 Os ydych chi, mae gweithio'n ceisio ar y Caen Amgylchedd Ffwyrm yn Genes, a gweithio ar y Caen Amgylchedd Ffwrdd yn yn fawr. Tyn ni'n gweithio'n ceisio ar y Gymraeg, ac yn negosio, a pen dangosio. Mae gweithio'n tuag. Mae'n gweithio'n ceisio deallfaedd yn Gririaethol Ewrof Aeol ac mae'n ddrygiadu i gweithio ddim'n mewn mwychio'n ceisio. Na'r ddweud o'r gweithio yw'r Seistol, mae'n ddweud sy'n ddweud o'r gweithio ddechrau. Mae'n gweithio gyda'r gweithio arill syniad lleol, ysgolwch yn ysgolwch amddangos. Felly bywyd yn ddweud o gwneud i'r ddweud o gweithio, mae'n ddweud o gweithio ddweud o gweithio, ond mae'n gweithio'r lliwyr. Mae'n gweithio'n ddweud o'r gweithio'r ddweudio'r ddweud o'r gweithio'n gweithio'r ddweud. Ond y cwestiynau ar y panel ymlaen nhw ymwneud yw ddweud y golygu'r gweithio arall. Can we get green growth? Can we get a jobs-rich energy transition? I'm delighted to be joined by a fantastic panel from a cross-government and private sector. We have Rania Al-Mashat, directly to my right, Minnesota International Corporation of Egypt. Then we have Ibrahim Al-Zubi, Senior Vice-President of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. We then have Ravi Gurumurthy, Chief Executive Officer of Nesta, and then we have Patrick Simon, Senior Partner at McKinsey and Company. So I think a good way to kick this off is to actually explore if this trilema actually exists and looking at some of the trade-offs that the government, private sector and organisations face. Minister, I thought we could kick off with you on this. Obviously for governments, limited public finances, they have immediate priorities for their societies, but they also need to support their societies to transition to greener growth. What are the trade-offs that governments face and what are the challenges that they face? Well, thank you very much and let me start. Egypt is president of COP 27 until next November. We had the conference in Charmes-Sheikh and I think one of the key themes for us was the just transition, and the word just is very important. It means that honouring the historic rights of countries to develop, development means growth means jobs, and at the same time making sure that there is just financing to be able to avoid the trilema that you posed. One of the things that we're doing on a national level is to ensure that our national strategies include national goals that are in line with global goals. So, for instance, our 2050 climate strategy is one that shows climate and development are not mutually exclusive. We have objectives which are aligned with the SDGs. We try to ensure that whether we're looking at the energy transition or at adaptation, which is very, very important for countries, particularly in Africa, be it water, given the water scarcity, being also agriculture is extremely important. So the idea is how, and everybody knows, that fiscal finances are not enough to be able to close the gaps that are required, be it for the SDG goals till 2030 or the climate objectives that we all want to reach. And here comes this concept of private-public partnerships. How can we create as a government an enabling environment to invite the private sector to be able to also push in projects that will be very much aligned with the national goals, which then align with many of the global goals related to climate action. So these are just governments putting a framework for that being very clear on the projects that are needed because there's always been the excuse that the finances are there from the international community or from the private sector, but certain countries, particularly in Africa, are not ready with projects that are investable. So this is where we need to close that. And I conclude by saying, and I said this yesterday, that the global backdrop, the global macro backdrop is so complicated today that the perception of risk is so high and therefore the elements of concessionality or just financing to be able to push these investments forward is very, very important. Great. And Patrick, I want to get your perspective on this, looking at organisations and businesses, because they also face this challenge in trying to train staff for the sustainable goals. They also need to reform their business models as well. So what are the challenges that leaders are facing? Yeah, and in general, I'm an optimist. I actually have maintained a naive view that humanity is at its best when we're facing adverse and difficult circumstances. I do believe that the equation of growth, sustainability and jobs is possible. In our estimate, we'll have to deploy 3.5 trillion in CAPEX every year until 2050 to actually get to net zero. That means we have to shore up a lot of money, by the way, where it's partly unclear where that money is going to come from. But just thinking about that type of investment, I think we'll see industries take a very different path. And what I find so interesting about this moment in time, this moment in history, is that we're really pivoting from a phase of strategic convergence that probably went up to the war in Europe when that happened and the COVID phase, where essentially it had been decoded on how to create value in an industry. You could read about it in a business school case, right? It was relatively clear. Now, there's winners and losers in every industry because the execution is quite different, but the actual word was relatively clear. And since then, we've dropped this massive unknown net zero, how to get there into the boardrooms, leading to a phase of strategic unknown because it hasn't been figured out yet. And what we typically see is in such a phase that there's a larger wedge being driven between winners and losers, between companies and countries which we have to manage that do well and companies and countries that