are also many more applications, but that again is a little journey from the networks about the manufacturer, about the consumer side, what is possible there and here you can basically also say that most of them are small niches at the moment. We sometimes have special applications where the government has created special regulations so that it can be tried out. As soon as the regulations are back to the end, the whole thing is unworkable and is also re-stamped, re-motted from the market. It is not so far in many areas that we can close because the frame conditions are simply not there. And then to the point of participation here is of course the central point. We have incredibly many systems, small systems, many actors. You can bring them together in various business models. We can, for example, make individual households into prosumers and they can even behave online through digital embedding. We can do something wonderful like energy communities or energy sharing, as you always call it, so more than a meter of electricity, even better, different actors, producers, consumers, bring them together, bring them close together so that the one and the one who can't have their own solar system, can solve this with neighbors, with quarters communities. We have here an current study that shows how much potential is in it. That's 40 percent that you can use for a renewable expansion that we used until 2030. Citizens could take over if you do something like that and of course we also need digitalization. And here, too, there is a faster planning and acceptance process, also an extremely important topic for the energy transition. And the faster one is basically only with digitalization. The only or the most important thing we are discussing is that we want to have it digital. Of course, we also need personal and other regulations, but digitalization is a very important point. Here, too, the pendulum jumps back again. That means all the potentials that are in it. At the moment it is like that. Here, too, economic niches, the potentials are not raised. We still have a rule here, especially with the energy communities, for example, there are no rules at all to operate energy communities. And with that I come to the last point, the blackout danger. And here it is actually so that we basically don't have much to discuss. We have, with cybercriminality, which has been on a very scary level for many years, it is simply a reality that we have to take into account and that, through digitalization in the power system, brings a new danger, a new risk in a dimension that is quite big. We have now all learned that with 100 billion you can set up a special package for military security. If you want to deal with such a crisis then you take 200 billion in your hand to get a double boom, as it means. We have in the last two years through cybercriminality 425 billion euros have been lost to people who have done this to themselves, 425 billion. And the biggest increase is in critical infrastructures. There is criticism, the reduction is critical. So the biggest increase in critical infrastructures and here is a quite current report now also in view of the war, Russia in our networks. That means, of course, they are also in networks, in power networks, in energy supplies, in city works and possibly in the periphery of nuclear power plants as a footnote. That's why it's not a good idea to let nuclear power plants continue in this situation no longer. And that's why we need a resilience strategy in this area. That means the topic of connectivity and resilience is a very important thing what we have to look at under this digital side here. We of course need necessary IT security concepts, especially for critical infrastructures. But basically you need a structural solution here of distributed renewable energy supply that has to return to this digitalization and the flexibility possible. And with that I am at the end of the journey through these six areas. I hope I have a few suggestions that can be delivered that will be discussed now. And maybe there will be a few solutions at the same time with the politicians. Thank you very much. Thank you, Bernd Hirschö. Nice. Bernd, you too. I think we now have two really good stable positions. Once again through PETZI the whole global perspective with a special look at the concerns with a special look at the conflicts especially in the global south and the question of the wrong technological solutions. Bernd has now made a panorama of measures and potentials, but also wonderfully shows where it is still harming. So where politics should not only contribute to raising the potential, but also to see that the technologies or the solutions first come from the niche and at the same time the risks that also exist maybe in the grip can be better controlled, regulated away to get. I now hand over to the next agenda point here on this podium, namely to a conversation where exactly these intellectual challenges that we have heard here in a debate about what politics can do now. And I'll just introduce our moderators, Geraldine de Bastion. Some of you have probably already seen on other podiums here. Geraldine is a widely asked moderator and maybe one more in the whole field of digitalisation but also about it. Maybe one more little anecdote she had 10 years ago that the management company founded Connectiv and, among other things, Melanie Stilz. And Melanie Stilz is one of the heads behind the building bits and trees, which at the same time to our big bits and trees take place. So there is a funny coincidence Geraldine here on the stage Melanie over there. Welcome, now you introduce the other guests for your conversation yourself. Thank you very much, Tillmann. Thank you also for the shout out to Melanie. And it's very nice always when we are so inalienable, so to speak, to play a theme of two political fields glasses. So thank you for that. Exactly, now we want to talk on this panel. How do we actually get these political fields so paid that there can be action that we need so bitterly? And I would like to directly the panelists our discussion participants introduce who would like to discuss this topic now. We will try in the end also to have a little time for your questions and open in the discussion. But now, first of all, I would like to welcome Anke Domstein-Berg. She is the digital political speaker of the left faction in the Bundestag and closely connected with our digital communities, the digital civil society, so to speak, this translator from the civil society into politics. Nice to have you here. Welcome. I would also like to welcome Thomas