 We have here on the panel Peter Bruce Clarke. He's an operating partner at Social Impact Capital, that is a venture capital fund that invests in socially and environmentally responsible startups. He has quite different views on the role of the private sector versus the public sector, so open the debate. Thank you for the introduction, Patrick. I also wanted to say thank you to the World Policy Conference for having me this year. It's actually my first time at this conference and my first time in Marrakesh. And over the last few days, I've just been so astounded by the programming. It's wonderful, so thank you. Since I'm here today as a representative of a venture capital firm, predictably I will be speaking from a market perspective. After all, I do investment every day. And it is our belief that early stage venture capital is a key tool in generating social and environmental impact. But I also want to say that it brings me immense joy to be amongst all of you here today, an informed international community. I love that we more or less agree that climate change exists and that is indeed a crisis in the United States we're unfortunately experiencing a bit of a gap in leadership there. And so many of us as a consequence in business and finance have had to step up. So on the topic of climate solutions, I wanted to say three things. Firstly, the climate crisis is a complex challenge. Secondly, I'm gonna provide real world examples of businesses both in the United States and abroad who are targeting what I think is a humongous market opportunity. And I call that the climate industry. Finally, I wanted to touch on how we're talking about the climate crisis. I believe that there are two ways that we need to narrate it and that there are two ways that we should not. So the climate crisis, it's a complex non-linear multi-industry systems challenge. It requires various different solutions that leverage the best of all worlds and the market. International and national tax on carbon, subsidies to underwrite clean energy we're simply saying that we should use nuclear. A bandaid cannot cover a gaping wound that also fights back. It's like trying to harpoon a giant when what you actually really need is a couple of people with different kinds of darts and ropes to tie it down. What I'm more interested in is how we identify and encourage market solutions which make sense relative to the specific circumstances of countries, the drivers of their GDPs and the extent to which those drivers contribute to climate change. My other basic message is that circular economic ways of thinking will actually be the foundation upon which countries will prosper going into this century. I believe countries who aggressively drive this way of thinking, financially supporting, underwriting and generating huge industries that tackle the climate crisis will be richer than the ones that don't. Outside on a poster I have a McKinsey quote that says the net benefit of adopting circular economic principles could be worth 1.8 trillion to euros to Europeans. I actually wanted to go further than this and say that globally the climate crisis is worth $26 trillion. To put that in perspective the global economy is roughly worth $100 trillion so ultimately that's a fourth of the global economy. Now you might laugh and you might say but you can't make money out of climate change can you? Well unfortunately for you you're wrong. You can and we are. I wanted to give you two examples of businesses tapping into the multi-trillion dollar industry that is climate solutions. The first example is a company which is one of our portfolio companies. It's called Prometheus. Prometheus is a San Francisco based startup that sucks carbon out of the atmosphere to create gasoline and other fuels. It is the first quote unquote carbon net zero fuel. The cool technology Prometheus uses as a carbon nanoshoot membrane which has many applications across climate and indeed within water desalination too. They will soon produce fuel on price parity with traditional market players and within the next few years the company believes it will be able to produce at a significantly lower price. Prometheus is just but one company is transforming transportation energy markets in a fundamental way. A couple of months ago they actually sold their first jet fuel to a company called Boom Supersonic. Boom will only use carbon net zero fuel from now on. And we're excited because this is a multi-billion dollar investment opportunity. For my second example, I wanted to let you guys into a little secret. This is a plastic recycling company based between Johannesburg and South Africa and in Colorado in the United States. This stealth company can take 90% of plastic, waste plastic and recycle it and turn it into fuel, energy and heat. Plastic just so you know as a higher density than coal and it represents a resource valued at $2.3 trillion globally. Their clients in queue include municipalities, large corporate parks as well as traditional recycling plants. And the cool thing about their solution is that it's very low capex, it's cheap to make, it's modular. One unit can basically process one ton of plastic a day and to increase capacity, you just need to add another one, a little bit like Lego. To put this in perspective, if the company had 200 clients globally, it would be generating somewhere between $100 and $200 million annually. So it sounds like a terrible business, right? So you might've been thinking, so what do these amazing companies have in common? Well to me, these companies are reframing the externality problem. Instead of saying, oh no, we're doomed, climate change is a problem, externalities are terrible. They say I love carbon, atmospheric CO2 is worth a trillion annually. I love waste plastic, nobody wants it and it's worth $2.3 trillion. The climate crisis is a challenge and it's an emerging set of industries and sectors. So finally I wanted to tackle something head on. We cannot and we should not share some of the participants' view here that it is too late to do anything on the climate front and why should we care? I find that cynicism, frankly, breathtaking. All is not lost, business as usual is not fine and we challenge the stance by financing companies every year that will ultimately disrupt legacy players who choose not to take advantage of the crisis, players who disregard a multi-trillion dollar market opportunity. And you know what? We will try to make millions of dollars doing this. As we like to say at social impact capital, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a business is a good guy with a better business. And I think I wanted to end on just saying that a challenge by definition is both a risk as it is an opportunity, the climate crisis is a market challenge. Thanks. Maybe before we move on, because I was expecting a little bit more and your investment sees this, because how much capital do you want to raise? How much capital do you want to allocate? What type of return are you saying? Do you take any sustainable criteria on your investment thesis? We say well maybe we do a little bit less which will not excite a lot of people. So what is your investment thesis? So our thesis is that we invest globally and regionally. We think that innovation is emerging outside of Silicon Valley and we're frankly very happy about that because valuations are a lot better. We look for companies where the driver of the business model is a social environmental impact. It is internal to the mode of production. It's not something that you just strap on at the end. And so we look for companies across an array of different sectors where actually sector agnostic. We do care about certain causes. We do prioritize certain causes. I personally prioritize by sort of the extent to which a problem represents an existential risk. So typically from climate health care all the way down. But in terms of stages we're basically de-risking impact deals that the traditional market will not take. So how much? How much? So how much, sorry, what was the question? You want to invest? So initially 100 million and then we'll go up from there to 250 up to a billion. We want to deploy hopefully trillions of dollars. I mean not our one firm but at least set a market standard of what people should be investing in. Okay, thank you.