do less well. Organisations are prepared or they're trying to prepare. We have seen a massive uptick in the level of questions that are truly tectonic that we're getting from CEOs. So, while we may not all believe in this, but I can tell you that at least the executive management teams that I work with, they're up and running and they're working on this and they're trying to find a solution. Great, and I mean, to that point, Ibrahim, on the transition involved for companies, I suppose it's almost very great for the oil and gas sector. How are traditional sectors thinking about the future and the challenges ahead for them? Good morning and thanks for having me here. I think in a scenario of declining oil and gas investments and yet trying to meet the high demand as well as the climate goals, we look at it as an opportunity and technically we need to start future proofing the company and the economy, especially for a national oil company. So our adnog is an NOC and we're involved with different economic credentials for the country. So we look at it as an opportunity, hence we started preparing ourselves for it by looking at investments in low carbon, new energies such as renewables such as the hydrogen, looking at technologies also that help us to accelerate meeting our national company targets of net zero by 2050 such as the direct air capture, the CCUS, CCS. Although yet they're not commercially viable yet the decision was to go and invest and prepare ourselves for the future, to look at it as also as a future investments and services we can do for the country and the global south as well as support services in the global north. We did a couple of pilots actually, blue ammonia to countries like Germany, Korea, Japan, we started to look at new markets for that. So the way we look at it is one, socio-economic impact from creating jobs in the new energies and new low carbon energies, preparing the workforce for it, the existing workforce and the future workforce. The second one is supporting the country to achieve its net zero targets by investing and maximising existing investments in renewables. For example Mazdar, our renewable energy, we decided to raise our shares there and it has the capacity of 20 giga and with our investments we're looking at 100 giga by 2030. Thinking about it in 2016 the country started to look and to invest seriously in renewables. Fast forward the country has one of the three biggest renewable energy platforms, A with the lowest cost and B going towards even regional supply of clean energy. So for us again we look at it as an opportunity and getting ready for the new low carbon energy era that we should invest and look at it as the new input for the country and job and the new economy actually of the UN region. Robbie I wanted to ask you from your perspective and your work in the UK with the Climate Act and close collaboration with the government. What are the challenges that advanced economies are facing in the transition and managing the transformations that are involved in terms of job creation and job loss but also pivoting to new technologies and adopting new technologies to support the transition? Thank you. I mean it's interesting we're talking about a trilemma today that's not the usual trilemma that we would have been doing two years ago because historically we talk about whether you can make the transition to net zero and keep your energy secure and keep down costs. And obviously in the last year that's proved it's very possible to sort of do those things all in one. I think you've got to disaggregate the question really by sector because if I think about some aspects of the net zero transition it's very clear that it can be good for jobs and good for productivity and growth. So energy efficiency in the home or the electrification of transport possibly the electrification of heating and certainly the decarbonisation of the electricity system through solar and wind all of those things can be done at a lower cost than the current system and can generate a lot of productivity enhancements and jobs. However in some parts it's going to be difficult so in the hard to electrify sectors where we might be talking about carbon capture and storage or hydrogen it will be costly. In seasonal storage to deal with a midwinter peak demand that's going to be a difficult costly part of the transition. So you have to separate it by sector. I think the other question here is about the time scale. So yes it does involve some short term cost but it will massively insulate us from some of the spikes and disruption and problems we've seen in the last two years if we can diversify our energy supplies and weaken our dependence on fossil fuels. So very very good for growth in terms of resilience and long term. I think the big question actually is that Patrick talks about 3.5 million 3.5 trillion capex every year from now to 2050. What is the counterfactual if we weren't having to do this natural zero transition? What would be spending that capital and manpower on and would it be more growth enhancing? And that I think is a fair challenge. Sure and actually it's sticking with you Ravi and with your work at Nest I wanted to ask in terms of the solutions and the way we manage this so-called trilemma. What do you find most optimism in? I mean there's a lot being said around renewable technologies and the application of new engineering to the tech space but also in terms of market based solutions. We've seen the inflation reduction act and various policy incentives. We've seen carbon markets. I wonder if you give a sense of how you think these things are going to be helpful in what's going to be most important. I think 20 years ago we'd have probably thought that we'd have had progress in things like a cap and trade scheme or carbon