Heilmann. He has been a member of the German Bundestag since 2017. And in the presence of the Union faction, he is also a member of the climate and energy but also in the digital agenda. It is great that you are here with us too, Thomas. And I would like to welcome Mike Außenhof. He has been a member of the Bündnis 90-Die Grünen since 2009 and since last year, since 2001, also a member of the Bundestag as a speaker for digital politics and also a member in the digitalization of the faction. Welcome. Exactly. I would like to here is, so to speak, our parliamentary side. And also I would like to but also two people from the Circle of the Wonderful Organization who make all of this possible here to welcome me on the stage. And namely Friederike Rode. She is a sustainability researcher and technical sociologist at the IEW. I am here with the sustainable design of the socio-technical wall. Welcome, Friederike. And last but not least, I would like to welcome Henrik Zimmermann. He is a member of the German Watch with innovation in the energy system and digital transformation. And yes, all the topics around digital energy transformation, smart meter, smart grids, as Bert just said, so perfect for the part in our panel. Welcome, Henrik. Yes, of course we want to also go to the two keynotes under different points of care. But I would like to first with what I as a core question of this panel understand, get in. And indeed, we are under treatment pressure. According to the current climate report, about a thousand days that we have to travel around that. That can also be well in political time steps of a hundred days. Share. And that's why I would like to from you now for the first time something about the political structures that we have to find out and whether these, in your opinion, are enough to create this ability to act in the delay of the political fields, digital politics and climate protection. Where do you meet when you play both of these topics as a parliamentarian? And where is there at all the political spaces to discuss this topic together and to bring it forward? As far as I understand it, you are the only one who is shot in both, is that right? Yes. I think that's a maybe a very small number of people. Do you have an explanation for why that only concerns you at the moment in these two shots? There are two full shots as we say it's a technical reason but the actual question is why does it go so slowly ahead of time and that's not because we don't have enough politicians who sit in both shots but it's only because there is way too little unity. Unity in Europe, unity between federal, countries and municipalities, unity between ministries, unity between shots and if there is no unity and also no rules how to make a decision, then we are back on the unity principle. We all know that from Europe that if Mr. Orban doesn't participate, we are not able to act in foreign policy, but that also concerns us internationally. If we want to enter a new Euro-ticket, then we all have to participate in traffic operations. And if there is one shot across, then it becomes difficult. It may be possible if the federal government pays everything, but that's not seen in our financial order so the inefficiency and the lack of decision-making with majority is the one core problem and the other core problem is that it drives me so much. So it didn't start and I'm actually a entrepreneur and I've been a major politician for about 10 years and I was in the country of Berlin for five years for a ministerium and now I'm five years or nearly five years in federal politics. And the public sector is as it is set up not to deal with its challenges. That also concerns the demography and the question of why faxing is a health issue and it also concerns the issue that is relevant today. How do you continue climate protection? We have to completely re-establish the public sector so that the management can bring what we actually know as a society also to the rails. Tell us briefly how KPIs for the government in which they can measure themselves are currently because I'm so disappointed about it I wrote a 320-page book that I analyzed where it was in. I think the big problem is that there are six or seven nuclear power plants with another 20 nuclear power plants that are very stupid. But maybe you can share one or two suggestions briefly. Yes, we put the wrong people in. We encourage them to be wrong. We put them in wrong. We don't have decision-making rules. We do the law-making technique wrong. And so I can do a whole series of it's a very deep systematic mistakes that we make that we also have to change systematically so that we're fast enough. That's not just a question of what we do, but it's also very time-critical about time-critical this work of art to be done. Now you would think that of course especially this time pressure also a greater unity leads with it. But I think also to realize unity you have to first talk to each other and go into exchange. That's why maybe first to you, Anke, which structures do you miss or which spaces do you miss where this exchange could take place where you could maybe get used to get used to get used to get used to get used to get used to get used to get used to That's really not so easy to say because so I'm from the left the only at the moment in the digital output but we are also only 39 people I have two more outputs and two gremians and digitalization is a cross-cut topic that has to do with all other political fields. So there it's about armed drones sometimes it's about electronic patient files sometimes the robot at the workplace sometimes the hacker attacks so that's every topic traffic has already been talked about energy has also been talked about if I'm now but I'm the only one in there I can't be in all other outputs so somehow there are physical limits my impression is still that I'm probably one of those who the subject of sustainability at the most sustainable in the digital output brings in so that has not necessarily to do with the output you are in but I would wish that there are more opportunities where we can talk about the digital output with each other and where it fits for example also my a joint increase with the climate output that we have punctually with other outputs also already made I had for example a hearing presented that also came through to the subject digital violence against women and girls we have together with the corresponding other output made which otherwise with the subject violence against women is also from the MFF leads the sustainable output and so similar could you do that here too I also have attached