 Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since I'm the only one who works in public sector, I would like to focus my presentation on President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from Paris Agreement and its impact in relation to the G20 leaders' discussions on climate change in Hamburg this July. Since I'm the G20 chef of Korea who prepared the G20 summit in Hamburg this July, I would like to talk a little bit on the Hamburg G20 leaders' declaration related to climate change and I would like to make my presentation on the impact of U.S. decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. First of all, on the left-hand side, the language agreed that G7 in May in Italy and right-hand side is a language agreed among the G20 leaders in Hamburg this July. The language of Hamburg leaders' declaration is compromised between the U.S. and the rest of G20 members. German presidency showed its leadership persuading the reluctant leaders, not only Donald Trump but also the Russia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to join the consensus minus one. As the G20 accounts for more than 80 percent of current global greenhouse gas emissions, the declaration demonstrates to the world and business community that the efforts for the implementation of Paris Agreement will continue despite the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the agreement. In fact, the G7 is much easier to get the consensus because other than United States, the six countries have the same page and they have the same philosophy and same policy so it is not so difficult to draw the consensus but the G20 is different. Russia has not yet ratified the Paris Agreement and Turkey is very reluctant to accept the implement obligation of G20, Saudi Arabia, you know why. So it's a huge task for the German presidency to draw consensus except the United States but they did it. I think they made very good efforts to convince the world and especially the business community that we will continue to go despite the U.S. So I'll move to the second question. What is the impact of U.S. decision to withdraw? In June 1st, as you are well aware, Trump declared that his administration will seize implementation of Paris Agreement but explore linearization of the deal to seek better terms. I think it's very important. He said he will withdraw but he want to have linearization. Previously in March, he exacted Clean Power Plan which sets emission reduction requirements for each of U.S. state but allows them flexibility in how to achieve them. In addition, he overturned the moratorium on coal development on federal levels and ordered a review of emission restrictions for oil and gas wells. These measures sharply decrease the likelihood that U.S. would have met its Paris Agreement. What would be the impact? I think already several experts around the table mentioned there would be no real impact. But I think definitely U.S. decision would weaken the enforcement measures of the Paris Agreement and undermine the resolve of other countries to make their own reductions in view of the U.S. leadership role in this important global agenda in addition to the fact that U.S. contributes about more than 16 percent of our emissions. It's the second largest emitter after China. However, as we have already heard, many experts estimate its impact is more symbolic than substantial because first from the procedure viewpoint, the only possible effective withdrawal date of U.S. would be November 4, 2020 in accordance with Article 28 of the agreement, which enters into force November 4 last year. A member may withdraw from three years after entering the force of agreement and withdraw take effects after one year. That means there are still four years for the U.S. to completely withdraw from the Paris Agreement and nobody knows what may happen in four years' time. The second, I can find there is an appetite for the reduction of carbon emissions independently of the Paris Agreement. I know particularly the China and U.S. cities and states continuously stressed importance of fight against climate change. Thirty-four U.S. states led by California and New York have undertaken their own ambitious carbon reduction plan despite the federal government decisions. The U.S. private companies have found that going green can reap financial rewards like cost savings and transitional, transnational companies have to meet the regulating requirements in foreign country anywhere. So I can say there are three important reasons why the businesses and U.S. state will go as if nothing had happened. Having said that, however, I think there would be a significant negative impact in particularly on climate finance. The advanced countries committed to generate 100 billion U.S. dollars annually until 2020 to help the mitigation and adaptation efforts of the developing countries and for that purpose the green climate fund was established in 2010. In announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, President Trump also said that U.S. would stop contributing to the green climate fund. The U.S. has pledged by far three billion U.S. dollars to the green climate fund which is the biggest and twice that of the second-largest pleasure of Japan. In fact, Barack Obama authorized transferring a second 500 million U.S. dollars installment to the GCF just three days before he leaves office, leaving 2 billion U.S. dollars owing. Session fund for global clean energy innovation efforts would hamper significantly efforts to develop and deploy new carbon-reducing technologies that would likely be the central to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. My conclusions, the first is as the developing countries led by India and Turkey in particular stressed the importance of parallel implementation of the obligations of the Paris Agreement which is mitigation, adaptation, and climate financing. Therefore, U.S. decision will negatively affect the smooth implementation of the agreement in the years to come. Second, in view of the importance of the issue of the climate change, however, U.S. cannot stay outside in the subsequent negotiation process for the Paris Work Program despite its decision to withdraw. The participation of high-level officials from White House, the NEC deputy director, in the ministerial meeting on climate action to advance discussions on the full implementation of the Paris Agreement and demonstrate continued political commitment to global action held in September in Montreal this year is a good example. They continue to participate. I'm sure that U.S. will actively participate as well in the COP23 which will take place in Bonn next week. The ongoing more concrete rules, negotiations of Paris Agreement should be wrapped up by COP24 at the end of next year, therefore next week meeting of COP23 is very important meeting and U.S. send the delegation and actively participate in deliberations. Finally, as the G20 leaders declared at the Hamburg Summit, the Paris Agreement is irreversible and the global community will move forward to its implementation, though the load ahead would be very bumpy. Thank you.