taxes right across the economy and that would have been the perfect way of making the transition. We haven't done that. In fact we've done a lot more regulatory action sector by sector which has been a sort of third fourth best but actually I think been quite effective in certain ways. So if you take the electricity system 10, 15 years ago we'd have never believed in the UK that we'd achieve our renewables targets and deploy so much wind and solar. Nobody believed it would be possible and nobody believed that the cost would come down and I think that's a sort of source of optimism. I think in terms of the instruments and how we design the market, a couple of lessons from the UK. One is real clarity on the budget and targets so that you can provide that certainty to industry. We've seen that happen well in electricity but very badly in heat and the consequence has been high. But the second has been the role of the state in de-risking that investment. So the UK rather fetishised liberalised energy markets for a long long time. Other countries are in a much different place but what worked well was having an auctioning mechanism that provided long term revenue certainty for a very capital intensive build which really lowered the cost of capital and I think de-risked a lot of the investment and brought costs down. Great and Minister, pivoting now to looking at how we mitigate these challenges. I guess one big element of this is some countries are better resourced and able to put money and funds towards the transition but I guess there are ways in which international cooperation and public-private partnerships can help alleviate that. I was wondering from your experience what needs to be done in this space to help countries navigate this trade off between growth and climate. Well for governments to de-risk is not the case in all governments given the competing priorities at certain points in time particularly now with more social protection required to mitigate implications of the global fallout. So there needs to be the concept that climate and developments are not mutually exclusive, they come together. You need to figure out ways where the climate project whether it's for adaptation or mitigation is actually a developmental project that's going to create jobs, bring in private investment, leverage on technologies which might come from elsewhere. But the key is the de-risking item comes from concessional finance. We have the famous hundred billion pledge that was made at COP 21 where yet you know there's every year accounting of how much of that has materialized, where has it gone, has it been used efficiently. We look at the continent in Africa and it's very costly to move into the energy transition so how are we able to bridge that and this is where the importance of concessionality and concessionality here. And we had this discussion yesterday, is it concessional loans? Are they grants? How can we put that together? There was several examples of the just energy transition platforms which were initiated by the G7, we had South Africa and other countries. But in the continent it's not only about mitigation as I mentioned water security is extremely important and therefore creating alternative platforms that would be able to address the national goals, the national priorities and at the same time secure this de-risking which is very much required. So there is discrepancy when we talk about different countries at different stages of development and we don't want it to seem as if climate action is a burden on countries but we need to create the argument that there is a pathway to development to ensure that there are jobs and that we are able to create an advocacy around it so that it's not seen as a burden necessarily but as a way to invite more complementarity between the north and the south particularly when we look at a continent which has very important solar capabilities and also many of the minerals that are required are found in Africa. So again financing is extremely important here, second is respecting the development pathways of these countries at certain points of time. So ultimately you're saying multilateral development banks need to play a far bigger role in this? Absolutely and I take the case of Egypt again. We are not a jet-peak country because we don't use coal so we created our own platform, the nexus of water, food and energy, the Nwafi platform and the idea was to bring forward investable projects that could draw in concessional finance to de-risk private sector engagement. So this is, we launched this July of last year at COP, we had several MOUs signed and by COP 28 we want to show that we moved from pledges to implementation on our energy pillar and as well as on our water and food pillar. So this is a country case which is very important because it also can be replicated in other countries in Africa and the idea is that it's country led. These are projects which the government sees development and climate come hand in hand and also they draw in private and foreign investments. Super. Moving from the country level back down to the organisation, Patrick, I was wondering if you could give us a sense of the people element to this because we saw in the jobs report the World Economic Forum put out the growth in various different types of jobs. We saw sustainability analysts for example picking up enormously and other professions dropping down the list. I mean how do organisations manage talent in this? How do they retain talent? How do they retrain talent and I suppose manage the upheaval that's inevitable in this space? Indeed, so we talked to 2,500 business leaders for a report that just came out. No worries, I won't go into the details. But in this time of many strategic unknowns and uncertainties there's two constants that the