an application to a increase of the digital output is on the subject of sustainability and digitalization which is not yet terminated but I hope that it still in autumn takes place and then there would be an idea for example that you just together and maybe the climate people bring in with it maybe over an increase works but also so that you do not necessarily have to put together the outputs but we would then experts or experts for the area of digitalization and sustainability in the combination and digitalization has in principle two related points to the climate crisis so once part of the solution to be with energy and traffic that is then then more in the other individual shots but where it is part of the problem is there it actually in the digital output and there I would also at the increase focus on that you discuss this topic from seems to be already to be yes, it will be already attracted to make an increase we are there in the question completely agree although we left-party and the CDU not in all points actually are not the shots are the shots are not the place in which executive is made is but the shots are there to represent the people and the government to control therefore are now not common shots so they of course have their meaning and they are preparing the laws the laws are important but the implementation is done in the executive and that is so to say a another action force that you have to understand politics we know how these organisms actually play with each other that's why is this decision question not the central question from my the question was generally according to structures and shots are a part of the parliamentary structures that's why we came now on exactly now do you on the panel the only party that is both in the executive as of course parliamentary represented is and it came in this draft after yes too little unity but also too little measurable to the decision of politics you are also relatively new in the Bundestag maybe you can describe how that from your point of view is working here now in the ampel so once on the side so to say at the moment ampel coalition something new to do than in the past 16 years in relation to the measure of the success in this in the restriction of these two sectors digitization and climate protection and where do you live in parliamentary around these thoughts the world to continue to also really measurable we have a few goals in the coalition contract written for example the introduction of environmental management system for the center of the Bundestag up to 20 25 that's already one point is also completely clear that that's not enough and another concrete point is that from 20 27 all then new emerging in the center climate neutral have to work so that's already points I myself I come from the economy about 20 years in the the industry act I am of course much more used with with numbers with goals measurable to work we will clearly more policy wish again back to the structures we are now five green digital emissions we have still a second seat in other emissions and that's also quite good so for me it's the economic emissions and there is also a lot about climate policy only in together with economy and that's but so that the economy a significant component CO2 emissions in this way fits that well together and I think that's also quite good that's there this this mixture gives so that's are you maybe the only who then also the topic is also close but on the structures related is I think that's a lot bigger problems are the different political levels so for example about the public bill in talk then that's once the of the federal but the countries and again the communes have it also and then again other state level problems and there is the communication important and again then towards Europe when it's about regulation goes for example digital markets acts or chips acts which everything in our topic is enough then it's there the communication very important and then we do that just we have our own exchange formats within the green that are in different levels and but that's then again a little away from government trade the main problem is but that these goals also to get to get I have just asked had what with the new bill center is and how far the criteria should be from the blue angle for example as it is actually planned is with the climate neutrality and from 34 to 2027 new planned bill center hits that unfortunately only for the half because I'm just allowed to report on that is I think the approach is great and it's also good that we have as an answer and then have a stand and it's of course not satisfied at all but I have now I said not much better than expected we have basically in January he started with the firing work so in december was the government the government in january were the firing built then we started to work and after a month came the war and there were quite clear the priorities set so and now we are in a situation that we for example in the Ministry of and in the Ministry of for digitalization and traffic a own reference each introduced to the topic digitalization and sustainability that then also narrow to work with each other so we are now just doing and of course helps such a request as a recording but it's completely clear that must be faster that means and by the way we just have just looked in the head shaken because unfortunately it was difficult is acoustically on the stage to understand you but I hope I got most of it get you have to the clever critic ask later place in the hope that you all acoustically better you are so to speak also these structures in the executive to build where these theme worlds meet the last also together to to to to okay thank you for this first assessment on your side now I would of course I would of course like to be in the discussion you have a political demand catalog set there are different yes just requirements described in the partly also on the stage here got skied was in the in the in the in the in the in the in the how would you would wish that this demand catalog will be accepted maybe also discussed will and where do you see possibilities yes the implementation may also to accelerate after what what you just heard do you want to start yes I can like to start and I will also maybe like to once again a little connect so to speak to the question where do you meet actually and where do you talk actually so first you meet of course here at the on the and on the other side you have to of course say it is not so that there are no political processes where that can be discussed could be so the government has just a digital strategy developed where very, very many different resources were involved were the very many different politics fields to and then you ask yourself a bit so first to the one why it remains to the part behind behind back what in the coalition contract is so what there so to speak on the goals is so it is it is partly then rather unambitioned in certain areas and secondly why did you not also have this chance of the development of the digital strategy used to exactly this discussion once to lead so there are certainly very different perspectives what do we want actually where do we actually go how do we actually the digital change design digital strategy that there are very different perspectives put in and there it is then just from my and a third point which is still to be noticed is that now somehow also has shown itself you have often with the industry hit but you have not with the civil society or maybe also with the with the with the actors from the social ecological transformation research or as always hit and I think if you such processes touches then it is already also important that then this chance then also to use and just the not then so through to bite so to speak the digital strategy but to say we want now that really take seriously as a process we put ourselves really together with a lot of perspectives really also with the different resources and ask us where do we want actually actually go somehow and what what can so to speak also together perspectives be and there I can then maybe also a little to talk so to speak to the second question to the requirements that we set up to the political I think the point is simply or the wish is that you just possible concrete things implement and also really possible concrete goalsets implement so it came a little bit the question after the measureability you can not always measureable I think you have to have to make clear but you can of course set goals that you just do not say we want us to measure that more center of gravity use but we want us to measure that so and so much percent of the center of gravity use that would be a much more concrete goal than how it is so to speak at the time formulated so I think there is a little bit of the wish also from from the movement circle from the bit and trees movement just really once very concrete to set goals and also the deficit that there is there actually also a little bit to go to go to go your little request had it also shown what it is for deficit there is so some right-wing centers can not even say whether it is renewable energy use and so on and so on so exactly there is I think there is a whole amount to to set and where we things concrete can and also once to the deficit can can thank you before we immediately why here in this in this direction ask I would like to if you would like to but maybe again a little bit to describe what would you wish that it for other exchange and opportunities outside this wonderful conference there is where we maybe also other yes multi-stakeholder structures can imagine especially with civil society without now to become transparent or to stop legitimity processes maybe also together with the economy about this opposite play which often takes place so with the climate interested economy together imagine or would you you to yes also again in spaces wish quite basically we would first wish that we even more involved will be participation is always the question in which context is the city and and and how does the city we have now seen that especially BMW also the digital traffic ministry at the digital agenda actually only business users involved and maybe one civil society association that is and of course much too little and we find that of course very tragic because we the perspective of course bring the community and pay attention to it we do not have economic interests in these questions but our interests are the community are the democracy are the environment and climate protection are the human rights and that's what we want to bring in and best of all a lot of places you can also like to invite us in the Bundestag for exchange etc. so because the specific question was where then I wanted to say something about this question to the digital strategy because we have of course also very closely looked at and there we found that seems very strong so as if the individual in the ministry their blocks written and then together packed and what we actually wish is that sustainability will be mainstreamed so that sustainability in all areas of this digital strategy comes in and if we then read for example in the area of mobility that there as the first most important point is in the autonomous driving and we of course at bits and trees very closely know what that for ecological consequences also has and how many data will also be raised in such a vehicle then is that from and behind not ecological and then you ask yourself has there someone a hint given in terms of the ecological sustainability questions at this chapter for example and another example is the topic open source and that's what Friederike actually already hinted there is many times we need more of something but there is for example nothing going on there that we public money public code need what we as bits and trees very strongly demand public money public code that means that we I don't know I don't know or public money public good that means that we where government money flows also at the end of the code should be open so society small companies municipalities citizens software can be designed by the way has a insanely important effect also for the climate protection and and with the hardware also when we have the possibility just to exchange spare parts when we have the possibility to have open between hardware software operating systems then there is a lot in there and in the digital strategy is always in there we need more of it but it's not specifically in there how do you want that to actually reach and where it's a bit in there for example over the right-wing centers 30 percent use there is it's not ambition enough so there is definitely more so there we can definitely do more and there I think we also have very specific and very good suggestions from the civil society and they want we very, very much like to introduce that's why we have at the Bitz und Bäume now also invited politics and discuss that like to with them together but also of course like to after the conference further because we want that it comes into the implementation and the question was also accessible how do we want to discuss what we actually want with our