organisations played back to us. One is speed, which is important because we will figure out over the next couple of quarters what's the new value creation equation and DNA for every industry. So you've got to be fast to look at what others are doing, what's the market doing, where's the environment moving, where's regulation moving. And the second one was a relentless focus on talent. By the way, not only because of sustainability and at zero, but because there's many other dynamics out there, the new dynamic between the east and the west. We have AI coming around the corner which nobody really saw up until like three quarters ago. I mean, we all kind of saw it, but just the magnitude of it I think is surprising to a lot of companies. And especially on sustainability, most organisations are building up fantastic talent. And the nice thing is that organisations that actually have a heavy carbon footprint, they can bring back an even bigger purpose to young talent by saying please help us remove that big carbon footprint. So I'm working with a very old school retailer these days who has hired fantastic talent because they need to get rid of CO2 throughout the entire value chain. By the way, I really like what the minister said also on organisational multilateral connectivity. That's another trend we have observed. Many organisations are now going back throughout the entire value chain all the way back to the source of production and raw materials to understand what the carbon footprint is. And that's so important because we're all joined by the hip now, right? Probably for the first time in history there's a global value we all need to reduce and it doesn't work if only one country reduces it and the other one doesn't, right? So I think that's adding a whole different aspiration on the level of true global citizenship, which I think is the theme of the web for organisations. And again, a lot of COs are asking us how can we become these true global citizens that are responsible not only for the business and the market they are there in, but for the entire value chain, which I think will be a big contributor to Net Zero. Sure, fantastic. Ibrahim, I guess often oil and gas are kind of seen as the villain of the piece in the transition, but I think what a lot of people don't understand is the people that work in the sector, have a lot of transferable skills to the renewables industry and also these companies harbour so much knowledge about engineering and infrastructure building that can also be applicable. So I wanted to ask you about connecting the dots between what the oil and gas industry is doing now and how it can leap and help governments and private sector to join the dots of the future. Thank you. I'm going to answer this in two falls. First, personal one as a sustainability practitioner and second one, what are we doing actually on the ground as an NOC or even maybe as an industry? Second one, I just need to remind, I heard sustainability and Net Zero so I wouldn't remind myself and the colleagues in the audience that sustainability is a triple bottom line approach. Let's not forget that planet profit people. Remember always that please. So as much as the climate is a priority, but also the socio-economic part is part what I've been doing for the last 25 years and I'm sure most of you. So as a triple bottom line approach, as a sustainability practitioner, we have targets to achieve on these three triple bottom line. Yes, we have to accelerate our climate ambitions, which I think most of us do with even hosting a COP event in the region in Egypt now in the UAE. Having said that, when I joined the organization eight or nine months ago, I was from outside the industry, but I always believed in inclusivity and I believe the sector that part of why we are right now in such a position is we were not inclusive. We decided to polarise the discussion north and south, us and them, renewables, fossil fuel. We forgot simple basic words that we have one planet. So having said that, when I joined the organization, I looked at the industry. So we have to be pragmatic and realistic. The pragmatic part is facts. The oil and gas industry is the 19th century industry. The system we have on the ground, be it an OEC or IOC, is the 20th century. What we are talking right now is the 21st century. So technically my job is to connect 100 years dots within my organization and UAE has a track record of doing that. We did accelerate. It's a 50 years old nation and I think my job is not so hard and difficult with the leadership mentality we have. So fast forward within the organization how to connect with us. Again, we look at it as an opportunity as part of a solution. To do that and to be pragmatic and accelerate the nation's commitment and yet meet our socio-economic targets as an organization, we've decided to invest in the next five years to allocate capital. We talked about capital. So one, be pragmatic. Let's talk more action. More action means put allocate money to decarbonize the emissions of the industry by allocating $15 billion and the next five years goes into the following one, electrification of the operations. So we were the first oil and gas company globally that 100% of our operational electricity comes from renewable and nuclear and that's a fact. We could quantify the reduction. The second part is increase our investments in renewables, which we are doing right now, increasing our shares in Masdar. The third one is looking at new technological for some people. Maybe you talked about the chat GBT and the AI, which most of the people talk about. But I think the industry, and I'm sure I'm happy you talked about it, is we need to start talking about carbon removal, air pollution removals because even if we stop everything, there are still CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. So we need to invest more in direct air capture, CCUS, not only from our side, but also creating an industry to take an off take. So it takes two to do this. One, I can invest, but if you can still want to pay me for blue ammonia, the same you pay for an ammonia where you know for a fact it costs more, it doesn't make sense economically. Last, but not least, we looked at again in our region. We talk about startups and innovation, but yet we don't see breakthrough technologies to do that. Having said that, we went after a couple of organizations in the region. And I'm sure you all heard about air shot. You should, if not because of how prestigious it is. It's the Prince William Environmental Award and Climate Award. So we went after the shortlisted people, not even the winners. And we bet on one of them, our many startup called 44.01. The minute they were shortlisted, what they do is they mineralize the CO2 emissions in the air and remove it, put it back into the rocks. Actually, I had a piece of rock with me and I should have brought it with me here. So we signed a pilot with them. And we knew that these guys will win. And by the way, they won the prize. And we opened it. We knew we told them you will get access to capital the minute I sign a project with you. And we did actually. We did in the east coast of the UAE. And you should see the evaluation of that. Skyrocket. So we need to be pragmatic. We need to invest more yet. We need to create an economy that can be an inclusive and ensure that there is an economic and viability. Now the social part and the growth part, absolutely, we talk about green economy, green economy, circular economy without such investments and creating the workforce for that. And I say creating the workforce as much as governments, private should be ready for chat GBT. I need to have workforce that can accelerate my renewables make it cheaper. We do have the cheapest now, but we need to make it cheaper. The second part, look at the batteries, the EVs. And most importantly make the talent accessible and affordable for the new technologies for removal. So this is what we've been doing on an organization perspective and ensuring now we still supply the demand for our customers with the lowest emissions and just to wrap up my summary in one point. You may don't know that, but in our region UAE has one of the lowest carbon intensity per barrel. So if you even compare, if you want to meet the supply, the demand side, if you have to choose between a barrel between X and Y and Z, well we have the lowest carbon emissions. So it goes from there. And this is not only because of geology. We are blessed, thanks God, that with the geology we have, but also the state of art technology we use on the ground to ensure that we are meeting the demand side and the customers request with the lowest carbon intensity possible. Great. Before we open up for the Q&A, Ravi, I just wanted to get your thoughts. I mean we've heard about the tensions between growth jobs and climate, but then we've also heard a lot of solutions and mitigants and how we overcome them. From a civil society perspective, what more needs to be done? We know what needs to be done in terms of the policy recommendations, but how do we move faster? Well I think there's a role actually for each act of the state, markets and civil society in quite interesting ways. So just picking them out in turn, I think markets have to be redesigned in a way that fully reflects the whole system costs, when energy is made, where it's made, because that will make a much more efficient system. The state needs to embrace probably a much richer planning role. You cannot make a rapid transition at the scale and pace we're talking about without the state playing a role saying, look, what is the time scale for phasing out the gas grid? How much grid infrastructure are we going to have to build? How many heat pump engineers are we going to have to deploy to actually make that transition? So there's a very rich planning role, which many states perhaps lack the appetite and capacity to do well. But with regards to civil society, I think the most interesting role for civil society is about trust and the consumer relationship, because there's a big risk that this transition happens in a way that is done to consumers. And to some extent you can do that when it's about the grid or changing your wind farms. But when you're talking about homes and lifestyles and what people eat and where people travel, it's going to require a lot of consumer and citizen engagements and that's where I think civil society has got a big role to play to build trust and make this a transition that's with people. Great, fantastic. I'd like to open up the Q&A to the audience now if you could put your hand up, keep the questions concise and let us know if you're directing it to a particular panelist or the panel in general. We have a question at the front and then over there. Thank you very much. I'm Ricardo Hausman from Harvard University. We've talked a lot about what countries need to do to reduce their carbon emissions and their commitments in reducing the carbon emissions. We have not talked about what countries can do to help the world reduce their emissions. Because obviously to reduce emissions there have to be a lot of investments and you've talked about them. Who's going to produce the capital goods? Who's going to produce the energy engineering procurement and construction and so on that the world will need to be able to decarbonize. So we have developing countries being asked where are they emitting and what are they going to do to reduce their emissions. They're not being asked how can they be players in global decarbonization by developing comparative advantage in the