requirements is that they are implemented and and I think that's that's the point where we where we think to bring a lot of and also a lot of expertise in the civil society Thank you very much I think we have you all already reported that you would like to react that's definitely here today that's of course now a thing with the political mainstreaming because mainstreaming means yes, especially that it in all houses in all political areas takes place and if these then also from different parties can be led can of course also this diversity to prioritize come together I think I still of course would like to a assessment why why does this digital strategy just behind the front and also behind the coalition contract and how how do you maybe also within this party maybe with these different prioritization around yes so first the the criticism partly I have also partly publicly made first of all integration civil society so I myself I myself in the Bundestag when had a lot of appointments and it is so that most of the board members they actively knock on the door and on appointments and when I but I say that will now a little bit a little bit then we have to actively to civil society and say CCC did you want to talk to us a new letter responsibility did you want to talk to us you do that I like it but it's really so we have to and my fellow members always be on be and actively also to you and then it is but always are nice talk so I actually with all or with many spoke in the middle year so that's the one that's now my activity as new coordinator what the integration civil society in the digital strategy belongs to we meet in every week with the three digital speakers from the Amplifraction in the ministerium with my minister most of the Secretary of State and believe me we have it every time after we learn what a digital strategy is done we are followed and think about it we have as a coalition contract promised bind it one and it's not happening and we have it so for months always under the hood criticized and I have it still public in the press in the press and also in the Plenums talk also then publicly criticized next to also the wording of the digital strategy also the positive point is that every ministerium first was demanded to deal with the topic the points to bring together and what is then also a little bit strategic makes that are these three Hebel projects that were led and the one is the digital identity infrastructure appeared and data use but exactly that was then the further criticism sustainability and open source that is missing we ourselves as parliamentaries as the Amplifraction also got very late in the first cast as the summer break had already started and then we could still quickly have to bring in for example the environment data portal it is then what we have brought in but we have also approved open source and sustainability is missing more has to enter is not well implemented and so I am so in total with the strategy well, only so satisfied and I will continue to agree that it will get better but I can also see really only once again maybe muting more also on the other factions to go so on us also but we do it also from us on my side but they are also there I don't think I bowed down so my two colleagues SPD and and FDP I don't think that they talk to each other waver and therefore I also please please a civil society also actively on the best let's say all up to one factions to go and at the same time it is maybe also but of course extremely tired the issues that we have been discussing for 20 years and also try so so we as a digital civil society prominent as possible try to address the public money public out still not have been there is a there is a there is a there is a there is a but it is you in practice you don't see it yet except for Schleswig-Holstein where it is shown how it is right and and and then as you say so to say the requirements of course also understand then it is also important that this this meeting here take place find to the civil society again there but ultimately you would also hope and think that this view of this this this knowledge also just politically arrived is and you of course ask why then still so little has to do with it you the feeling is also always just so translation performance in the own parties necessary in the own structures therefore these topics that as I said so long discusses still not prominent enough are I think one one reason is a very, very simple it has a Ministerium the federation had the the reason is called the subtitle the digital strategy digital values create it says everything there is no about the environment or the environment there is just the primary goal how can you for the best of the economy get out that's why that has my written question to who was involved in the pre-fueled digital strategy that I have asked came that as an answer around it was by the way maybe as a funny anecdote the first times in five years that I have experienced that a written question not in the written in the Frist of seven days was answered was extended and our parliamentary leader of the much longer than I am in the Bundestag sits says that it has never before given that was the simple question who was involved in the digital strategy I always assume it was a bit embarrassing to have to to have that the civil society was not at all was that was in the end the answer but of course it must not stay but the question was also how can you to a faster implementation come and there I believe I have a responsibility as a regulator that are things that are but partly very unconnected so what the use of the for example goes on what also the use of one of the yet to create an energy efficiency register goes on whether the connection will be as a right-wing center of the private economy of the data to energy efficiency to wear goes out of the digital strategy not before that must but because otherwise happens not so only with the very very very very but with the other not then it would be very many millions of euros partly hundreds of millions of euros given and certain things to promote and why is there then we just have household negotiations for 2023 why is there 9 million for sustainability and digitalization sounds a lot but there are 50 million for blockchain projects in the three iid in the Ministry of Robert Habeck I do not understand not he is actually not guilty that are inherited projects that have a running time but I think something like that you can you can you can turn it is just money from A to B shifts and something meaningful to finance so that is the question of the third role that the government has is also an extremely important which I think is under is and that is the role as a trendsetter as own consumer of IT for over one billion buys the bond every year IT equipment one when he really hard would say that he is only still cash services purchase from cash the the efficiency criteria fulfill when you only still energy-efficient software program let and self program when you have the first good are and second followed will and that will also hold would it really something change and not only the own footprint lower there we in a federal IT and 335 gigawatt hours per year that is a lot it would also the market change because it is it is I think after the finance industry is the public administration then in the IT industry when you radical the rules change for yourself for yourself is always the easiest for yourself to change the things to change and there are my expectations really high you have to do something and and from the civil society really needs maximum pressure so load yourself one yes to all three parties of the ampel but not only in order one just write to the referr write the minister the org charts you can all download the subject and write there the part name ministries have to answer letter letter in letter answer that is always a great means which is too little is used I have worked in a ministry I also had to or was allowed letter in letter answer and you do not think what it was an effective means can be so exactly I would also understrike you have already to the micro gras I wanted to say the digital strategy is so the point of I will write all but she is but value she stays far behind the back what you actually should do so there is the empty sustainability there is the question how do we with the public creation around which is not just because important because we need you sustainable but she is also otherwise important yes we have 40,000 different methods that all not together can that has efficiency behind reasons and that has all that with the topic to do to do they have not to break through and a really a co-ordinated also certain role to give already not have we the government problem solved and also the communal problem that is the question very important to understand is also what the topic sustainability is about but to ask how how works with us in in the trains of the not reasonable or so is hearty little in except one should and could and so so it is really too little and is the energy the digital policies of the Union have implemented the Public Money Public Good in the program of the CDU is and we can not to use you can also certainly I don't know if it's interesting or not, but I would like to go back to one of the main statements, the cool statements that I'm making. We have heard that we have all the information that we need. I would like to do it myself and I would like to do it myself and I would like to do it in the area of battery storage systems. There are so many statements that I think a lot of immigration research is taking place in the future. At least not in the future. I don't know what we need for our climate change, especially if we need a climate change. But I can imagine that there is a lot of discussion in the last seven hours. We need to focus on immigration as a matter of climate crisis. This is a relative of Schaffach. Especially from the education sector of Schaffach. How do you look at these two points that we have talked about? How does this have to be looked at? The transition and climate change. Now there are two different points. The second point is that we need to understand all the differences between Schaffach and Schaffach. I don't think anyone in the Union can say that. To say that everyone is always right, of course that's not the case. On the issue of innovation, we know that there is also the IPCC report that 50% of the technologies we need in order to be climate neutral are not market-driven. That's why we have to do a lot of things. This is an absolute position of the Union. I am a Federal President of the Climate Union. We have just put it through on a part-day that we are making it difficult for this question. And that we have to solve this current energy crisis in such a way that we don't have to go deeper into the climate crisis. This is also between the EU positions. So I understand the question with the interest conflict. But we don't think that we can solve the climate problems of the world with a purely transparent policy, because the 8 billion people won't be able to participate in this. We are completely excluded. That's why we are only going to distribute it to the front. The steps have to be four times more radical than we are today. Unfortunately, there is no unity. I mean, you can certainly look at the Ampel now. You can hardly imagine more unity than the question of the gas environment. I say at the end of the day the question of what kind of innovation is meant. So if you want individual traffic with e-fuels, then it's not such a great way. If you want a very great, necessary, IPNV also in the local space, namely the absence that everyone can pay, then it's a different thing. I think that whether we can pay is a social question and not an innovation question. For me it's a financial question, but it's not an innovation question. We will have to change our entire production processes in the world so that the climate will be neutral. Or we won't produce all these goods anymore. I think that's a way that you could maybe go to Europe, even in the middle of Europe, not even in Romania. In any case, in India and China, we will never be followed. How? That's why we will only have to move into a circular economy. We will need innovations for that. We will need new products. We will need new products. We will need a different manufacturing system. We will need products everywhere. What concerns the drive-thru? If I were to invest today, I wouldn't invest in e-fuels as an former entrepreneur or now an entrepreneur. But the crucial question is, let's let things be justified, then we'll see where the innovations are. Where the drives in the next 30 years are, we shouldn't be politically established. We should set the goals. And especially CO2 and sustainability goals. But we shouldn't set the technologies. Risk-based pricing is of course a very important topic. I would like to open up again. I would like to ask how do you try to bring innovation into a climate-protected network and perhaps also to the bad framework conditions that have been discussed when it comes to innovative or new things such as energy partnerships, energy communities, sorry, and