things that the world will need. Whether it's minerals, whether it's metals, whether it's capital goods, whether it's investment services and what can they do to produce green energy at home to produce energy intensive products in a green way. So I wanted to ask Minister Al-Mashat, who's president of the previous COP and President Al-Zubi, who's the head of the next COP, if this issue is really on the table or is it that every country is only talking about what they do to reduce their emissions. Thank you. Well thank you Professor Hausman and we had this discussion yesterday and I mentioned that we need to hear your voice more in the UNFCCC because what you're saying is that we need to look at the supply chain and the supply chain to produce at the end, whether it's the electric vehicles or the solar panels and so forth. And if we look at Africa or Latin America that have the natural resources to be able to provide then at each point across the supply chain, they are making a contribution to making the world closer to the 1.5 degree or to the net zero. So currently it's all about the national determined contributions and how each country is trying to ensure that it's overall industrialization and it's overall mining is meeting those NDCs. And again the NDCs are voluntary but at the end of the day if you are going to access finance as a country particularly from the south you are going to be always held to where you meet the NDCs. So I believe that and I mentioned the case of Africa that the reserves that are there are almost 30% of global reserves of minerals and they are part of the supply chain but not the value added that can draw in the investments and so forth. So I think we need to advocate more your point and this is how climate and development, this idea that they are not mutually exclusive comes into action and then the comparative advantage of each country moves forward. So we need more of your voice at the UNFCCC and probably at COP28 to be able to push that idea forward and then when we talk about the financing you're financing in a way that creates the jobs and creates the development within the countries. Thank you for the question. Briefly as UAE we've been doing this in three different layers. One UAE is one of the biggest donors as it comes to aid and one of them is supporting and providing energy to nations wherever they are. And this is part of our SDGs commitments. So we talk about the Pacific Islands, you talk about small island states as well as our support and aid to countries and infrastructure and the energy is one of the priorities. How we do that through Mazdar. So Mazdar now operates in more or less 40 countries including UK, including CIS countries, Africa, Jordan, you name it. So we do that also as part of our commitment, our socio-economic commitments to the region globally and creating jobs as well and we believe it's a business opportunity. The third part, we look at it from a bilateral perspective and utilizing our excellent relationship with lots of nations. A good example, the PACE, which is the bilateral agreement between the UAE and the US to invest around $100 billion on energy transition in the two countries and other countries as well. And we're trying to copy such an agreement into different scales with other countries. So we've been doing it and we expect that we do more as well. Great, we had a question over here and one over there. My name is Mark Swilling. I'm from South Africa. I chair the Development Bank of Southern Africa. I'm a bit concerned about the narrative here which is quite unproblematic, smooth going and it's not the world that I see unfolding. So the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act in the US is triggering a subsidy competitive war between the US, Europe and China that's going to exclude Africa. Inside of Africa we have rising cost of capital and increasing indebtedness which means you can't invest in the energy transition in the way that is being reflected in this discussion. So these two worlds are separating out from one another. Global South countries are responding with JETPs. So I was involved in drafting the South African JETP. I was with the cabinet in Colombia last week and with the president and they want a JETP but they want to put a debt for climate swap in the middle of it because they just cannot accept that they have to carry more debt for the benefit of decarbonising the world for everybody. But that's completely contrary to where the major trends are going. So I'm just wondering how we can actually become a little bit more realistic in this conversation and focus on really the fundamental problem which is a global financial system which doesn't actually lend itself to what we're talking about here because the logic of capital and the way we allocate capital and credit committees like institutions like my bank doesn't really follow all these nice ideas. We have to change the rules of the game when it comes to capital and that's what the Colombians are talking about. Can I respond to that? That's where the concessional finance is needed and that's why particularly now with the drawback of the increased risk perception because of the downgrades that are happening and the tightening in the U.S. it's making it more complicated. Debt for climate swaps are seen as a way to create more space for the transition in the countries but they're also done in very small amounts, not in the amounts that are going to help. In our case with the Nuwafi platform in the energy pillar we do have a debt swap with Germany for the transition but again if I'm comparing to the needs and comparing to how much investment is required it's symbolic. So this is again where the voice of the just financing and this idea that concessionality should be there and the hundred