other aspects to establish? Maybe I can take a quick step back to this basic question, because we don't get climate crisis solved alone with suspicion. But otherwise, what Petzi said at the beginning to wait for the green tech innovations that do everything well, it doesn't work. And e-fuels are not the solution. We need both. It's clear that what Prof. Hirschel pointed out, I also share these things completely. We have to move in this direction. Innovation has to go there, of course. But it won't work without changes in behavior. We can't believe that we'll soon have e-fuels and we can all fly again three times a year on vacation. But there are changes in behavior that are necessary. But that doesn't necessarily have to do with getting into the comfort zone. Maybe you just have to approach things differently. I can also make a wonderful holiday in the regional area. You don't have to fly to Teiland. And these are just things that go on and on. You don't get that anywhere else. When the air traffic goes on, as it is now in the area, then it won't work. So how do we do that now? We have different approaches. One is the CO2 price, which is a bit unpopular because we already have rising energy prices. One reason why it was postponed, which I don't think is very good, is that we are also spending the climate transformation fund and therefore want to promote projects for climate protection. So that's something that didn't work out so well. On the other hand, of course, you have to say that the CO2 price was also seen to bring the idea of increasing prices into a saving effect. And we already have the rising prices and a saving effect, which also requires some. In the industry as well as in the private sector. But then we also go on with the aid package. Whereby, you have to say that it should be on the one hand pay attention. On the other hand, it seems counterproductive because we finance fossil fuels with it. From a green point of view, extremely painful. I don't see any alternative at the moment. Now to come back to the question. We have different mechanisms. One is the climate transformation fund. We have green tech funds, which are really there to promote companies to invest in natural technologies. And it is also on the European level things like the border-execution mechanism, when foreign products come in, which have a high CO2 footprint, that they are made more expensive or that they are supplied with tax, so that the climate-neutral produced products in the EU will remain competitive. Do you want to comment on that again? I would like to say something about this term innovation, because it is here all the time. I think it is often used as a buzzword. And we have to think about it. And often it is also connected with such a naive hope that we will solve something in the future because the great technology is still coming. I think we already have the technologies that we need in many places. And we have a great trade deficit in many places. And we have to talk about innovation in relation to innovation. Where do we need innovation? It is very important. In the energy industry, for example, it is very important. We have seen the individual points before. Smartgrids. We have seen the point. New energy communities. We need innovation in digitalization. In mobility, we want to strengthen the environment. That means we need platforms where we only have these sustainable traffic carriers on the platforms in order to get to the socio-ecological transformation. We have in the area of buildings the serialization, which is incredibly important, where digitalization can help. We have the building information modeling, which can help. So we have topics, now I have energy, mobility, buildings, where we know exactly where we need the innovation and where we have to go. But we always talk about innovation globally. We know what to do in these areas. We have to go into these areas and strengthen them. That helps digitalization in many other places. It is a shame. I think another point I would like to make, always when we talk about innovation, we have to talk about innovation urgently. We have to talk about it urgently. What technologies do we have to get out of it? How does digitalization help us to get out of some technologies? For example, the combustion engine, e-fuels in the car, or strange ideas that are completely inefficient. From the front to the back, if you understand a little something about physics and mathematics, you can also understand and calculate it. We also have to ask these innovations very strongly. We have to think about it in terms of energy systems, mobility buildings and other landscapes. But we also have to get out of the technologies that eat too much electricity when it comes to digitalization. That is another topic. We will get to that later. Yes, it is relatively late. We only have very few minutes. Friederike, you would like to say something. And you too, Anke. I had hoped that we would have time for one to two public questions. I would like to ask you a question. One person. I notice this person in front of me. There was a person in the back. I only saw one arm. Okay. What I wanted to add, that was also a bit of a style proposal for me, what Hendrik said. I think we also have to ask ourselves what kind of ideas innovation actually means. And the idea that we have is very technically oriented. We somehow assume that when we want to strengthen social innovation skills, we have to develop new technologies and so on and so forth. But to do something different and to do something new has nothing to do with technology. It is also a social process. We also have to think about where we have to... I always hear a lot of the topic that we have to stop consuming too much. We have to stop flying too far away. And I think where we have to deal with a lot more in the future is this whole topic of social innovation. So how do we... How do we have to think about how our energy system works, how do we have to organize ourselves differently, where do we have to establish new approaches and so on. And I think this is a question that we have to ask ourselves. Where do we actually look too much at the topic of technology when we talk about social innovation and innovation skills? That fits perfectly with what I wanted to say. Exactly the same drawer. I think that if we want to get the digital revolution climate-friendly, it's not possible without social revolution. And that's exactly the kind of innovations that I also think that are fundamental and much more structural than what a single invention is. But it also has to do with radical redistribution. It's not like how long a Hartz-Wier empress is trying to break the climate. It's the 10% of the richest who have the most resources with distance. And then you also have to think about redistribution, and all these things that you can of course give to the people who currently have problems to come to an economic level, but of course also to the climate issue. In the end, the question is why do we abandon it? Why do we always define prosperity as I can buy things and have it as my own? Why is prosperity not a good education for my children? Caretakers who are not overworked and where I can feel safe what I am taking care of no matter what kind of insurance I am. Why don't prosperity have time and go for walks in green surroundings and clean air is also prosperity. We have to think about it completely differently and that is also a kind of innovation for me, but not the technical side of the FDP. My name is Kurt Müller. I come from the local agenda 21 in Offenbacher-Mein. My question is about the lack of citizen participation in the process in Berlin. The green politicians could you imagine an eclatant mistrust somehow to eliminate because it is a reason that the people from the industry and from the lobby associations are knocking on the door and not the few of the associations who have also recognized their common use. That must change. Can I just vote? Do you still want to react briefly? Yes, very briefly. I can only give you the right to change that and I would like NGOs to be better equipped. Of course, that is also due to their personal work. They don't have a office with 20 people who make appointments. It is clear to me that this is a reason. Yes, of course. With the community of the camp, for example, it is a huge problem. It is bad. There are still so many aspects that we should actually discuss. That would be the perfect task to really go in and down again now. But today will not be the day for that. I would be happy if we could take this discussion to another opportunity and deepen it. So many important aspects such as how we can really understand and organise and understand how we can understand ourselves as a partner in digitalisation and climate protection. And so maybe even together to boost the pressure on other industries and other sectors. I personally think that is a very central and important topic. And I think that is the right space to create these alliances. And then, as I said, even more stronger. These demands that we have set up even more energy and even more environmental protection for industries and other sectors. Thank you very much. I will hand it over to Tim again. Thank you very much. I would now like to translate the difficult task not only a little bit together but also with a few motivating words to give a kind of motivation talk. Let's see if that works. I have already written down three points that I would like to highlight. They also zoom out and in general may also relate to many events between the bits and trees. The first is, let's do this together. We have discussed this in the circle. There is a resort thinking, a silo thinking between the parties. We have seen how at the digital strategy different ministries did not work together. I think this can go even further. We have to work together to create new alliances and then determine creativity and increase the political pressure because suddenly new actors and new ideas come up to illuminate things on the other side. Second, I have emphasized here that there are digital strategy deficits in the implementation. We have already heard on the opening podium that there is a huge lobby power of the industry and especially from the digital sector that tells you a completely different story. And then I would like to add to that what Patsy said at the beginning has said, this story of common green technological solutions, sometimes even brown technological solutions that are still offered, that is a huge problem. We have also found out that the digital companies, the big tech companies have spent more money for lobby work in the EU than they, now I have to look at the automobile, the chemistry and the farm industry together. And that is a huge problem and we hear that again and again, we have to make our voices loud, we don't just have to do it together, but louder the stories we tell the narrative that we came across on the podium in the political discourse to bring in much more strength, so that there is a counterweight. Of course, we also need the participation format that we will be heard, but I think it is also up to us to be loud and audible and to present a counterweight to the narratives that offer common solutions. And the third thing I want to take with me is Walk the Talk. We all start with ourselves, the government can start to make the right center better. That was a clear point that came out. There is a lot of demand. We have heard the public procurement. Open Source can be a huge topic. Research money for technical research, not only public money for public codes, but also public money for climate change. We now have 2.5 billion Euro-BMBF money for artificial intelligence research and it is not exactly clear whether that will connect sustainability goals and the solution for climate protection and other ecological and social challenges. So here we all start with ourselves, the governments, but also I think we as as institutions, as individual users can change a lot. Maybe many of you have come up with an idea here on the Bits and Bäume. What you can do in the use of these devices or apps we had several events. Maybe there are people who install them when they go out of the Bits and Bäume. That is an option because only when the transformation that we are talking about here is actually being lived then the ping-pong can create new pressure again. Then it is also easier for the companies to deal with alternative services and then it is also easier for the political forces in the system that want to act accordingly but often get stopped. So, so to speak, when the transformation is being lived, the ping-pong can also create stronger political frame conditions and then it is not only another digitalisation as we said in 2018 then maybe it is not just another digitalisation that is urgently needed as we heard on the On-Tag-Podium but maybe at the next Bits and Bäume we can say much more strongly that another digitalisation is already there. Thank you very much. In this case once again on the whole podium and have fun in the rest of the afternoon and then finally at the end of the podium and do not forget, tonight there is also a party. Have a nice afternoon.