billion that was committed and pledged needs to actually make its way to countries. What is working for the South African jet P? What is not? What are the shortcomings? So that in the next one that is designed we're taking this into account. So I totally agree with you that the issue today is the financing and the issue today is that there's so much pressure on fiscal finances given what needs to be addressing the people part of the fallout of high inflation and high cost of capital and so forth. But this is why in each and every cop there's more that is advocated than the accounting goes but debt for nature swaps or debt for energy transition swaps is where the world needs to push further. Did anyone else want to come in on that one? So we had another question over there. Yes, thank you. So the panel has been discussing growth and climate and is it a trade off or a win-win situation? Well, I think we really facing limits of growth and what is the role of firms in this, especially what we call firms in sin industries or contested industries. Now, I'm from the Netherlands and there's a big debate about Shell. They are the largest investor in renewable energy in the Netherlands, but the renewables, their activities are renewables is only 5% of total activities. So maybe the transition goes too slow and well established energy companies have big difficulties of making this transition and maybe the change should come from outside disruptors, so green new companies. Now, my question is more related to Mr Ibrahim. Can you tell us what percentage of your activities are based on renewable energies in comparison to fossil and how could you speed it up and is the company, because you have a very challenging job, is your company able to really renew into a very sustainable company? Maybe to bring it a little bit broader, what is the role of a consulting firm like McKinsey in this? Well, again, we are at NOC, so as a national oil company we operate in our country, only we don't operate outside, so just to clarify between you put Shell there, Shell as an IOC and you write about the industry investments. If you compare it dollar to dollar, I think the industry is investing a lot in renewables, so we did increase again as I mentioned, we did really landmark commitment on accelerating the sustainable operations that we have with the $15 billion allocated by now to 2030 and increasing our shares to be a major shareholders in Mazdar, and to give you numbers they have the capacity of 20 giga, we have to increase the capacity to 100 giga by 2030, as well as accelerating low carbon energies such as the hydrogen, so we're in an early stage I would say just for two reasons. One, the access to the technological innovation is not there yet, so I am not sure anyone can give on the how, even in a state level or a corporate level from an industry, from our industry or outside the industry, so I think that's a challenge for everyone because the technological innovation we have now is just not up to speed and it's not again it's not commercially viable and as an IOC we have to meet our national commitments, but just to give you the way we look at it as an IOC, while we're doing our business again providing our customers with low carbon intensity energy, we looked at this from early stages, it did not start with me. It started as an inception in the 70s, a good example is flaring, when we have a zero, we were in the 70s when you have a zero routine flaring policy and to have a commitment to be zero methane by 2030 but as per the UN standards less than 0.15 by 2025, so this is for me a sustainable practices for the industries yet to meet the energy and the retirement you talked about. We are aware of the target of the nation by 2050 and what our president put for us while when he mentioned about the last battle of all by 2050 and we're working towards that and we are on track to achieve that, that's what I can say. Patrick, did you have any follow-ups? I wasn't sure if that question was for me or for Abraham. No, we tend to think that we can be helpful in cracking tough strategic problems and I think what I can say is that every single industry is working hard on making that problem work and I'm seeing massive, massive progress in just the amount of CO2 that's taken out of production from steel, basic materials to consumer goods companies. I think the tougher problem is the one that the gentleman from South Africa and Ricardo raised, how can we create a new, sorry for the wordplay, Ricardian economics that brings together a different way of exchanging comparative advantage. What gets me worried is that yes, we can export clean tech to developing countries and ask for materials and mining in return, but these countries need that already to drive competitive advantage, so it's going to be a very difficult question to solve. What gets me optimistic is actually that we're all, as I said, joined by the hip. Yes, the subsidies and the programs may not yet be fully effective, but at the end of the day all of this will only work if every country can progress. I want to thank the panel for an excellent discussion and the audience for a super set of questions. I think the conclusion is that there isn't necessarily a trilemma here. We can have a green growth. We can have a jobs rich transition. Theoretically, we can. We've already spoken about some of the solutions in order to achieve that, but I think with the interjections from the audience, I think the essence of this is co-ordination. Between the state, states, markets, jobs and employers and even on a diplomatic level, and I think that really much speaks to what forums like this is all about trying to coordinate all of these actions together. Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to seeing you around the conference.